Matters concerning His Lawful assembly are presented 12 times a year by the several bondmen of Christ Jesus in Lawful assembly for the edification of His whole Lawful assembly.

Consistent with His ways for edification, the continued publishment of these Matters are to be supported as He directs your heart; not from the burden of a price or through paid commercial advertisements.

There are no restrictions on copying these computer files if they are given away, free of any expectation of monetary gain, profit, or other emolument of any type, kind, character, or description, for "freely ye have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8

All Matters concerning His Lawful assembly are published under the Authority of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, to edify His whole Lawful assembly, on this Blessed Day of His Glorious Reign.

Repentance to the Christ -- Regeneration through the Christ -- Resurrection in the Christ

Authorship of these Matters

Except where noted, the articles contained herein do not have any "personal" authorship attached to them because they are researched and written by and through the fellowship of many.

Any and all Truth found in these Matters is from the Lord, not man.

About Scripture

Except where noted, all Scripture quoted in these Matters concerning His Lawful assembly is from the 1611 King James version. We suggest that you consult the Septuagint (LXX) (the Greek Old Testament) because it was and is the Law cited by the Apostles and the Christ, cf. Matthew 15:9 from Isaiah 29:13, Romans 9:27-28 from Isaiah 10:22-23, etc.; and also George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English literal rendering of the New Testament (Berry) for critical passages that are concerned with the Lawful execution of the Testament of the Christ.

About the typography of this work

Wherever you see "[*]" within quoted text, it is an interpolation by the authors of these Matters. A "[ ]" without the "*" or "( )" are interpolations or footnotes by the author of the work being quoted.

Who We Are

Who are we? We are who our Heavenly Father says we are. We are ambassadors, ministers and bondservants of Jesus the Christ, in His Ministry of Reconciliation--with the Word of Reconciliation.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:17-20

We serve The Way, The Truth, and The Life. We love our Heavenly Father and His Liberty that is given to us by Him. We do not seek any security or any benefits "granted" by man. We know Who gives us security, for He is our Rock, our Fortress, our Buckler, our Shield and our High Hill, and all the "benefits" (His gifts) are known to us as "Blessings." We seek no quarrel with any man, but we owe no man anything but to love him.

What kind of ministry of reconciliation do we have? Well, it's not our ministry, it's the Christ's Ministry. We don't do anything in and of ourselves; it's all done through and for Him. It's not a private ministry, unlike so many "ministries" of the world which are done for "filthy lucre's sake" (Titus 1:11), nor do we preach a "health and wealth gospel." Regardless of what one believes, conceives, or understands, our Heavenly Father has written His Laws and Truths into every man's heart. And, we are here to stir that gift in others for the Lord's sake.

We agree unconditionally with God's Word in His Holy Scriptures. If the Word of God shatters cherished beliefs, then we are willing to be shattered, no matter how painful it is. God's Truth is more important to us than the teachings, traditions, or the commandments of men. We do not cling to personal interpretations when they are discovered to be such. Once a matter is clearly revealed to us to be erroneous, we then repent of the error, relying solely upon the Holy Spirit to guide us.

In sharing these Truths, if one is offended, we pray that they will forgive. The Lord's saints and prophets of old were always misunderstood and rejected by the people of their day, and the same fate awaits any who would be saints and prophets today. But the true measure of a man's worth is not always the number of his friends but sometimes the number of his foes. Every man who seeks to do the Father's Will and live in His Righteousness is sure to be misunderstood and often persecuted. Therefore, we must expect to be unpopular, often to stand alone, even to be maligned, perhaps to be bitterly and falsely assailed and driven "without the camp" of the "religious" world.

Let us remember that greatness in man's eyes does not mean greatness in God's eyes (Luke 16:15). We fall into error when we praise men for their adherence to the Ways of God, rather than praise God for the work He does in and through men. He shows His Mighty Works through His people.

We continually seek to apply God's Law to our everyday lives. We continually direct others to see the Scripture as a Law book, because it is. We desire for others to see it as a Law book and hope they will use it as a Law book. That's what God intended it to be, otherwise He would not have called it His ordinances, His statutes, His judgments, His precepts, His commandments--His Law. All these are Law terms. He tells us, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it in His sheep as a Good Shepherd would. Grace and Mercy are gifts dispensed by God, but too many "Christians" believe and act today as if the Law was done away with and they can conform their lives with the images of the world and become more like the world instead of conforming to the image of the Christ. Not so for us! We are men and women who are governed by Jesus the Christ, for the government shall be upon His shoulder (Isaiah 10:6-7). We bend no knee to any government of man, for we do not worship at their altars.

Therefore, because it is the standard, we strive to return to the old paths, back to the teachings and ways followed by the Christ's ekklesia of Scripture (translated "church" in most bibles). We seek to be men and women governed under God. We are not anti-government, because we know that government exists to keep the 'low and lawless forms of humanity' from doing violence to all, including themselves.

What school (seminary) did we go to, and what degrees do we have, you may ask? Well, there's only one school mentioned in scripture, and that was a school of one Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). And a "degree" is a Masonic concept, not a scriptural one. Our response to this inquiry is this: the same question was asked among those to whom Christ Jesus was preaching. Notice that He did not attend any school of human understanding of the Word of God:

"...Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." John 7:14-16

Notice the scripture also says, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" (Psalms 8:2). It does not say "out of the mouth of men with degrees from the schools of tyrants hast thou ordained strength." It is babes innocent from the world, feeding on the sincere milk of the Living Word (1 Peter 2:1-3) whom God has appointed to rule over the affairs of men (Isaiah 3:4). And:

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent [*of the world], and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight." Luke 10:21

Our Brother Paul says, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:5). We are not at all concerned about certificates of recognition from "recognized" seminaries which are, after all, the creations of men and not of God. Having a certificate does not mean that one is more qualified than one who knows the same thing (or more) without a certificate. In the end it is the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding given by God and how we apply it, which qualifies us--not a piece of paper saying "I passed the test of men."

Proud men of degrees are too often a detriment to Christ and His assembly, because they introduce leaven into God's Word, so as to make it more palatable. In our view, God's Word has largely been lost to those who continue to partake of modern watered-down Christianity. So, if you are a proud man of degrees and schooling, God is not a respecter of persons (Romans 2:11), and therefore, your degrees mean nothing to Him, and mean nothing to His servants. What is written on your heart and in your mind by the Holy Spirit is more important than what's written on a man-made document.

We point out errors of man's ways, not because we are self-righteous, but because we are charged by our Lord to bring the Truth to bear against non-truth. When Truth is given, it bears the "Light of God's Love." When you're walking in accordance with the true spirit of the Word of God, you are standing in God's Truth and doing everything in Love. Regardless of what the natural man may design, God has instructed all men through His Spirit to "judge all things by His Word." And:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

We know that man's laws and governments act beyond their humble task; it has little to do with law and much to do with religion--Mammon and Hedonism. What one worships, one imitates, and one's law is that imitation. Given enough time, all systems of man's law self-destructs in a fit of tyranny. God's Law is Truth and Eternal, so when the Truth provokes all of us, and it does, be diligent and remain grounded in the Word of God. All your life you have probably been told what you are allowed to know, and we have all been guided down the primrose path of half-truths which are lies. Maybe you have or have not really considered all things--why we exist; what our purpose is; what is real and what is not? Would you like to know the Truth of these things?

It is said, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." That does not refer to the over 60 million laws of men on the books in America, but it refers to God's Law. Our Heavenly Father, the Creator of all, has written His Law not only in Scripture through His prophets and apostles, but also on every man's heart; that is why you ultimately know what is just, what is right, what is good and what is evil. That is why we are warned that:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23

The Truth that He has written on all of our hearts is the inherent gift to man from our Heavenly Father. But, through the spirit of the world, those truths become perverted when one takes his eyes off of God's Truth.

So, in all of the issues in your life, you have the choice to be diligent, to believe, to trust, and to walk according to the ways of God, in faith! Or, through the help of many around us who serve the prince of this world, there is the choice to be influenced to turn your back on God through reason and compromise following men and their false images.

Throughout history, the spirit of the world has woven an intricate web around the disobedient and ignorant, influencing them by their temporal surroundings and lusts of the flesh to be "recreated" in the image of man. In Matthew 15:3, Jesus warned us of how man's traditions, i.e. denominations, family traditions, etc., nullify the Word of God, "my parents are I grew up a and I'll always be a" Too many will continue to cling feverishly and relentlessly to a tradition rather than obey the Word of God. Our Lord said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14). And:

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

As seekers of the Truth, we must be cognizant of how powerfully blinding traditions can be, in that they can rob one of the Truth. In other words, many "Christians" say in their hearts, "Don't confuse me with the Truth because God's Grace is sufficientmy mind is already made upand besides that, God knows my heart" In Truth, what they are admitting: "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me.

Always bear in mind the words contained in Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Do you want God to reject you?

Those that are spiritually enslaved do not know what they are in bondage with and to. Do you really know and serve God or are you deceived? Be not deceived. The ease of acceptance will be in direct proportion of the reliance and trust upon the Holy Spirit and the yoke of God, which is easy, and His burdens are light.

When it comes to eternity and our simple short lives here, are we lax to know why, what and how we can unclutter everything. Are we to just do what we are told, including retire and die!--And not want for the answer to these questions?

Please learn that when something looks like a duck--and smells, sounds, and walks like a duck--then it more than likely is a duck. See things for what they really are. Do not reason or compromise the Truth away as you may have already done many times.

What questions do you have? Do you really own your house if you paid off a mortgage of $100,000 for it, and if you were to fail to pay the "property" taxes on it, what would happen eventually? Can the State take it and sell it? Is your child yours? Can "Human Resources" take and remove your child from you in the name of "the law"? Is the State a third party in your life? Have you ever been in a court of justice and your attorney instructed you to say "Not Guilty," when the judge asks you your plea? Many have. Do you know what a "right and duty bearing unit" is? Is this what every citizen of the U.S. is to the government? Is the driver's license really for safety or money? Do you naively believe that to cast ballots, and participate in other illusionary trappings of a "free people," will bring you liberty? Are you deceived? Who is really your master?

What have you taught your child in the name of "just a child"? Is there really an Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Does the Bible mention these things? Did not God say to train up your child in the admonition of the Lord? Have you done so?

One might inquire as to the motive of this formidable task of exposing lies and deceptions of false images; and employing this labor of Love sharing these Truths. Simply, we are here to help you in your Ministry of Reconciliation with your Heavenly Father. We hope to spare you the arduous road of darkness sprinkled with an occasional Truth.

Please request whatever information you may need from us. We encourage you to make unlimited copies or request more copies from us to distribute the messages we have to offer. We have been given the gift of Truth freely, so therefore we freely give it to you, in the hope you will share it with others.

May Almighty God bless you and keep you in the Truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.

Selected Articles

from

Issues the First through the Nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(Formerly known as The American Jural Society News and The Christian Jural Society News)

Articles in this File:

Judge Admits to War Powers Court!...

Ain't that Fringe Purdy...

Non-Statutory Abatements: What They Are, and What They Were Never Meant To Be!...

Foreclosures Stopped with the Non-statutory Abatement Process...

Roman Law in Three Piece Togas...

To Be or Not To Be - A Resident? Comments on Postal Service Policy ...

The Law and Home Schooling...

Christ and Liberty...

Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights...

The Theory of Evolution vs. Law...

To Be or Not To Be - A Human Being?...

Great Works of God on Behalf of America...

The Dark Side of Common Law...

The Asylum state...

The Foundation of America...

In Vinculis...

Old Time Justice...

Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part One...

Research Update on Dr. Schroeder...

A Review of 'Military Government and Martial Law'...

A Dollar in Silver...

Abraham Lincoln: the Father of a New Country...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe of Christian America?, Part One

News from Home...

Judge Admits to War Powers Court!

There is a certain satisfaction when, after years of battling preconceptions of the law reform movement, one finds in the public media, an admission by a Municipal Court Judge that the law of the court is military, not constitutional.

Thus, on the front page of the May 7th, 1996, Kent, Washington, "Valley Daily News," it seems that a law reform type, who, with a slight understanding of what law he was being held under in a traffic court in Wenatchee, heard the following admission from Judge Carol Wardell, to wit: that she "would protect his rights under the War Powers Act of 1933..... but would not change the flag in the courtroom."

The reason for the reference to the 'flag in the courtroom' had to do with the fact that the defendant refused to enter the bar until the Judge removed the gold fringed (military) flag and replaced it with one without the gold fringe (non-military).

The result of all this is, the defendant was jailed on contempt charges and then released after posting a $20,000 bond, which bond, of course, conceded jurisdiction to the court.

The defendant also demanded the right to question the jurors in his case - from outside the bar, in the gallery area, which the judge, correctly denied.

The point of all this is to bring home to our readers the following points:

First, even the lowly inferior court judges in traffic courts, know precisely what is going on, i.e., that the courts are under military law and hold summary court martial proceedings against civilians.

This is the answer to those who think low-level judges just follow rules and don't know what's really going on. They all know, as this incident shows.

Second, in this court at least, the judge was honest enough to admit the real law she was guided by, not the assumed law that most law reform types still believe in, such as admiralty, maritime, the UCC, constitutions, etc.

It should be evident to all, that local state law does not apply in local traffic court - because such courts sit under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and are his instrument for the collection of War Reparations from the belligerents in the field.

All the talk about what law the Federal courts must adjudicate should now be cleared away.

It should be clear to all, that on the basis of a public admission, printed in a local newspaper, that the courts have no fear of the public learning about what is going on, because, unlike the defendant in this case, the public, including most in the law reform movements, are simply blind to the real facts of Life.

The public and the law reform movements continue to cling desperately to the phantasmic, the delusive, the dead letters, and glorified statutes called constitutions that have had no real bearing on anything legal or lawful for more than a century in America.

So long as they put trust in ghosts, chimeras, and parchments, and not in Jesus Christ, so long will they continue to be raped, pillaged, and plundered.

Justice will remain a mockery and the opposition will remain in power as petty kings and princes over fiefdoms.

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

"Ain't That Fringe Purdy?"

by Randy Lee

"A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides." (see The Federal Register, at 24 F.R. 6865, 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, 1,2,3, & Exec. Order 10834)

The U.S. Attorney General has stated:

"The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy" .... "ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags"... "the use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation, No. 260-10" (see 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483 & 485).

According to United States Army Regulations of October 1, 1979, "the flag is trimmed on three sides with a Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2" wide," and that "such flags are flown indoors, only in military courtrooms" and, further, "the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and United States Army division associations" (see AR 840- 10).

Why does this same flag fly in all of the courts of the Federal, State, County, and City governments, if they are not military courts? Why does the U.S. flag fly over, or above, all state flags? This never took place before 1933. Does this specific year ring a bell with anyone? It seems as though Judge Carol Wardell answered all of the above questions.

Just to clarify the question as to whether or not the people of America are considered to be alien enemies of the United States and subject to military courts, one need only acquire the Manual for Courts Martial, Art. 99(Clb) and read the definition of 'Enemy."

Non-Statutory Abatements:

What They Are, and

What They Were Never Meant To Be!

By Randy Lee

In a recent case up north in Oregon, a 'person' used an abatement and went to jail.

In another case, a 'person' in Louisiana used the abatement after appearing in court and complained bitterly when it failed.

And, one of those 'abatement gurus' who plagiarized and 'improved' our first abatement package, saw to it that 'his people' shammed their abatement when they tried to use his 'new and improved process.'

Do I have your attention yet???

From the moment I released the Non-Statutory Abatement process in January of 1995, there has been a concerted effort by some in the 'patriot movement' to discredit the process for one reason or another, none of which has damaged the process, but instead, has damaged these so-called 'experts in common law' and their unsuspecting victims.

These so-called 'patriots' not only have their own special 'insight' into how the process should be done, but have acquired 'pirated' material of the first abatement package and are selling it at sometimes exorbitant prices and leaving my phone number in it, so that I get all of the questions. In one case, an ex-bar attorney charged a man $7,800, called him a 'sentient human being' (meaning, a conscious animal) in the abatement and the man ended up loosing his house over it.

These tactics are nothing new in the law reform movement, which is one reason for the movements' tarnished name. These people are, in some cases, more corrupt than the 'government' they say needs to be reformed. The Scriptural injunction at Matthew 7:3 concerning the mote in anothers' eye is apropos here.

Examples of the abuse of the process are: removing all references to Christ and Christianity from the abatement; telling people to use such un-Godly sites as the U.C.C., Title 42, Title 4, etc., which is private commercial statute law, in a Non-Statutory instrument; telling people to file the process into a court instead of serving it on a defendant personally; telling people to send the abatement Certified mail instead of Registered, thereby injecting it into a commercial venue; telling people to call themselves Respondent instead of Demandants; telling people that it's not necessary to serve the default if you don't hear from the Defendant's; telling people that being located at General Delivery is not necessary to do an abatement; and finally, promoting the idea that one can use the abatement to threaten judges and I.R.S. agents.

I have the following to say about the above catalogue of abuses:

One. The abatement works when it uses the highest possible Law, which is God's Law. Removing Christ from the abatement reduces it to a form of law that can be easily dispensed with.
Two. Using statutory cites in a non-statutory abatement process guarantees that the abatement will be ignored.
Three. If you file, instead of serve the process, you lose your court and are asking the un-Godly to decide against you.
Four. If you serve the abatement by Certified instead of Registered Mail, it will not have a chain of recorded custody in the process and you will be ignored, unless the court or agency is just as ignorant as one who uses Certified Mail. Certified Mail is also a commercial war measure instrument begun during Lincoln's War.
Five. Calling yourself a Respondent is an equity term that has no place in Christian common law and you are looked at in their law as a fictional persona. The parties will be cast with the wrong standing if this is done and guess who will lose in the conflict.
Six. Serving the Default and making Public Notice of same is absolutely essential.
Seven. Being located at General Delivery and not at an 'address' is absolutely essential to have a successful abatement.
Eight. Using any form of process to threaten anyone, constitutes attempted extortion in all forms of law.

This last tactic has resulted in at least one arrest for threatening a judicial officer to date. This is precisely why the woman in Oregon who made the threat of filing a commercial lien on a judge for $10,000,000 if he did not obey her abatement, was ignored and went to jail.

The man in Louisiana, while he was complaining, revealed that all the while he was trying to use abatements, he had two other cases going in the same court and had an attorney as well. One cannot render unto Caesar and unto God at the same time.

Remember, there's always a rusty nail in the top of the fence for those who think they can ride both sides of it.

And, in the series of cases that were lost, mentioned above, it seems that the abatement package that was used had been 'improved' by an Ohio Title 42 'guru' and his business partner. Apparently their Title 42 business was not doing as well as they would like and thus, one week after learning about the abatement at one of our seminars, they were 'experts' and began doing seminars with the 'new and improved' statutory abatement. There is other such nonsense going on in other areas of the country as well. These problems will work themselves out in the end.

When a non-statutory abatement is commercially improved, it becomes a statutory abatement, which, of course, has no force and effect anywhere, not even in Fantasyland at Disneyland or with Alice in Wonderland.

Those who have Title 42 'businesses' and spend their lives encouraging people to 'hang 'em in court,' have a commercial twist in mind that once was very profitable. Losses in court, however, have a tendency to depress one's stock in such ventures.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the commercially oriented types will never be successful with an instrument like a Non-Statutory Abatement, which is Christian-based, simple when accompanied with diligent study and common sense, and non-commercial.

Those who inject their own 'ideas' of law, based as they are on absolutely no Lawful Authority, actually believe that the court cannot tell the difference. It is so obvious in most cases that even those who are public 'drool' graduates with no prior experience in law can see when the abatement changes its character from a Godly one -- to an un-Godly and lawless one.

Its like someone trying to improve on Shakespeare's Sonnets. Ludicrous!

The point is this: common law process is well known for its rigidity of form. When one varies from certain pre-set guidelines established through long-standing usage and custom, one not only appears ignorant of the Law, but at the same time, shams their abatement.

Therefore, just as the literati know the difference in style between Bacon and Shakespeare, so do the courts recognize when these 'sentient common law sovereign citizen human beings' start injecting their convoluted diatribe into the Abatement, thereby creating a conflict of law within it.

Some will read this article who may feel that I'm expressing a certain type of arrogance in what I've written above. Let them believe what they will believe, or in other words, let the blind lead the blind or let the dead bury the dead..

The truth is, The Christian Jural Society Press and The King's Men were developing and using the Abatements a year before I released it to the country. We did the original research and writ writing -- from the authoritative sources. Others have done the plagiarizing, and mutilation.

This abuse and the deliberate moves to discredit the abatement process by some has come to the point where it is time for Me to speak out against all of those who engage in such tactics and then call, write, or fax us, with the problems that result.

Now that I've vented my spleen, so to speak, I'll go through the basic guidelines, once again.

What Abatements Are

One.In Lawful courts, a non-statutory abatement is a dilatory plea that acts to delay a plaintiff's action until certain errors in plaintiffs process are corrected. In this sense, it acts to improve plaintiff's process.

In military/commercial law courts, when the abatement is properly written and served, it comes to the court from a higher Law that the defendant's cannot answer because they are bound by the Rules of Pleading in Codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations -- and not Law.

Thus, because all parties to the action must stand at the same level, i.e., have the same standing in the same law, and since the martial law courts have an inferior standing relative to Lawful instruments of any kind -- abatements act as an effective bar against unlawful process.

Therefore, they always go to default -- if one serves the Default soon after the Rule Day, i.e., the day on which the abatement goes to Default.

Two. The abatements were developed quietly for a year before they were released and we have continually refined the statements of Law therein, to the point where, the early abatement package is comparatively antiquated as far as the quality of its content is concerned.

Three. The single most important factor in the success of the abatements has been the standing of the abater, i.e., the one who serves the abatement.

One must be located at General Delivery in order to have the standing in Law, to bring a non-statutory abatement to bear on a case.

The importance of General Delivery cannot be over-stated.

Note: one cannot merely 'say' they are at General Delivery, they must be at General Delivery. Keeping a street or P.O. box number while trying to use an abatement from General Delivery is fatal -- at common law -- always.

Four. The only Law superior to the existing martial law powers, that is still readily accessible to Christian Men and Women, is their own Law, found in Christianity and the Bible.

Only by genuinely acting in the mode and character of a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman can one consistently bring non-statutory abatements to bear against martial law courts, who have no law.

One who is not a Christian, or who professes to be one and does not act in the mode and character of a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, i.e., follows the Law of God, will have the same standing as the courts, who see them as mere human beings, persons, individuals, etc., without a law or morality who are subject to every whim of the judge's fancy..

Five. Serving, not filing an abatement is essential, because that which is filed in the court is presumed to be an answer upon which the court may rule, thereby surrendering jurisdiction.

Since the court cannot hear Lawful process, it must rule against a filed abatement because it imports a Law foreign to the court which the court, by Rule, must deny and set aside.

Serving an abatement starts another action, a counter suit, if you will, which a court or martial law defendant has no standing to answer when the abatement is properly written and served by a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman from General Delivery. It remains in a Christian common law venue across the board. Any deviation from these criteria simple shams the abatement.

Six. Any direct contact with a court by any other means such as: making an appearance; filing other process before an abatement; hiring an attorney; serving a court clerk (who will file the abatement in the court); posting bail or, signing an O.R. (release on your Own Recognizance); being arrested and making an admission or confession of information that will confirm the court's jurisdiction; making an appearance in an administrative hearing or answering a summons; where there is a damaged victim; or, if one as a matter of public record is the owner or employee of a corporation; renders the abatement of no effect.

The abatement is thus, the very first response one uses against processes of martial law courts, their agents or assigns.

Do not respond to a letter with another letter. Respond in Law with a non-statutory abatement.

Seven. Abatement is the proper response to a court by any Christian Woman under Coverture; i.e., when under the covering of her husband, father, brother, or Christian jural or ecclesiastical society, in accordance with God's Law.

The first abatement served in this case abates the courts process improperly brought against a Christian Woman under covering. Such an abatement is always served by the man acting as the woman's covering for purposes of Law.

What They Were Never Meant To Be

One. Abatements are not, never have been, and never will be a 'silver bullet', as some commercial promoters have claimed. They are for Christian self-preservation in cases where the abator is a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman living according to God's Law to edify the church in every part of their being, and have not rendered damage to an innocent victim and are not rendering unto Caesar, i.e., not engaging in the Law Merchant such as selling insurance, speculating in fictional commodities such as real estate, stocks and bonds, selling to the public-at- large, 'employment' by a Corporation, which gets its right to exist from the State, and other such commercial activity.

Two. Abatements are not, never have been, and never will be used successfully by those who choose to live contrary to Scripture, by accepting benefits from a government that has deliberately chosen to operate on secular principles. Such benefits include receiving 'free delivery' of mail to one's home, office or P.O. Box; accepting a license from the State to pursue the calling for which He or She was granted by God; receiving tax exemptions from entities who never have the ability to tax anyone in the first place; accepting the conveniences and benefits of a government banking system and other such activities that are contrary to Scripture.

Three. Abatements are not, never have been and never will be used successfully for one who has given jurisdiction to the court or agency by 'appearing' for them and accepting counsel and judgment from them. Accepting counsel and judgment from the un-Godly is un-Godly.

In closing, I will say this. The sooner We begin, as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, to break these commercial contacts and disengage in the lex mercatoria, the sooner We will understand what self-government really is. Living by God's Law preserves a people, while living by man's laws destroys a people.

Foreclosures Stopped

with the Non-statutory Abatement Process

by Randy Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is "HOW?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Law in Three Piece Togas:

by John Quade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suae polestate esse vs. sui juris

A "lord of the soil," carries the sense of rights and powers inhering in the Christian Man by grace from God.
sui juris. - looks to rights and powers that come from enactments of men, i.e., statutes, codes, proclamations, ad nauseum.
jus pubficum
The law agreed upon by the lords of the soil and therefore any offense against it is a crime. See, lex non scripta and jus ex non scripto, and common law.
lex non scripta
The "law not written," or the law held in common by all Christian men, i.e., the common law.
jus ex non scripto
"Unwritten rights," are those rights and powers in the lex non scripta, i.e., the common law which are the property of the Christian man.
That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. (See Bouvier's Dictionary of Law (1859) Volume One, page 252.)

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

A word that should ring some bells is:

persona

Literally, the word means the "mask of the actor," i.e., a fictional character that substitutes for the flesh and blood man. From this word we get 'person' as a fictional entity created by governments under Martial Law.
This is a necessary use of the word because Martial Law powers, as fictions, can only deal with fictions, i.e., a person or persona
This usage was true in Rome and today for the same reason, i.e., all powers can only deal with those of equal standing. This is basic to the whole jurisdictional question.
gabel
Is a word equivalent to gavel, the instrument used on the Judge's bench when he raps out sentence and demands quiet or order.
Thus, Coke says that gabel or gavel, gablum, gabellum, gabelletum, galbelletum, and gavillchun, signify a rent, duty, or service yielded or done to the king or any other lord. See, Coke on Littleton, 142a, or Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1329.
novatio
As 'novation,' in modern usage, this word did not appear in American law until after Lincoln's War, which follows, since the nation was under Martial Law and the resurrection of old Roman law was a cold fact.
It means, the substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one. See, Blacks 3rd, (1914), page 1261.
When a power conquers another the conqueror under Martial law must convert conquered people to fictional subjects they can address. Thus, the fiction creates a persona, to which is attached a debt (war debt) and this process of conversion is called novation.
novellae constitutiones
When conquering powers convert constitutions of a conquered nation, another fiction is created and called a novellae constitutiones. By now, the reasons for this are clear.
Thus, not only the people, but their laws and constitutions are novated, i.e., changed.
Thus, not only the conquered people, but their constitutions are novated, as well.
'Novation,' is taken from a root, meaning 'novel,' or 'new'.
In the U.S., the novation of the People and the Constitution for the united States of America, as well as all State constitutions, was accomplished by the Fourteenth Amendment, which, for the first time created United States Citizens, but the same Amendment was also used to systematically reinterpret the Constitutions so that it applied to the new and novel subjects, called persons, who were Citizens of the new Martial law power known as the United States, a Federal Corporation (Title 28, Section 3002, 15, A).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Be or Not To Be -

A Resident?

Comments on Postal Service Policy

by Randy Lee

The Post Office Domestic Mail Manual at D930, 1.1, states as follows:

"General Delivery is intended for use primarily at:
c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently located."

At 1.2, it states:

"Postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers."

At 1.3, it states:

"General delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before mail is given to them."

At 1.4, it states:

"General delivery mail is held for no more than 30 days, unless a shorter period is requested by the sender. Subject to 1.2, general delivery mail may be held for longer periods if requested by the sender or addressee."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: "Not permanently located, transient lifestyle".

Question: "Address".

Answer: "None".

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

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

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

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

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

First, when informed that General Delivery will be denied, or terminated, for any reason, make it a point to set up an appointment with the Postmaster, not a low-level Clerk.
Second, do not speak to an attorney for the Postal Service. Speak only to the Postmaster.
Third, prepare your General Delivery defense with the documents listed below. Know what they say and use a hi-lighter to mark the relevant points if you have to.

The documents you need are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, cancel your P.O. Box and remove the mailbox from your house or driveway.
Second, never agree to resolve problems with anyone but the Postmaster himself. Meetings with a supervisor or Postal legal counsel can be fatal because they can do and say anything. The Postmaster's words and acts, however, must comply with law.
Third, always put forth a benevolent attitude, carrying a demeanor of full knowledge of Postal Matters and of General Delivery. This will take diligent study.
Fourth, and most important of all, keep in mind at the meeting that you are not there to ask permission for General Delivery, but to retain a traditionally vested right that can not be denied to you, as a Christian.

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

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

The Law and Home Schooling

John Quade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, we remind the Reader that these steps or procedures are available only to Christian families for reasons which will be explained as we go on.
Second, the procedures are based upon the Scripture, common law, and Maxims of Law and have been used for nearly a thousand years by Christians, in both England and America.
Third, the procedures are themselves a traditionally vested right, and the Scripture, as the foundation of all, predates the legal memory of man in 1189 A.D., and thus are unchallengeable in the courts.
Fourth, by virtue of the standing of these procedures, current governments do not have standing to answer them, and thus, all the procedures normally go to default (if properly written and served) because they are issued from a superior jurisdiction and venue.
Fifth, these procedures have been used by thousands of Christians in America over the last two years and in almost all cases they have proved successful.
Sixth, no lawyer is involved at any point in the processes and all can be implemented by home schooling families who have done their homework.
Seventh, these processes in Law do not require either the sanction or approval of any legislature as they are beyond the reach of any statute. The processes derive their authority from long and continued custom and usage among Good and Lawful Christians in England and America. Indeed, the procedures and Law embodied therein should also be incorporated into every home school curricula so the next generation will not live in fear of the imperial powers and will be better able to preserve both the family and the state.

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

Part Two

The Present State of American Law?

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

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

This shocks those who've lived all their lives believing the opposite, but as "The Senate Report on Emergency Powers," #93-549, Nov. 19, 1973, makes clear;

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule ... And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have - from at least the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

And, from the Supreme Court;

"Congress has made little or no distinction between a 'state of national emergency' and a 'state of war.'"

And, according to the Law of Nations;

"the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself."

Last, according to the Law of War;

"martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ and Liberty

by John William

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

Sir William Blackstone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Berman says,

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

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

Montesquieu wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

We now turn to a philosophical look at our situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostle Paul answers them all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relativism is truly Hell on Earth.

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

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

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

'Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{11} Torcaso vs. Watkins,

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

Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights

by John Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The god of commerce is the Roman god Mercury:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is no secret "harmless commerce" is dangerous:

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

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

The Theory of Evolution vs. Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look up, for your salvation draweth nigh.

To Be or Not To Be:

a Human Being?

by Randy Lee

From Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 1948 Edition, 'Human Being' is defined as follows:

"See monster".

From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined:

"A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."

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

From the Oxford New English Dictionary of 1901, 'human' is defined as;

"3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular. (Often opposed to divine.)"

'Secular' being the important word here, we look to the multi-definitions in the 1992 Random House Webster's College Dictionary:

" 'Secular' adj. 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred: temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to sacred). 3. concerned with non-religious subjects. 4. not belonging to a religious order: not bound by monastic vows."

Could it be that 'human' means un-Godly. From the same dictionary, a look at a combination of the two:

"'Secular humanism' n. any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines."

And;

" 'secularism' n. 1. Secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs."

In conjunction with this, from Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, 'humanitarian' is defined:

"n. 'a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity, a perfectionist."

From the above Random House Dictionary 'humanitarianism' is defined:

"n. the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."

With no definition of 'human being' in Law, Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage, 1992, defines 'Person' as;

1. "a human being - without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3)."

Of course, 'morality common to human beings' is not explained, because that would reveal to much. Again, in Shawmut Bank N.A. vs. Valley Farms, (610 A.2d 652, 654) it states;

"For purpose of statute protecting certain property from post-judgment remedies, and therefore from prejudgment attachment, 'natural person' means 'human being', not artificial or 'juristic person'."

So, if natural person and human being are considered the same in the law, let's take a closer look at what a 'natural person' is. As you may know, all government codes, rules and regulations only attach to corporations, partnerships and natural persons. In American law, it seems that a definition of 'natural person' does not exist. To get any idea of what a natural person is, we have to go to English law. In the 17th Century, Lord Coke differentiated between 'natural persons' and 'moral persons in a community' in the following statement from his Institutes:

..."we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons, for, as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity, in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and exercise all civil relations," (2 Inst. 669).

With 'natural man' being the same as 'natural person', we find further evidence of exactly what a 'human being' is. From the above Random House Dictionary, page 901;

" 'Natural' adj. 17. natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate."

From the same Dictionary, page 1461;

" 'unregenerate', 1. not regenerate; unrepentant 2. unconvinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect, or movement. 4. wicked, sinful; dissolute.5. an unregenerate person."

In conjunction with this, from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, 'naturalism' is defined as:

"a system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of the world and of man's relationship to it, in which only the operation of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forces is assumed."

And 'naturalist' is defined as:

"One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation."

And of course, the Scriptures being the final authority, confirms all of the above, at I Corinthians 2:14;

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirt of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

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

Great Works of God on Behalf of America

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

Edited by John William

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

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

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

Jer.16:8. O the Hope of Israel, the Savior thereof in Time of Trouble!
Psalm.70:1. In my Distress I cried unto the LORD, and He heard me.
Psalm.105:5. Remember his marvellous Works that He hath done.
Ex.16:13. Stand still, and see the Salvation of the LORD!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Side of Common Law

by Randy Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In the time when thou shalt be broken by the seas in the depths of the waters, thy merchandise and all thy company in the midst of thee shall fall," Ezekiel 27:34.

And,

"And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:" Revelation 18:11.

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

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

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

The Asylum state

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

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

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

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

Asylum. 'A refuge.' Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 274.

Asylum. 'A sanctuary, or place of refuge and protection, where criminals and debtors found shelter, and from which they could not be taken without sacrilege." Cromie vs. Institution of Mercy, 3 Bush (Ky.) 391.

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

Refuge, n. [Fr. from L. refugium, a refuge, from refugere, to retreat; re-, back, and fugere, to flee.] 1. Shelter or protection from danger or distress. 2. A person or thing that gives shelter, help, or comfort. 3. A place of safety; a shelter; a safe retreat; a stronghold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy or evil; an asylum. 4. Action taken to escape consequences; an expedient to secure protection or defense; a resort; a shift; a subterfuge.
"Cities of refuge; among the Israelites, certain cities appointed to secure the safety of such persons as might commit homicide without design. Of these there were three on each side of the Jordan.
"Harbors of refuge; harbors or ports which afford shelter to vessels in stormy weather; places of refuge for merchant vessels from the cruisers of an enemy in time of war.
"House of refuge; an institution affording shelter to the destitute or homeless." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.

Refuge, n. [Fr. refugee.]
1. One who flees to a shelter or place of safety.
2. One who in times of war, political or religious persecution, etc. flees to a foreign power or country for safety; as, the French refugees who left France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and settled in Flanders and America."
Refugee, v.i. To seek refuge." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.

Sanctuary, n.; pl. sanctuaries, [Fr. sanctuaire; LL. sanctuarium, a sacred place, shrine, from L. sanctus, sacred.]
"1. A holy place; a building or place set aside for worship of a god or gods; specifically, (a) the Temple at Jerusalem; (b) a Christian church; (c) any church or temple; (d) a particularly holy place within a church or temple, as the part around the altar, the holy of holies in the Jewish Temple, etc.
"2. A place of refuge or protection; originally fugitives from justice were immune from arrest in churches or other sacred places.
"3. Refuge or protection; immunity from punishment or the law, as by taking refuge in a church, etc.
"4. A reservation where animals or birds are sheltered for breeding purposes and may not be hunted or otherwise molested." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1603.

"SHELTER, n. [altered from ME. sheltrum, a bodyguard, squadron, from AS. sceld-truma, shield troop.]
"1. Something that covers, protects, or defends; protection, or place affording protection, as from the elements, danger, etc., a place of refuge.
"2. The state of being covered, protected, or defended; protection; refuge."

"SHELTER, v. t.; sheltered, pl., pp.; sheltering, ppr.
"1. To cover from violence, injury, annoyance, or attack; as, the valley is sheltered from the north wind by a mountain.
"2. To defend; to protect from danger; to secure or render safe; to harbor.
"3. To betake to coveror to a safe place; used with a reflexive pronoun; as, they sheltered themselves under a rock."

"SHELTER, v. i. To take shelter; to find protection or refuge." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1672.

SANCTUARY. 1. "Exemption of a place, consecrated to religious duties, from criminal arrests. 2. A place where process of law cannot be executed." A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 919.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But God's Law is different:

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

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

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

We know of 'human' organizations around the various States which promote the notion that the "natural law," "commercial law," "corporate law" or " Constitutional law" offer some sort of "asylum."

[Ed Note: Please note that "the law of nature" is not "natural law." See Wightman v. Wightman, 4 Johns.Ch. 343, 349.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Foundation of America

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

The Great Patent of New England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Confederation

between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New-Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith, signed August 29th, 1643

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

The signers of the Articles were:

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

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

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

The Articles opened with:

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

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

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

Thus, the opening of :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Vinculis

by John Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And looking to the maxims of Law,

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

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

"The right to have counsel does not justify a court in forcing a lawyer upon an accused who does not want one." Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155;

And,

"Invito beneficium non datur -- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second place,

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

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

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

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

And this is key to Your situation:

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

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

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

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

You first will say,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You display intent when You answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Time Justice

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

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

Myths of the Patriot Movement

Part One

by Randy Lee

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

These myths include, but are not limited to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Blackstone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in Issue the Twenty-fourth)

Research Update on Dr. Schroeder

Article by John William

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Session: Colorado Legisture, 1933:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nd Extraordinary Session. 1933-34:

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

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

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

Regular Session, 1935:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Review of

Military Government and Martial Law

William E. Birkhimer, L.L.B.

Major, General Staff, U.S. Army.

Third Edition, Revised.

Franklin Hudson Publishing Company.

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

Review by: John William

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Dollar in Silver

by Phillip Randolph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware.

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

Abraham Lincoln:

the Father of a New Country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson:

Friend or Foe of Christian America?

Part One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chesterfteld, December 15, 1789.

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

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

(continued in Issue the Tenth).

News from Home

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

For Christ's Sake

Saturday April 17, 1858

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

That's So!

Saturday May 8, 1858

Why is an editor like the book of Revelation?

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

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

About Collecting Taxes

Saturday, June 6, 1857

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

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

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

I Don't Like the Name

Saturday, June 20, 1857

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

Court Reporter?

August 1, 1857

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

-------------------------

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

-------------------------

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

Saturday, November 7, 1857

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

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

He was evidently "corn-ed."

Saturday, December 5, 1857

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

Saturday, September 12, 1857

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

Saturday, July 3, 1858

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

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

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

Saturday, June 26, 1858

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

Saturday, June 12, 1858

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

Saturday, August 27, 1859

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

Saturday, September 17, 1859

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

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

Saturday, August 22, 1857

Why is a restless sleeper like a lawyer?

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

Issue the Tenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

501(c)3 Churches: Godly or Godless?

It's All in the Name...

Sanford v. The Justices of Maine...

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

News from Home...

Remembering the Old Ways...

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

by The King's Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-First, all attorneys are bound by the rules of courts in which they practice. All C.P.A.'s are licensed and regulated by the state and federal governments.
-Second, attorneys may draw up the papers to form the church as a 501(c)3 corporation, and write its by-laws, the law of all corporate operations are controlled by state and federal governments, and the I.R.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Bouvier's says:

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

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

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

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

Pound continues with:

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

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

Some time later, the doctrine of the corporation sole would be confused and used by king's and other powerful or power-seeking men.

"It was not until about the middle of the 15th century that it was settled as a matter of positive law that the corporation must be created by the sovereign power, which rule arose simply from considerations of political expediency. Recognizing that boroughs, organized communities and gilds might become dangerous, the king made them a source of revenue by selling the privilege to exist. In 1440 the first municipal charter was granted. The mayor, burgesses and their successors, mayors and burgesses of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, were incorporated so as to form "one perpetual corporate commonalty."

Note that the corporation is here gradually being co-opted by the kings, to serve the own ends, i.e., tax revenues.

"What we call a corporation was first called un corps or a body, whence our 'body politic,' or 'body corporate'; or, un gros, something that had existence in itself, apart from its constituents. Thus there was gradually evolved the idea of an abstract artificial individuality, composed of members for the time being, to be succeeded by others after them, but continuing after their death. This became the persona ficta of a later time.... "There was no intention on either part to form a corporation, indeed neither knew what a corporation was; for the name did not exist, but the thing itself was being gradually evolved."

Thus, before 1500, corporations religious or otherwise, were quasi-corporations defined by Anderson as:

"... a body which exercises certain functions of a corporate character, but which has not been created a corporation by any statute, general or specific."

There are two points to note here.

-First, the 'certain functions' exercised by the quasi-corporation consisted primarily of existing in perpetuity and the succession of powers in offices, usually created by the corporate members themselves.
-Second, and very important, such corporations acted without receiving any benefit, privilege, or opportunity from the king or civil government at any level.

The non-religious quasi-corporations existed by virtue of the customs and usages of the times.

But, religious quasi-corporations existed by the command of God in Scripture which pre-dates the legal memory of man (1189 A.D.), and thus, they existed as a right given by God.

The one significant difference between these two types of quasi-corporations was, the non-religious type could sue and be sued, but the Christian quasi-corporation could not.

The reason why church they could not sue or be sued is, there was no court in which the sovereign could be brought to trial. How does one sue God, or bring Him into court?

Because modern church corporations are created by governments and granted certain benefits (tax exempt), privileges (the leadership is immune to prosecution personally), and opportunities (the right to engage in commercial activities that are otherwise illegal), has made all 501(c)3 churches vulnerable to suit by anyone, for any reason, at any time, as recent history has shown.

The quasi-corporate idea, however, was co-opted by the kings as it applied to local boroughs and other bodies politic, for revenue purposes, but there was no attempt by English kings or American government that existed before the Constitution, to co-opt the Christian quasi-corporations until 1813, which we will get to later.

An interesting perspective on church government and a major void in the understanding of modern Christians, is the approach to the legal existence of the church, held by the Puritans.

This theological concept is most likely derived from the Apostle Paul's argument above. It not only shaped the law governing the church, but the entire American system of jurisprudence. In sum, it acted on both church and state.

"A fundamental proposition from which the Puritan proceeded was the doctrine of a willing covenant of conscious faith made by the individual. Thus he put individual conscience and individuals in the first place. No authority might rightfully coerce them; but everyone must assume and abide the consequences of the choice he made. Applied to church polity, it led to a regime of consociation but not subordination. 'We are not over one another,' said Robinson [Pastor of the Pilgrims in Holland], 'but with one another.' Hence even church organization was a species of contract and a legal theory, a legalism, attached even to religion. If men were to be free to act according to their consciences and to contract with others for consociation in congregations, it was a necessary consequence that the state, as a political congregation, was a matter of contract also; and liberty of contract was a further necessary deduction. The early history of New England furnishes abundant applications of the idea that covenant or compact with the consent of every individual to the formation and to the continuance of the community was the basis of all communities, political as well as religious. The precedent of the covenant which made Abraham and the children of Israel the people of God, furnished the religious basis for the doctrine. But it was applied to civil as well as to ecclesiastical organization."

Thus we see the extension of the Puritan theological ideas to both church and state.

One plus in forming 501(c)3 corporations is that of leaving very little for the congregation to think about in terms of internal church polity, i.e., church government. Thus, in most modern 501(c)3 church corporations, congregations have little interest in the doctrines of the Biblical form of church worship.

The congregation doesn't want to be bothered with such matters. If they did, they might discover that 501(c)3 corporations are not a Biblical way for a church to operate. They might even discover that a pastor of the church or (God forbid) elders and deacons are not maintaining their proper sphere of authority.

And if, by some miracle, a congregation became intensely interested in a Biblical form of worship, to implement the reforms, they would have to abandon 501(c)3 standing, because what the state demands and what God demands are two entirely different things, especially when the state is a military government and the states are all under martial rule, a consequence of the loss of theological basis of Law in America.

At any rate, a consequence of the idea of individual self-responsibility and legal consequences for our acts was contradictory of "the feudal conception of referring to some relation. Contracts and voluntary culpable conduct appeared to be the solving ideas for all problems and the law was to be apportioned between the contractual and the delictual [crime or tort]. Another consequence was to make a moral question of everything, and yet in such a way as to make it a legal question. For moral principles are of individual and relative application. In applying them we must take account of circumstances and of individuals. Hence if every question was treated as a moral question and controversies involving moral questions were to be dealt with as concrete cases to be individualized in their solution, subordination of those whose cases were decided to those who had the power of weighing the circumstances of the actual case and individualizing the principle to meet the case, might result. The idea of consociation demanded that a fixed, absolute, universal rule, by which the individual had contracted to abide, be resorted to; and thus the moral and the legal principle were to be applied in the same way, and that the legal way."

As Pound concludes his dissertation, he says:

"... the conception of a maximum of abstract individual self-assertion exempt from social control, to which his {Mr. Justice [David Dudley] Field,} vigorous and learned opinions gave currency, is essentially the Puritan conception of consociation. We are to be with one another but not over one another. The whole is to have no right of control over the individual beyond the minimum necessary to keep the peace. Everything else is to be left to the free contract of a free man." Note: "Free Man" is not "freeman."

Square that with the tyranny of modern 501(c)3 church pastors, their high salaries, privileges, cars, television production facilities, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.

The point is, the early Puritan view of personal responsibility for ones acts led to a relationship between members of a congregation that resulted in a consociation, not a corporation created by the fiat declaration of any civil government.

Thus, early churches in America were created by the congregation through a covenant between the members that sought to express the members idea of what the proper form of church worship and polity was, according to Scripture. From this developed the civil governments based on the theology embraced in the covenants.

Such congregations had -- as individuals -- to think for themselves and take responsibility before God for the kind of covenant they entered into, one with another -- and they never even considered the possibility that they should have to go to the state or federal government, to get permission to exist, or to get a license for their pastors and teachers to fulfill their God-given mandates in the church.

Do modern Christian ever ask themselves whether or not a church can have two heads, Christ and the state.

The Scripture answer loud and clear; "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)

This is especially telling when we realize that he modern military government and martial rule is imposed on us to protect commerce. Remember, Mars and Mercury, the gods of war and commerce respectively, always run together.

What we do not realize is, that the real law that governs the churches today, is the lex mercatoria, i.e., commercial law.

We now come to the year 1813 and the Presidency of James Madison.

In this year, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution, Congress sent up a bill for Mr. Madison's signature, that would have established a church corporation -- as a creature of the Federal government -- in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Madison vetoed the bill immediately. His reasons were basically that:

a. The Christian church does not need the approval of any government in order to establish itself.
b. The incorporation of the church by any government constitutes a license that would give the federal government control of the church.

Thereafter, there was no major push to incorporate the churches until after Lincoln's War Against All States.

As the King's Men have tried to show for the last three years, the turning point for Law and liberty in America came with Lincoln's War, wherein, the Christian communities and the Constitution for the united States of America were done away with and martial law through a military government has been put in its place.

The law which once governed this nation with its powerful Puritan and Christian basis has been done away with and the old Roman law has been substituted with its emphasis on commerce. Thus, the above reference to Mars, the god of war, and Mercury, the god of traders and thieves.

What the Christian community has utterly failed to realize is the nature and extent of the transformation that has taken place in law since Lincoln's War. The issues that the history books belabor so much is not the real outcome of what has happened, because the war was as much religious as anything else in the sense that it replaced Christian theology as the underpinnings of Our law with that of the old Roman , or pagan system of law. And when two systems of law compete for the same allegiance each claims for itself, a political question is present.

Thus, we find that as early as the 11th century, in the works of St. Anselm (1033-1109) a doctrine of the atonement that was to have a major impact on the history of western law.

"Anselm's theory of the atonement, although never officially adopted by the church, became the predominant view in the West, not only from the twelfth to the fifteenth century but also (with modifications) in later times, and not only in Roman Catholic but also (with modifications) in Protestant thought. Moreover, it was this theory that first gave Western theology its distinctive character and its distinctive connection with Western jurisprudence." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 176 -177.

With the connection established between theology and law, the door was opened for the complete reform of law itself. With Henry of Bracton, known as the father of the common law, and others, the customs and usages of the English Christians and Anglo-Saxons was merged, in a sense, with Christian Canons, and the result was, the Christian common law of England and America.

In part, there was also an idea in Anselm's thought that helped later, to separate theology from law as it was before Anselm. But, this trend did not become obvious until the twentieth century.

This twentieth century development is a historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St. Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation. Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once reason was separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself, and ultimately this came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever.

Thus, between Anselm in the 11th century, and the Renaissance in 17th century, reason triumphed over faith, and it was this factor that motivated The Great Reformation thinkers, who sought to restore all things to a Biblical foundation, including the realm of law.

The law became almost totally theological in its underpinnings with the Puritans, as we have seen. This system founded America and is the distinctive contribution of American Christians to Law until the early 1800's.

After the genocide of the Black Brigade in the Colonial War with England, in which the principle intellectual power behind the War and the Constitution, was murdered by the British, a decline in the purity and power of Christian thought began to be felt in all Christian circles. Within one generation, cults began to form within American Christendom and a move began to 're-reform' law and make it more consonent with reason, not theology.

Thus,

"... it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon them." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), pp. 197-198.

With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected.

The lack of traditional Christian values and morality in our legal institutions is predictable along with the return to the old Roman system:

"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies. In the postclassical period, as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.

Perhaps now, we can see why the modern idea of 'justice' makes less and less sense. And, with the enormous expansion of the Commerce Clause since Roosevelt, the logical consequence of the Roman law restored by Lincoln and Co. during and after the War, is come home to us.

The commercial aspect is today, a literal fulfillment of what Berman means when he says that "as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions."

In the 1920's, however, with the growing power of the I.R.S., churches complained that the income tax would deprive them of tithes. During this period and after the 501(c)3 non-profit, tax exempt corporation was developed, to its present state to satisfy the demand -- within the churches -- for a king..

But, in the churches desire to convert their standing to 501(c)3 status, they, at the same time, polluted their congregations because the wealthy, who had the money to contribute, now attended church and gave handsomely, just to get a tax write-off. The influence of the wealthy began to be determinative of church polity and policy. The quality of preaching in the pulpit, in other words, declined for sake of filthy lucre.

As Peter has said, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being example to the flock."

With its new found money, the church expanded its so-called outreach which meant that they became dependent on the wealthy to stay involved in the church and continue to contribute, so the outreach could be sustained.

Today, we need only turn on the television to see the fruit of this rotten tree grown in the fields of commerce. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt and thereafter, the growth in the number of 501(c)3 churches exploded, to the extent that, by 1980, almost every church in America was incorporated.

In some of the smaller denominations, such as the Holiness churches and a few others, the idea never took root, and to this day such churches are not incorporated.

But, already by this time, another movement had begun in the Christian churches, that would expose to a limited extent, just how much power the governments acquired over the churches that were incorporated.

The precise date at which the movement began is not well known, but at least by the 1960's there was a growing reaction in the Christian community, to the decline of the public school system. The lack of traditional values in the public school curriculum, the growing violence and prevalence of drugs on public school campuses, and a variety of other reasons, combined to spawn within the Christian community a demand for their own school system, in their own churches. And, when the church would not, or could not, provide a school, parents began to teach their children at home.

It became evident to many Christians in the Nebraska School case, after Pastor Siliven and many of his parishoners were jailed, that perhaps there was something wrong with the way the church was organized.

In this case, the issue of separation of church and state was ignored from the outset, because the church was organized under the 501(c)3 laws and regulations.

In this case, the State of Nebraska demanded that the Christian school set up in Pastor Siliven's church be licensed in various ways, and they refused. Soon thereafter, the pastor and some members of the congregation were arrested and the church padlocked.

When Pastor Siliven objected, and raised the issue of separation of church and state, he was informed by the judge that in this case, there was no question of First Amendment Rights, because, as far as the State of Nebraska was concerned, "the church was just another corporation."

In the aftermath of this case, which was one of the first to receive major media coverage, instead of damping the growth of the private Christian school movement, the movement grew, almost exponentially. Today, about 25% of all children in America are either educated in private Christian schools, or in a home schools.

But, in the aftermath of the private Christian school movement, many pastors and congregations began to realize that the 501(c)3 corporate standing of their church was not a good idea. Thus, began the movement to dis-incorporate, or de-register among churches across America to the point that, nearly 10% of all churches in America have now de-registered. This amounts to some 10 to 12,000 churches.

At the same time, these churches have begun to wake up to the real intent and motives of the present military establishment known as the United States.

The possibilities inherent in a new reformation of America's Christian churches, are almost too numerous to list.

One point needs to mentioned here. The power that the Christian church once had, is now atrophied, because the church has been politicized, legalized, and compromised. The sheer power of the church as an asylum state in law, which the church once had, can have enormous impact on where America goes in the next century.

We've gone over the history of the church and its relationship to law and the 501(c)3 tax exempt corporation. Next month, we will turn to an analysis of the current legal status of 501(c)3 churches, and the arguments to justify their existence. Next month we will go over in detail the pros and cons of these arguments.

Meantime, pray and ask your pastor a few questions. Do not get belligerent. Do not argue. Instead, give them a copy of this article from The Christian Jural Society News.

It's All in the Name!!!

by Randy Lee

A Good and Lawful Christian Man does not have a name. He has a Christian appellation. Only animals, things, persons, human beings, individuals and residents have names, for commercial purposes, to wit:

Name. 'A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.'
Designation. 'The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.'A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)
Name. 1. 'The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.'
Designation. 5. 'In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824.' The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).
Name. 'The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.'
Designation. 'A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two maxims of law:

Nomina sunt notæ rerum: Names are the marks of things; and
Nomina sunt symbola rerum, Names are the symbols of things.

A Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction wants to know if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that as a Good and Lawful Christian Man, you don't have a name, but a Christian appellation to which they can appeal.

The implications of giving your so-called name to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating. Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court.....Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).

When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' the only answer you can give is a resounding , no.

The reason you can say 'no' truthfully is in the fact that you have the knowledge that all paperwork and process coming from the imperial powers, under the Law of War, has your so-called name spelled in all capital letters. This is clearly not you.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from the jurisdiction of Christendom and the church, and give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking.. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through codes, rules and regulations.

Consider this:

"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names,' by Anthony Linell (1938).

Sanford v.

The Justices of Maine

by John Joseph

This article is not for those who are rutted in their version of American history, nor those who have no Christian discernment. It is for those Who want and thirst for the Truth which has been withheld from Them, to their shame.

Let Me first say that the issue is not one of race, but of ideology and the implementation of ideology. Race is a tool the media uses to sell terrorism, dissention, and destruction for the gratification of its stockholders and satisfaction of its balance sheet. If you are a stockholder of these vermin, please stop reading and go back to the self-gratification of your ego. If not, take notes, because you are in for a great surprise. The maxims of law state that the only thing truth fears is concealment. We hope to bring out the truth so We can shed the light on the real issues the media vermin only frost over with their drivel.

Now, to start clarifying the title. Sanford refers to the defendant in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), 19 How. 393. This is a famous case in American legal circles, which perhaps maligned and disparaged a great majority of inhabitants in the several states, and set the stage for the most calamitous event in American history. We will be examining this case with the Opinion of the Justices (1857), 44 Me. 505 from the Supreme Court of Maine.

To start out it is necessary to understand the issue facing the court in the Sanford case. That issue was, "Does this court have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case?" If it does, it should go to the merits of the case, and decide the issues therein. If not, then refuse the case, and not decide the issues contained in the pleadings. That was the central and only issue facing the court. Everything else hung on that one question.

The central and only issue for the Justices of Maine was whether free black men possessing and meeting qualifications applicable to free white men had the same identical political rights of free white men in the state of Maine. I will not dwell on the answer at this time. Rather, I will tell you to get both decisions and read them for your edification. [Ed. note: The Opinion of the Justices and the Sanford decision are available from Randy Lee.]

It is important to first of all understand the meaning of some words and phrases in the Constitution for the United States of America, particularly the phrase "We, the People of the United States," This is especially important because this declares who established the confederacy of several states. Chief Justice Taney, in the Sanford case, made several references to the preamble in his opinion.

I should tell you that Taney's opinion is not the only opinion in Sanford. Each of the Justices wrote an opinion, but Taney's received and continues to receive the approbation of the media, and those elitists who have their notions of what American history should be. It is such a shame that Taney's opinion is the only one ever cited as "law" when the facts do not reflect the truth of his statements. It is his opinion that set the final straw and allowed Lincoln's War to get off the ground. I will cover that later. Taney was also one of the largest slaveholders in Maryland, and could not see letting his slaves go when his balance sheet would not allow him to do so. Conflict of interest? You decide.

On the other hand, the Justices of Maine had no self-serving motive in rendering their opinion. Each stood on the facts of history which they carefully researched and documented in their opinion to the Senate of Maine.

Back to who did what. In reading the Opinion of the Justices you come across numerous facts of history that are never mentioned. Like black people fought side by side with white people during the "Revolution." (From this time forward in any of the writings from Me, I will always refer this event to be, "The War for Christian Liberty.") Numerous states had black electors exercising suffrage and holding office in the state governments. It is important to note here that suffrage is not indicative of whether a Christian is a member of a community. After all, women and children do not exercise suffrage and yet are considered members of the Christian community. Seeing then, that prior to the "Constitution for the United States of America," black people were citizens in some of the states, we must come now to look at the preamble to that document.

Looking at the wording, it says "the people of the United States." Who are these people?

"Only once did chance rather than forethought contribute a striking effect. The Preamble, when handed to the Committee on Style, which put the document in its final form, read: 'We the People of the States of New Hampshire,' and so forth through the thirteen states. Someone remarked that because only nine states were needed to ratify the Constitution and several might reject it--the refusal of George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts to accept the convention's handiwork indicated that there might be some trouble in some states--the Preamble should be altered to read: 'We the People of the United States." David Hawke, The Colonial Experience (1966, The Bobbs-Merrill Co.), p. 673.

If black people were citizens of some of the states, are they excluded by this wording from that body politic declared in the preamble? Roger Brooke Taney thought so. But history and Law does not claim this. In fact it claims the opposite:

"Res transit cum suo onere --The thing [a political right] passes with its burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.

Thus, those who were citizens in the several states, who had adhered and taken on the burdens of fighting a common "enemy" had acquired, through their heroic acts, the same rights as everyone else who had done the same.

The next question is, were these inhabitants ever recognized on equal footing? Yes, in several states. And why were they recognized citizens? Because they had fought the common enemy--tyrannus rex--side by side with the Puritans. The Puritans recognized this when they organized their Christian communities--the bond of Christianity. Does the Law itself say those who enjoy the benefits must shoulder the burdens? Does it also say that the advantage is in he who assumes the risk?

"Cujus est commodum, ejus est onus --He who has the benefit has also the burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

Had not they shouldered equal burdens and risks to enjoy the same and equal Christian Liberty under God? Equal rights were immediately vested in both, and both share the bond in and to Christ, where there is no more slave, free, Jew or Greek. What does the media offer here? Artificial schisms that enhance the balance sheet in the name of "news."

The problem most "patriots" fail to read, or better yet, choose to ignore, and which Roger Taney probably forgot about, is that his decision was to affect only those who were then held to servitude; and, was not to apply to Free Black People. Taney made this statement in the opening of his opinion. Unfortunately he forgot about it and most "patriots" choose to ignore it. Why? I would highly recommend you get a copy of John Quade's article on "Blue Widgets" from The Christian Jural Society Press for some, if not all, of their reasons. I can only speculate why, and I think to speculate is fruitless.

"It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognized as the people or citizens of a state, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English government; and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by force of arms.
"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, p. 407. [Emphasis added.]

Roger Taney made the distinction between the status of a free black man and a slave here but most "patriot" gurus fail to see it. Taney's decision rested entirely on the idea that those who were held to slavery could never really be emancipated and free. But looking to the laws regarding slavery, emancipation is a matter of state law, and not federal law:

"Emancipation is the removal of the incapacity of slavery, whereas the framing of a rule of naturalization belongs to the Government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound them." Gaston, J., in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Battle (N.C.) 20, 25.

Then Taney forgot all about his major premise and began to lump all into one unhappy hodge-podge, making no distinction between free blacks and slaves:

"Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men--high in literary acquirements--high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of a trader were supposed to need protection.
"This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language." Dred Scott v. Sanford, ibid., pp. 409, 410.

What happened to the distinction between the free black man, recognized and partaking of political rights, in the states; and, the slave? Taney conveniently ignored the distinction.

Can the badge of slavery follow those of succeeding generations? This is similar to holding the son responsible for the sins of the father.

"Nullus jus alienum forisfacere potest --No man can forfeit another's right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

Even at the worst, the slaves had shouldered the same burdens, but in a different way. Had they not helped the master maintain and defend his household, lands, family, arms, wealth, and the like? Could the master have fought as courageously knowing that his family or possessions might be wasted? I think not.

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States." Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

So, we can see that Roger Taney obliterated distinctions in his opinion, which were necessary in setting the stage for the Abolitionists to hire mercenaries, under A. Lincoln and Associates, Inc.

Thomas Jefferson:

Friend or Foe of Christian America?

Part Two

(continued from Issue the Ninth)

The courtesies of dinner parties given me, as a stranger newly arrived among them, placed me at once in their familiar society. But I cannot describe the wonder and mortification with which the table conversations filled me. Politics were the chief topic, and a preference of a kingly over a republican government, was evidently the favorite sentiment. An apostate I could not be, nor a hypocrite; and I found myself, for the most part, the only advocate on the republican side of the question, unless among the guests there chanced to be some members of that party from the legislative houses. Hamilton's financial system had then passed. It had two objects: 1. As a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding and inquiry; 2. As a machine for the corruption of the legislature; for he avowed the opinion, that man could be governed by one of two motives only, force, or interest; force, he observed, in this country, was out of the question; and the interests, therefore, of the members, must be laid hold of to keep the legislature in unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect; that even in this, the birth of our government, some members were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.

Another measure of great importance, which Mr. Jefferson strongly disapproved, was the assumption of the state debts. Nothing could be more just or more reasonable than this act of the general government. The exertions of different states had necessarily been unequal, and in the same proportion their expenses had been increased. But those expenses had all been incurred in the common cause; and that cause having been successful, nothing could be more just than that the debts thus incurred should be borne by the nation. Mr. Jefferson, however, stigmatizes the measure as corrupt. "The more debt," he says, "Hamilton could rake up, the more plunder for his mercenaries." And he closes a long series of opprobrious remarks upon the subject, and upon the manner in which, according to his opinion, it was carried, by saying - " This added to the number of votaries to the Treasury, and made its chief the master of every vote in the legislature, which might give to the government the direction suited to his political views.

The bank was another measure which did not meet with Mr. Jefferson's support.

After remarking on these various subjects, he says, "Nor was this an opposition to General Washington. He was true to the republican charge confided to him, and has solemnly and repeatedly protested to me, in our conversations, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it; and he did this the oftener, and with the more earnestness, because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton's designs against it, and wished to quiet them. For he was not aware of the drift, or of the effect of Hamilton's schemes. Unversed in financial projects, and calculations, and budgets, his approbation of them was bottomed on his confidence in the man.

But Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he then gives an account of a conversation which he says took place at a meeting of the Vice-president and the heads of departments, in the course of which the British constitution was alluded to; and in regard to which he says - "Mr. Adams observed, 'Purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.' Hamilton paused, and observed, 'Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.

The Funding System was one of the great measures that distinguished General Washington's administration. It was devised by Hamilton, and has ever been considered as reflecting the highest credit upon his talents and patriotism. No man labored with more zeal or ability to procure the adoption of the constitution than this great statesman. The Federalist, of which he was one of the principal writers, and contributed the largest share, has long been considered as a standard work on the constitution, and is now resorted to as an authority of the highest respectability and character, respecting the true principles and construction of that instrument. The system of revenue adopted under General Washington, was also the work of this distinguished financier; and so nearly perfect was it found to be in practice, amidst all the changes and violence of party, and under the administration of those individuals who were originally opposed to its adoption, that they severally found it necessary, when placed at the head of the government, to pursue the system which he had devised. Even Mr. Jefferson himself, during the eight years that he held the office of chief magistrate, never ventured to adopt a new system of finance, but adhered, in all its essential particulars, to that devised by Hamilton. And yet, from the moment he came into the executive department of the government, and was associated with Hamilton and others in establishing the principles of the constitution, it appears, by his own evidence, that lie was endeavoring to destroy the reputation and influence of that great statesman, by secret slanders, and insidious suggestions against his political integrity and orthodoxy. The article from which the foregoing citations are taken, was not written at the moment - it was not the record of events as they occurred from day to day: it bears date in 1818-nearly thirty years after most of those events took place, and fourteen years after General Hamilton had been consigned to the tomb. A more extraordinary instance of vindictive, personal, or political hostility, probably cannot be mentioned.

This work, however, has not been undertaken with the view of vindicating the character of General Hamilton from the aspersions of Mr. Jefferson. That duty devolves on others; and it is a gratification to know that the task is in a fair way to be performed by those, who, it is presumed, will see that it is done faithfully. Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" have been referred to for the purpose of showing his original dislike of the constitution, his opposition to the most important measures of the government at its first organization, and his inveterate hostility to the most able, upright and disinterested expounders of the constitution. Among these was Alexander Hamilton. The mode of attack upon this distinguished individual, and equally distinguished public benefactor, was no less insidious than it was unjust and calumnious. It was to represent him not only as unfriendly to the constitution, in the formation and adoption of which he was one of the intelligent, active, and influential agents, but as a monarchist-an enemy to republicanism itself. In the quotations which have already been made from his "Ana," he says General Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he professes to repeat declarations of a similar kind, made openly by General Hamilton at a dinner party, when Mr. Jefferson himself was present. Assertions of this kind, unsupported by any other evidence than his own declarations, are not worthy of credit. General Hamilton was too well acquainted with Mr. Jefferson's feeling toward him, and of his disposition to undermine and destroy him, thus voluntarily and unnecessarily to place himself in his power. In some instances, in the course of his "Ana," other names are introduced as corroborating witnesses in support of some of the charges against General Hamilton. It is difficult to disprove posthumous testimony by positive evidence, especially when the parties, as well as the witnesses, are in their graves; but several of the individuals, named by Mr. Jefferson as the persons from whom he derived a knowledge of the conversations and declarations of General Hamilton, will add no strength to the evidence; they are not worthy of belief in a case of this kind.

That General Hamilton was an enemy to the very nature of the government, in the formation of which he had assisted so zealously and so faithly, in procuring the adoption of which he had labored with as much talent, and with as much effect, as any other man in the United States, and in developing and establishing the great principles of which, his exertions were inferior to those of no other individual, will not at this late period be credited.

That Mr. Jefferson wished, by secret measures, and a train of artful and insidious means, to destroy his great rival, no person acquainted with his history, conduct, and character, can doubt. It comported with his policy to lay the charge of monarchical feelings and sentiments against him, because his object was to avail himself of the prejudices of the people against Great Britain, which the war of independence had excited, and which time had not allayed, to raise himself to popularity and power. When the French revolution had advanced far enough to enlist the feelings of a portion of our countrymen in their favour, on the ground that the nation was endeavoring to throw off a despotism, and establish a republican government, another portion of them considered the principles they avowed, and the course they pursued, as dangerous to the very existence of civilized society. Mr. Jefferson declares in his "Ana," as above quoted, that he "had left France in the first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights and zeal for reformation." His devotion to those rights, he says, " could not be heightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise. Accordingly he became, at a very early period, the leader of the party in this country, who, in the utmost warmth of feeling, espoused the cause of revolutionary France. To render himself the more conspicuous, he found it expedient to stigmatize those who entertained different sentiments from himself, as the enemies of republicanism, and of course, as the friends of monarchy. The meaning of this charge was, that they were the friends of Great Britain and the British government. Hence proceeded the charges of a monarchical propensity in Mr. Adams and General Hamilton, specimens of which have been already adduced. But it was soon found necessary to go greater lengths than this. To pave the way for a gradual attempt to undermine the popularity of General Washington, and to shake the public confidence in his patriotism and integrity, a similar effort was made to involve him in a similar accusation The plan adopted to accomplish this object, was to represent him as having a bias toward Great Britain, and against France. If Mr. Jefferson, who had espoused the side of revolutionary France, could succeed in making the country believe that General Washington had taken sides with Great Britain against France, in the great controversy that was then convulsing Europe, it would follow almost as a necessary consequence, that he would be considered as the enemy of freedom, and the friend of monarchical government. In his correspondence, published since his death, there is the following letter:

To P. MAZZET.

Monticello, April 24, 1796.

DEAR FRIEND; The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an Anglican monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our citizens, however, remain true to their republican principles: the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the EXECUTIVE, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake, and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors."

When this letter first appeared in the United States, it was in the following form:

"Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government which carried us through the dangers of the war, an anglo-monarchic-aristocratic party has arisen. Their avowed object is, to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form, of the British government. Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents. We have against us (republicans) the executive power, the judiciary, (two of the three branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all who are seeking for offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the bank, and public funds. [Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its worst parts.] I should give you a fever, if I should name the apostates who have embraced these heresies, men who were Solomons in council, and Samsons in combat, but whose hair has been cut off by the whore England.
"They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force. It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first slumbers which have succeeded our labors. It suffices that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude and injustice toward France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence."

It may easily be imagined, that the appearance of this extraordinary article in the United States, was calculated to disturb the feelings of Mr. Jefferson. Such an attack as it contained on the character of General Washington, as well as upon his coadjutors, could not pass unnoticed; and it obviously placed the writer of it in a perplexing and inextricable dilemma. Accordingly, in a letter addressed to Mr. Madison, dated August 3d, 1797, he thus unbosomed himself:

"The variety of other topics the day I was with you, kept out of sight the letter to Mazzei imputed to me in the papers, the general substance of which is mine, though the diction has been considerably altered and varied in the course of its translations from French into Italian, from Italian into French, and from French into English. I first met with it at Bladensburg, and for a moment conceived I must take the field of the public papers. I could not disavow it wholly, because the greatest part was mine in substance, though not in form. I could not avow it as it stood, because the form was not mine, and, in one place, the substance was very materially falsified. This, then, would render explanations necessary; nay, it would render proofs of the whole necessary, and draw me at length into a publication of all (even the secret) transactions of the administration, while I was of it; and embroil me personally with every member of the executive and the judiciary, and with others still. I soon decided in my own mind to be entirely silent. I consulted with several friends at Philadelphia, who, every one of them, were clearly against my avowing or disavowing, and some of them conjured me most earnestly to let nothing provoke me to it. I corrected, in conversation with them, a substantial misrepresentation in the copy published. The original has a sentiment like this, (for I have it not before me,) They are endeavoring to submit us to the substance, as they already have to the forms of the British government; meaning by forms, the birthdays, levees, processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. But the copy published says, 'as they have already submitted us to the form of the British,' &c.; making me express hostility to the form of our government, that is to say, to the constitution itself; for this is really the difference of the word form, used in singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English language. Now it would be impossible for me to explain this publicly, without bringing on a personal difference between General Washington and myself; which nothing before the publication of this letter has ever done. It would embroil me also with all those with whom his character is still popular, that is to say, with nine-tenths of the United States; and what good would be obtained by avowing the letter with the necessary examinations? Very little, indeed, in my opinion, to counterbalance a good deal of harm. From my silence in this instance, it cannot be inferred that I am afraid to own the general sentiments of the letter. If I am subject to either imputation, it is to avowing such sentiments too frankly both in private and public, often when there is no necessity for it, merely because I disdain every thing like duplicity. Still, however, I am open to conviction. Think for me on the occasion, and advise me what to do, and confer with Colonel Monroe on the subject."

This letter, take which version of it we may, discloses the secret of Mr. Jefferson's policy. It was to represent the federal party as monarchists, and aristocrats, enemies to republicanism, and therefore devoted to the interests of Great Britain, and hostile to those of France. No man ever understood more perfectly the effect of names upon the minds of partisans, than this great champion of modern republicanism; and hence he informs his friend Mazzei, that the Federalists were a body of Monarchic-Aristocrats, and himself and his friends were Republicans.

Nobody will be surprised to find, that the publication of his letter in the newspapers of the United States, gave Mr. Jefferson uneasiness. The man who had the hardihood to accuse General Washington with being an aristocrat and a monarchist, and particularly, with being devoted to British influence and interests, must have possessed a degree of mental courage not often found in the human constitution. And it is perfectly apparent that this was the circumstance which so greatly embarrassed him, when determining the important question whether it would be most for his own advantage to come before the public, and endeavour to explain away the obvious meaning of his letter, or to observe a strict, and more prudent silence and leave the world to form their own conclusions. He finalIy resolved on the latter, making his explanations only to his confidential friends, and leaving them in such a form, that they might pass, with his other posthumous works, to future generations.

A little attention to the subject will show, that he adopted the most prudent course. Mr. Jefferson's attempt to give a different meaning to his own language, is entirely unsatisfactory. In the letter, as first published in the newspapers, it is said - "Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us." In the version of it in his posthumous works, it is - "The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us." Not having the original, either in Italian or French, it is not practicable at this time to say which is most correct. But there is a material difference between the expressions "Our political condition," and "the aspect of our politics." The first has an immediate and obvious reference to the situation of the country at large, as connected with the general government, and the character of that government; the other relates merely to the measures of the government. The first, if in any degree to be deplored, must be considered as permanent; the last, as referring to mere legislative acts, which in their nature were transitory. The next sentence shows, conclusively, that it was the character of the government, and not merely its measures, that were alluded to. "Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government, which carried us through the dangers of the war, an Anglo-Monarchic-Aristocratic party has arisen." The "republican government which carried us through the dangers of the war," was the "old confederation," as it is usually called. The change that had taken place was in the system of government - in the substitution of something else in the place of the confederation. By turning back to Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Adams, dated November 13th, 1787, we shall find him using the following language - "How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed." He then enumerates several objections, and says" I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabric, which should have been preserved even as a religions relique." It is obvious, therefore, that his affections were placed on the "good, old" confederation; and when he complains of the prodigious alteration that had taken place in our political condition since Mr. Mazzei had left us, he must have had reference to the new constitution.

This is further manifest from the language which immediately follows. He declares in the letter as first published, that the "avowed object of the party to which he has alluded, is, to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form of the British government." In the letter as published in his works, he blends the two sentences together, and after mentioning the Anglo party, varies the passage above quoted, by saying - "whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government." The British government consists of three estates - a hereditary monarchy, a hereditary House of Peers, and an elective House of Commons or in other words, of King, Lords, and Commons. Our government consists of a President, Senate, and... (continued in Issue the Eleventh).

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Christian Almanac,

published in 1864 by The American Tract Society

A Touchtone

By this one mark you may know whether the sins of your lives, be they great or small, are certain proofs of an unconverted heart or not. In every truly converted man, the main bent of his heart and life is against sin, and his chief desire and endeavor are to destroy it. In others it is not so. Whatever kind of sinning therefore is inconsistent with such a desire and endeavor, will prove that man to be unconverted and graceless who commits it. How far a man's sin is with or against the predominant bent of his own heart and life, he may discern by diligent observation. Baxter.

The Sin of the church Today

If asked to point out the sin of the church in the present day, we cannot hesitate to say that it is a pervading worldliness of mind, heart, and conduct. It is not only in the way of doing business that this is seen, but in the general habits and tastes of professing Christians. Their style of living, their associations, their amusements, their conversation, show a minding of earthly things, a disposition to conform to prevailing fashions, and an apparent desire to seek their hapiness from objects of sense rather than from those of faith, which prove the extent to which a secular spirit is bearing down the spirit of piety, and breaking up those distinctions whereby believers are known as that "peculiar people whose God is the Lord. Jay.

News From Home ...

Reprinted from The Kanzas News published during the years 1850-1870

Saturday, September 29, 1860

Simple Preaching

A reporter of the Christian Intelligencer, writing from Saratoga, speaks as follows:

"One of the most delightful acquaintances I have formed at the Springs this season was Judge McLean, of United States Court. I was specially interested in his criticisms on preaching. "We want," said he, "more simple, practical sermons--right to the conscience--made lively by Scripture, history and incidents. I like an occasional anecdote, if well put; for our Savior spoke in parables. But I cannot abide dry, abstract discussions, or cold homilies.-- Preaching should be piquant and popular, and suited to 'common people.'

Saturday, June 30, 1860

The Madison (Iowa) Plaindealer says that a poor miserable wretch living near Farmington, in Van Buren county, while horribly blaspheming God, on Sunday last, for withholding rain from his suffering crops, was suddenly struck with palsy, and almost immediately, expired.

Saturday, October 27, 1860

It is the opinion of the doctor that the lawyer gets his living by plunder, while the lawyer thinks the doctor gets his by 'pill-age.'

Issue the Eleventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Dreaded Scott Decision...

Land vs. Real Property, Part One...

A Message to The Postmaster-General ...

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

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God...

The Long Road Out of Commerce...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

The Dreaded Scott Decision

by The Staff of the Christian Jural Society News

Note: This article is designed to complement and supplement the article by John Joseph in last month's News, entitled "Sanford v. The Justices of Maine."

Recently, a Reader in Northern California gave us some very interesting cites from a book called: "Looking for America: The People's History." By Stanley I. Kutler, Volume 1, to 1865. Published by Canfield Press, San Francisco.

The cites are manumission papers filed in various Virginia courts, wherein, black people freed black slaves they owned.

Wait a minute! One black man owns a black slave, and sets him free? Yes, that is precisely what the sources say, which, of course, is contrary to the modern view of history. Further, there are several such manumission papers cited in the work - from a black slave-owners to their black slaves.

There is even a case where a black woman manumits her black slave. Imagine that, a woman owning property - in those days - and the property happens to be a man, no less. This is certainly contrary to modern experts view of history.

But, the bombshell is, the cites are writs found in the court records of Virginia. What??? In a Southern state??? You heard right, in Virgina.

One manumission paper reads as follows:

"John Updike to Reuben Rhenalds.
Know all men by these presents that I John Updike (a free man of color) of the town of Petersburg in the State of Virginia have manumitted, emancipated, and set free, and do by these presents manumit, emancipate, and set free a certain Negro man named Rheuben Rhenalds, lately purchased by me from Shadrach Brander, so that the said Rheuben Rhenalds shall be and remain free from this time henceforth forever. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my seal and delivered to the said Rheuben Rhenalds this his deed of emancipation this 17th day of November, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one."
John Updike

!!! That's pre-Civil War 1831 !!!

There are several key elements of this cite that are relevant to the infamous blasphemy of the Dred Scot decision. First, note the slave owner is as a 'free man,' not freeman. The term 'free man,' is not the same as freeman, or freedman, both of which mean a former slave or bondperson.

Second, note that the cite specifically says that the slave owner is not just a free man but, a 'free man of color,' not negro, black, or African. Further, in other cites (pg. 303) involving 'free persons of color' freeing their black slaves, such slave owners are also styled as 'people of color,' 'persons of color,' or a man or woman 'of color.'

Thus, free black people, persons, men, or women, who owned property, that may include slaves, who were free inhabitants, were denoted by the phrase 'of color.' Whether 'of color' applied to free inhabitants who were yellow or red, is not yet confirmed in our research.

Third, note that the black slave was called a 'Negro slave.' The word 'Negro' was used in all these cites when referring to the slave.

Clearly, in some state laws there was a distinct difference between the way black people were referred to in the law, based upon whether they were free inhabitants, or slaves.

Is there another source wherein this same analysis holds, i.e., in court cases? Sure enough, in 44 Maine 505, we find a number of statements to support the notes we have made above.

The case came up after the infamous Dred Scott case. It was heard at the specific request of the Senate of Maine, to determine if free colored persons of African descent had a right to vote in Maine as they had been doing all along - before Dred Scott vs. Sanford.

The Maine case is key for a variety of reasons.

First, it details the fact that prior to the Constitution, while the states were still under the Articles of Confederation, most state constitutions made no specific reference to a distinction between people of color and everyone else, while some states did make such distinctions.

This was true in both the North and the South. Thus, a free inhabitant was a free inhabitant in every sense of the word, without regard to their skin color. But, after the Constitution for the united States became effective, several states made changes to their state constitutions that did make distinctions between people of color and whites.

Such states were found both in the North and the South. Thus, in the orginal constitutions of New York (1777), New Jersey (1776), and Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776) voting law was general and liberal towards all. But, after the Constitution for the united States was passed, these same states amended their constitutions with respect to people of color.

In New York (1821), New Jersey (1844), and Maryland (1801) and in other states, this was the case. Maryland and North Carolina, however, in its amendments of 1801 and 1835 respectively, excluded non-whites from voting.

The reasons for these changes are not clear, except for the fact that many states were beginning to worry that the Federal power may be over-stepping its boundaries in matters of state jurisdiction, especially in the light of the growing abolitionist movements that were springing up. States that excluded people of color may have done so as a reaction to these events.

But, Maine came into the union after the Constitution was adopted, in 1820, before which it was a part of Massachusetts. In the debate over the Constitution of Maine, the color issue was raised and rejected.

In these debates, a Mr. Holmes summed up the position against provisions regarding color when he said;

" ... I know of no difference between the rights of the negro and the white man; God Almighty has made none - our declaration of rights has made none. That declares that 'all men' (without regard to colors) 'are born equally free and independent.'"

At any rate, 44 Maine 505, in the majority opinion says:

"Free colored male persons, of African descent, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, having a residence established in some town or plantation in this state three months next preceding any election, and who are not paupers, aliens, nor persons under guardianship, are authorized under the provisions of the constitution of this state, to be electors for governor, senators, and representatives."

This view of things was supported by five of the courts seven justices. Another justice, also in favor of the elective rights of people of color also wrote an extended opinion in support of the majority opinion.

Only one justice in the Supreme Court of Maine wrote in defense of a contrary view, but, he was the only justice who supported a denial of the elective right for people of color.

The point is, there was a distinct difference between free inhabitants who were black, and negro slaves, and this distinction was clear in the Maine case and in other state constitutions.

Because of this distinction, people of color were viewed as citizens who could vote and hold all the other rights of suffrage, etc..

Now, compare the Maine case with what was said in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wherein, we find Chief Justice Taney saying the following in the case summary at the beginning of the decision.

"4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit."

First, note that Taney uses the phrase 'free negro' when referring to black people, a term not used in any of the state laws that we have seen on the elective rights of the states citizens.

Second, he says that such 'free negroes' are not a 'citizen,' again, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Third, Taney says that when the Constitution was adopted, 'they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.'

It is clear from the evidence in the Maine case that they were regarded as members of the community which constituted the State.

In other words, all three of Taney's statements in the above are patently false on the basis of clear evidence to the contrary that he must have known about, because the evidence was seen in all the state's constitutions that are mentioned in 44 Maine, 505.

Note also, that Taney blurs the distinction between free inhabitants 'of color' and the word 'negro' which was applied almost exclusively to slaves.

Now, it has been the practice of the Supreme Court to take into account state laws, customs and usages, from the inception of such Court. Yet, Taney makes no mention of the many states whose laws, customs, and usages were contrary to his view of things.

There are many people today, who decry the Supreme Court's practice of legislating from the bench, but, Taney's decision and reasoning here are clear evidence that such a practice has been going on far longer than most people believe.

Next, there is the problem of the Court's ruling on 'political questions,' which the Court has sought to distance itself from.

Thus, it is now, and has been the practice of the Supreme Court to steer clear of cases involving what are deemed to be political questions. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court each time someone tries to bring up the un-constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. They refuse to rule on such matters time and again, because such a challenge is deemed by the Court to be a 'political question.'

Of course, the Supreme Court has also said that the 14th Amendment has been law too long to do away with now, short of a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, the whole modern infra-structure of the corporate federal, state, county, and city governments would collapse without the underpinnings of the 14th Amendment.

To put it bluntly, the entire humanistically based, military government that now is, would cease to have any pretense of a right to exist, if the 14th Amendment was done away with.

But, as we have pointed out elsewhere, what the Supreme Court says, really doesn't matter, because it has been a captive instrument of the Commander-in-Chief since the Merriman decision in 1863.

But, be that as it may, the Maine case is significant for at least one other reason. Because it gives evidence that states in both the North and South would, when ever they sought to do so, contradict and even defy the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Maine case is evidence that there was not only discontent in the South with the government in Washington, D.C., but in the North as well.

The Maine case was one more reason justifying A. Lincoln's usurpation of power in 1860-61. Without the military arm of the federal government to call upon, it is evident that given a few more years, the United States government would have ceased to exist as we now know it.

Only by wielding massive military power against the States in the bloodiest war this nation and its people have ever been involved in, could the entity that was the Federal Government survive.

The Dred Scott decision, as specious and contrived as it is, was sufficient justification for everything the abolitionists, Lincoln, and the Northern states wanted, to start the War Against All States, create a new form of government, and suppress all resistance in the States.

We must ask ourselves why the Constitution was so inadequate to fulfil the purposes for which it was designed?

The answer is, it was fully sufficient to do the job for which it was designed so long as - and only so long as - the people of states were consistently and self-consciously Christian.

When Christian teaching began to die after the genocide of The Black Brigade, it was totally inadequate to meet the exigencies of a growing nation and torrent of immigrants that flooded into the land.

Only a full-orbed faith in Christ in which His Law is absolute in all areas of life, can any nation exist without a military force to govern it.

The only alternatives are then, Christ or the gun.

There are many today who are calling for a new Constitutional convention, as if amending a piece of 'mere parchment' were the answer.

Assuming the military power that now resides in Washington , D.C., were to permit such a convention to take place (and there is every reason to believe that they would not), what can possibly result from such a convention except an even greater abomination, so long as the Christians in this land are so perverted in their understanding and knowledge of the Scripture and the nature and purpose of civil government as God has given it to us in His Word???

The whole point of the effort here at The Christian Jural Society News is not merely to inform, or educate, but to promote and support in every possible way, the fostering of a reconstructed view of Christian civil government.

This is why we promote and propagate information on Christian Jural Societies.

Without a full-orbed Christianity, in which the Law Word of Jesus Christ and the Scripture is applied - without compromise - to every area of life - including civil government - then we will find Ourselves in short order, in a new era of darkness and tyranny that is unprecedented in the world's history, and the Dark Ages will be upon us, the Christians of the 21st Century.

Land vs. Real Property

by John Joseph

Many inquiries have been made recently about "land," and what the King's Men plan on doing about recovering it. First, it is not the responsibility of the King's Men to solve every Christian's problems. That has already been done by God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. What follows is the theory of the case regarding the status quo of most of the titles today. All of what is said here applies to all Christians. Read, know and understand 44 Maine 505 for the rest of this story, because God is no respecter of persons.

This article follows closely the Scriptural battle plan: The time is now for all Good and Lawful Christian Men to claim their Inheritance, because;

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Lk 12:48;

and,

"It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave [Christian] liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them." Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), H. Niles, editor;

"Look forward also to distant posterity. Figure to yourselves millions and millions to spring from your loins, who may be born freemen or slaves, as Heaven shall now approve or reject your councils. Think, that on you it may depend, whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and inlightened people, enjoying Liberty and all its comcomitant blessings, together with the Religion of Jesus, as it flows uncorrupted from his holy oracles; or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness." Rev. Provost Smith, in a sermon given in 1775.

We must start by executing the Testament of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for a testament is of no effect without execution:

"If you love Me, keep My Commandments"; Jn 14:15
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you"; Mat 6:33
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"; Mat 28:18
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art [Your Name], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [have given] unto thee [Your Name] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"; Mat 16:16
"Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you [Your Name]"; Jn 20:21
"first bind the [evil] strong man"; Mar 3:27
And then spoil the house in which the changers of money sit and drive them all out of the temple [government seat, and your heart], pour out the changers' money, and overthrow their tables [benches, banks]; and tell them 'take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise [commerce--walking with Mercurius]'; Jn 2:15-16
then, "Occupy till I come"; Luk 19:13
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mar 16:15
"Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever."; Isa. 32:16
so: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Brother Paul's Letter to our Brothers at Ephesus, 1:17-23.
"To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Brother Peter's First Letter, 5:11.

The basis of this argument is found in the following Scriptural references:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." Num 26:52-56.
"So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." Num 35:7 & 9. [You shall not put your inheritance in the hands of the priesthood of government.]
"The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them." De 17:1-2.

Probably the largest misconception in the Law Reform movement concerns what constitutes title. We are so deluged with paper, certificates, and the like--all which evidence commercial activity or nature of the item described on them--but none of these are evidence of any thing outside the venue of the lex mercatoria, the law merchant. They are not evidence of title in Law. They are simply rebuttable, because in Law they are defective. This is the reason for "title insurance." Now, take careful note of what constitutes true title in Law:

"250. Title is the means by which the ownership of real property [or land] is acquired and held. This is either:
"(a) By descent, or
"(b) By purchase.
"The fact which in any case gives or creates ownership over real property [or land] is called title. Title signifies the manner in which estates and interests in land are acquired. At the beginning of real property law in any country there must be an original acquisition of title to land. After title has been thus acquired all subsequent acquisitions of title to the same land must be by transfer of the title.
"Descent and Purchase.
"All titles are said to be acquired by descent or by purchase. Purchase means more than mere buying, it includes acquisition of title by devise or by gift. In short title by purchase means title acquired in all ways except by descent." Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 399. [Emphasis added.]

Please take notice of those two key words italicized in the above definition of title--manner and means. These two words are key to establishing superior title in Law--not the piece of paper purporting to be "title." But what does all this have to do with my "real property" or "real estate"? Let us look at some words We see bandied about, like "real estate":

"REAL ESTATE is a compound that has no proper place in the language of every day life, where it is a pretentious intruder from the technical province of law." White, Words and their Uses (1889), p. 150.
"PHARISEE. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]
"FICTUS (finctus, T.) adj., [P. of fingo], feigned, fictitious, false: si vanum aut finctumst, T: in amicitia nihil fictum est: in re ficta (opp. In vera): imago, O.: di: vox, falsehood, O.: in rebus fictis gemitus, O.: ficto pectore fatur, V.--Of a person: pro bene sano fictum vocamus, false, H." C. T. Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary (1891), p. 324.

Now let us look at Scripture about pretentious intruders:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Jn 10:1.

Pharisees, thieves, "real estate" speculators, and robbers have a language all their own. That language has infected our own so that We are now learning what should have been Ours. The words now have the meaning of those used by thieves and robbers. Now what does all this have to do with your "real property?" Just about everything. Notice the difference between "land" and "property":

"The word 'property' when applied to land embraces all titles, legal or equitable, perfect, or imperfect." Teschmacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11.

"Land" is not "real property" nor "real estate." "What?!?!?!?! But, but, but" Land is:

"Land in its legal signification has an indefinite extent upward." Lux v. Haggin, 69 C. 255, 392, 4 P. 919, 10 P. 674.

Did you ever hear this from your local shyster, "real estate" agent, philosopher, or minister? "Property" then is a form of title, which could either be perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium]. But perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium] against whom? This the key question that has never been answered. In deed, it can only be answered in reference to the venue in which the title sits. In other words situs both of the character of the owner of property and where the title sits is everything. These two factors determine the quality and character of the title.

"Real property" then is your interest or right in the land, but remember, this is qualified or conditional, and not absolute. The means or manner by which you, "in character," acquire any object determines the quality of the right or interest you acquire in the object.

Much has been said in the past about "land patents" issued by the federal government. Well, I suppose they could be valid, but they pre-suppose that the federal government had the absolute title to convey. A patent does not establish the fact that the government had title at all. See Musser v. McRea, 38 Minn. 409. So that the patent itself is open to collateral attack the same as any other muniment which purports to convey possessory rights. See Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190. So patents themselves are not the answer, either. They are merely more pieces of paper which get in the way of entering the Kingdom of God. Paper is not title.

Today's property titles are resurrected from the old Roman system, which recognized bona fide use and enjoyment, but title or control remained in the State.

(To be continued next month)

A Message to The Postmaster-General

by Bruce Alan

The following is a letter written this month by Bruce Alan of Washington state, to The Postmaster-General in Washington city. We commend Bruce Alan for his perseverance and exactness in addressing this situation. This letter is one that should be studied and understood by all who read it and we recommend that those who are having similar problems with General Delivery follow the lead of Bruce Alan with a letter of similar form and content.

Marvin Runyon
Postmaster-General
Post Office Department

Dear Sir:

I am addressing you in your capacity as the Postmaster-General of The Post Office Department. As a Good and Lawful Christian, my traditionally vested right in General Delivery has been repeatedly denied to me by the Postal Service. As stated in the Domestic Mail Manual (D930), General Delivery is intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently located. The Domestic Mail Manual also states that Postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers. The Postal Service has no legal authority to restrict the use of General Delivery to transients. I have maintained my status as transient at every opportunity when talking to employees of the Postal Service. Every person I have talked to at the Postal Service refuses to recognize my status and most of the time they refuse to talk to me, period.

I would like you to know what I have been going through and how I have been treated by the Postal Service. The Postmaster, of the Carlsborg Post Office, accused me of being an anti-government person (at the front desk in front of other people waiting in line) because I did not wish to use a zip code as part of the address on a letter I was mailing. After receiving my postal matter at General Delivery for approximately six months, without ever being required to show identification, I was told by the Postmaster that I could no longer receive mail at General Delivery. I was told that General Delivery was only temporary and my time limit was up. I asked for the regulations that gave her the authority to deny me General Delivery and she said that she did not have the time. I then showed her a copy of the Domestic Mail Manual and asked her to show me where it stated that General Delivery is only temporary. As she looked over the copy of the Domestic Mail Manual I had presented her with, she noticed that General Delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before mail is given to them. She immediately asked to see some identification from me and I replied, "I am not a customer. I am a transient and only customers may be required." To this day I have been repeatedly denied General Delivery mail because I maintain my venue as transient and therefore not required to show identification. I was well known to the Postmaster and the clerks.

Since the Postmaster at the Carlsborg Post Office refused to give me mail or any written documentation for her actions against me, I tried to contact the Postmaster-General's office in Washington city, District of Columbia and could only get person in the Postal Service named Mickey Moriary at 202-268-2000. She told me that General Delivery was only temporary and she referred to the Firm Holdouts section of the Domestic Mail Manual where it states the postmaster may cancel firm holdout service when mail volume falls below the 50-piece requirement on each delivery day over a 30-day period. I asked her how regulations on firm holdouts can be used to regulate General Delivery, but she would not elaborate. This is a clear and obvious attempt by the Postal Service to mislead and deceive the public. This kind of behavior is an abuse of power and is therefore a public nuisance.

The manager of the Postal Service in Seattle called me a week or two later, his name is Terry Hagel at 206-417-6097, saying that he had heard that I was having a problem at the Post Office in Carlsborg. He alleged that General Delivery was only temporary and that they could not have everyone coming into the Post Office to get their mail because it would be too much of a burden on the clerks. I asked him where in the Domestic Mail Manual it states that General Delivery is temporary, he could not and would not tell me. I then read to him from the Domestic Mail Manual word for word the regulations for General Delivery. I explained to him that I was not a customer and maintained my venue and jurisdiction as transient. He said that that was only my opinion and if I did not like his decision then it would be a matter for the attorneys. He did agree to send me a letter with the regulations, and since I had already received mail for six months without having to show identification, he would instruct the Carlsborg Postmaster to give me the letter and any other mail that was there. Several days later he called me back to tell me I would only be allowed mail if I could show identification. I told him that I would not be able to do that and I asked him why I was getting this kind of run around. I did not get an answer to that question or any other. I told him I would not show identification until the Postal Service showed me the regulation giving them authority over transients. He would not give me any more information; that was it.

While being deprived of my mail at the Carlsborg Post Office, I went to the Sequim Post Office and was greeted very nicely. I was informed at my first visit that I did not need to fill out an application for General Delivery and that I did not need identification. This went on for a month without any problems. Then after about a week after talking to Jerry Hagel, I went to the Sequim Post Office to pick up my postal matter at General Delivery and I was told that I needed to show identification. I asked to see the Postmaster and he also said I had to show identification. I asked him if he would show me what regulation required me to show identification. He said he did not have the time and that he would make a copy and I could get it the next time I came in. I told him that only customers were required to show identification and that I was not a customer. This clearly irritated the Postmaster because he immediately stood up from his desk, walked over to me and asked me if I wanted to leave the easy way or the hard way. I elected the easy way and as I walked through the doorway, I turned and said, "God Bless you," to him, and he slammed the door.

As a Good and Lawful Christian, I must obey the Laws of Scripture, which repeatedly points out, that, as Christians, We are 'sojourners.' As a Christian I must come out and be separate from the things of this world, for my kingdom is in Heaven. I am only here for a short time, and then I will be united in the Spirit of God for everlasting more. I therefore consider myself transient; One who or that which is temporary. I can not be compelled to accept a status which disparages and falsely describes me, i.e., customer, and I can not be compelled to accept a benefit, i.e., free delivery or a Post Office Box. The use of the Post Office Department's General Delivery is a traditionally vested right which is an immediate incorporeal fixed right of present or future enjoyment established and vested by tradition and usage among Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women from time immemorial.

I hope this letter finds you in good health and Spirit. I pray you will consider this matter worthy enough for your time. I know that I am not alone in this, and many Christians around the country are going through the same hardships. We can only serve one Master and as a Christian, I must follow God's Law. There is no higher Law. This letter will be used to spread the word and wake others up to the Truth.

God Bless you and all that read these words, Bruce Alan

Thomas Jefferson:

Friend or Foe of Christian America?

Part Three

(continued from Issue the Tenth)

...House of Representatives-all elective, though for different periods. One objection urged, on various occasions, against the adoption of the constitution, was its resemblance, in the particulars just mentioned, to the British government. Among others, Mr. Jefferson was pointedly opposed to the re-eligibility of the executive. He compared it to the case of the king of Poland, and thought there ought to have been a provition prohibiting the re-election of any individual to that office. The people of the states, however,Concluded that their liberties would not be exposed to any imminent hazard, under a system where all the officers, executive and legislative, were elective, and they took the constitution as it was. And great as Mr. Jefferson's fears of danger to freedom were from this quarter, he eventually overcame them so far as to suffer himself to bc placed in the office of chief magistrate twice, without any apparent misgivings of mind or conscience. Now it is scarcely possible for any unbiased mind to believe, that lie had not immediate reference to this part of our constitution, when he remarked, that the Anglo- Anarchic - Aristocratic" party were endeavouring to impose upon the nation "the substance, as the~ had already given it the form, of the British government." These three cardinal branches of the British government, viz." Kings, Lords, and Commons," are all the form there is to that government. All the residue of what is called by themselves their constitution, consists of unwritten and prescriptive usages, sometimes called laws of parliament, which never were reduced to form, and certainly never were adopted in the form of a constitution.

Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Madison, attempts to give a totally different meaning to this part of his letter. He says, "The original has a sentiment like this, (for I have it riot before me,) They arc endeavouring to submit us to the substance, as they already have to the forms, of the British government; meaning by forms, the birth-days, levees, processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. For this is really the meaning of the word form, used in the singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English language." We do not believe that any person, well acquainted with the English language, ever made use of such an awkward and senseless expression as that above cited - They are endeavouring to submit us to the substance. As Mr. Jefferson always was considered a scholar, the internal evidence derived from this singular phraseology is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that it was adopted here for the occasion.

But the application of the expression form, or even forms, of the British government, to the practise of observing birth-days, holding levees, of moving in procession to parliament, or the pomposities of inaugurations, is downright absurdity. These ceremonious customs are no part of the government, either in Great Britain, or in the United States. They may be childish, they may be pompous, they may be servile and adulatory, but they are not proceedings, either in form or substance, of the government. Nor has the word form or forms any such legitimate meaning. This explanation was doubtless contrived for future use, and not to be made public and it is not at all surprising that Mr. Jefferson found there were serious how difficulties in the way of a public exposure of his meaning, if this was all the explanation he had to give. The course he adopted, which was to observe a strict silence, was far more discreet. A more weak and unsatisfactory attempt to evade a plain and obvious difficulty has rarely been made.

The next sentence in the letter as first published is, "Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents." In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works, it stands thus "The main body of our citizens, ever, remain true to their republican principles; the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents." Now it may be safely said, that no mistake in translation can possibly account for the diversity that appears in these two sentences. Without noticing the difference between the first and last members of the two sentences, the expression - "the whole landed interest is republican" - is entirely wanting in the letter as first published. This must have been will- fully suppressed in the first letter, if it was in the original circumstance that is not to be credited, because no possible motive can be assigned for such an act. The inference then must be, that it was introduced into the copy left for posthumous publication, to help the general appearance of mistranslation, and to counten- ance and give plausibility to other alterations of more importance. The letter as first published, then proceeds- " We have against us (republicans) the Executive Power, the Judiciary, (two of the three branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all who are seeking for offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the Bank and Public Funds, Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its corrupt parts.] In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works, it stands thus- "Against us are the executive, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the article published in the form of a letter to Mazzei, in Mr. Jefferson's works, from which the last extract is taken, is not a correct transcript of the original, but was prepared to answer a specific purpose. No person will be persuaded that Mr. Jefferson ever called the executive and the judiciary "two out of three branches of the legislature." The language of the letter first published is correct- " two of the three branches of our government." Again he says, "speculators and holders in the banks." There was but one national bank, and reference must be made to national banks alone. The first letter has it correctly- the Bank. The fact that banks are mentioned in the last, is decisive proof that the first is the most accurate translation.

There is an expression here which is so strikingly characteristic of the author, that it ought not to pass unnoticed. Mr. Jefferson says, "We have against us republicans - all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." In the second letter it is "the boisterous sea of liberty." It will be borne in mind, the "timid men" here spoken of, were not inhabitants of France, or England, but of these United States, then under the mild, and peaceable, and prosperous influence of the government which they had so recently adopted, and the beneficial effects of which they were then realizing in a most gratifying degree. That a man of his temperament should call such a state of things, under such a government, the calm of despotism, is not a little extraordinary. But it will be recollected, that in a letter quoted in the former part of this work, when speaking of the insurrection in Massachusetts, he said, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."- "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." After reading these sentiments and expressions, no person can be surprised to find that Mr. Jefferson should prefer the tumults, the distresses, and the bloodshed of insurrections, to the peace, the tranquillity, and the social happiness, which are enjoyed under a mild, beneficent, ill-regulated, and well-administered government. No man of sound mind, and virtuous principles, will envy him his choice.

But the most extraordinary expression in this letter is the declaration, that the republicans, that is, Mr. Jefferson and his political partizans, were opposed by the executive and the judiciary. When this allegation was made, and it is contained in both versions of the letter, the chief executive magistrate of the United States was GEORGE WASHINGTON. George Washington led the armies of the United States through the revolutionary war; and during the whole of that arduous and distressing conflict, discovered military skill and talents of the highest order. Under all circumstances, and in all situations, he manifested the most pure and devoted patriotism ; and after having seen his country victorious, and its independence acknowledged, even by the adversary with whom be had so brig and so successfully contended, in a manner that excited the surprise and the admiration not only of his own country, but of the civilized world, he surrendered the power with which he had been clothed, and which he had so long exercised, into the hands of those from whom he received it, and retired to private life amidst the applauses, and loaded with the gratitude and benedictions of his fellow citizens. When it was found that the government which had carried the nation through the war, was insufficient for the exigencies of peace, he again lent his whole talents and influence to the formation and adoption of a new system, better calculated for the wants, arid better suited to the promotion of the great interests of the union. As soon as that system was adopted by the nation, he was called by the spontaneous, and unanimous voice of his countrymen, to the office of chief magistrate; which call was renewed, with the same unanimity, on a second occasion; at the end of which, after having addressed his fellow citizens in a train of the warmest affection, the purest patriotism, and the most elevated political morality and eloquence, he declined being again a candidate for office, and crowned with the highest honours which a free people could confer on their most respected and revered citizen, bade a final adieu to all further active engagement in the public affairs of the government and country. The life of this great man passed without a stain. The annals of nations contain no account of a more unimpeachable character, either in military or civil life. And what adds much to the splendour of his reputation, he was as highly distinguished as a statesman, as he had previously been as a soldier. In both he was illustrious in the most exalted sense of the word; while in private life, lie was, in an exemplary degree, amiable and virtuous, beloved by his most intimate friends, and respected and venerated by an enlarged and highly respectable circle of neighbours arid acquaintance.

Such was the man who was stigmatized in this letter to a foreigner, residing in a distant quarter of the globe, as a member of an "Anglo- monarchic-aristocratic party" in this country, whose "avowed object was to impose on us the substance, as they had already given us the form, of the British government." General Washington's republicanism is here expressly denied, notwithstanding he had risked more, suffered more, and made greater exertions, to support and establish the republican character, principles, and government of his country, than any other individual in it.

After having thus attempted to fix upon General Washington the reproach of being a monarchist, and of enmity to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Jefferson proceeds to say of the monarchical party, of which he obviously considered General Washington as the head.

They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt against us by force." In the letter, as published in his works, this passage stands thus : " In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us." In the first place, it may be again remarked, that no man, even of ordinary understanding and capacity, Will ever believe that the difference of phraseology between these two versions of this part of the letter, was caused by a mere mistake in the translation. The first implies a full expectation that force might be used to destroy our liberties . It says, "They would wrest from us that liberty," &C The second, that we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained," &c. without a suggestion of any attempt to wrest it from us.

The letter, however, stales the manner in which our liberties are to be preserved. It says- "It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first slumbers which have succeeded our labours." In the letter in the published works, this sentence is thus expressed- "We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first step which succeeded our labors." This can be considered in no other light, than that of referring to the Constitution of the United States. It has already appeared, by the language used in a variety of instances in his letters that have been quoted, that Mr. Jefferson had strong objections to the constitution, and that in his judgment, '' all that was good in it might have been included in three or four aries," added to the old confederation. As it was, the government was too strong for his taste. The first slumbers which succeeded the labours of the country in achieving its independence, must mean the period between the peace of 1783, and the adoption of the constitution. This constitution was "the Lilliputian tie" by which the nation had been bound, while in a fit of drowsiness; but which must be broken, to insure its safety from bondage. This passage will assist the community in forming a just estimate of Mr. Jefferson's regard for the constitution, and of the government which it provided, and over which he was destined at a future day to preside. This constitution General Washington assisted in forming. He recommended it strongly to the adoption of the country; and he devoted his great talents and influence for eight years to the development of its principles, and the establishment of its operations; and was laboriously engaged in these patriotic labours at the moment when Mr. Jefferson was thus secretly calumniating his character, and impeaching his integrity; and at the same time declaring, that our liberties could only be preserved by the destruction of the constitution.

But Mr. Jefferson had still another machine to make use of in accomplishing our deliverance from the dangers with which our liberties were surrounded, and by which our freedom was threatened. "It suffices," says the letter first published, " that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude, and injustice towards France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence," &c.

Here is to be found the great governing principle of Mr. Jefferson's political conduct. - It was FRIENDSHIP FOR FRANCE and ENMITY TO GREAT BRITAIN. Those who did not adopt his sentiments, and pursue his system of policy, were monarchists and aristocrats; and those who agreed with him, and placed themselves under his direction and influence, were republicans.

It should he mentioned as one of the singular circumstances which attend this letter, that the sentence last quoted from it is entirely omitted in that published in the posthumous works. It would seem very strange that the person who translated Mr. Mazzci's letter, should not only have added this sentence, and then finished with an as if there had been something still further, if as Mr. Jefferson would have it understood by leaving a copy of it to be published after his death, no such sentence was in the original.

That this attack upon the reputation of General Washington, was the result of a political calculation, and intended to answer the selfish and ambitious purposes of Mr. Jefferson, cannot for a moment be doubted. It has been seen, that General Washington, at the first organization of the government, appointed him Secretary of State. Mr. Jefferson's letters, on various occasions, are full of expressions of respect and regard for General Washington. He left that office at the close of the year 1793, and retired to his residence at Monticello, in Virginia . There he wrote, in 1818, the first article in that collection of "Ana," as it now stands in his book. This, it will be observed, was more than twenty years after the date of his letter to Mazzei. In that, when speaking of General Hamilton's influence, arising from the Bank, and other measures, and alluding to his monarchical principles, he says-" Here then was the real ground of the opposition which was made to the course of his administration. Its object was to preserve the legislature pure and independent of the executive, to restrain the administration to republican forms and principles, and not permit the constitution to be construed into a monarchy, and to be warped in practice, into all the principles and pollutions of their favorite English model. Nor was this an opposition to General Washington. He was true to the republican charge confided to him; and has solemnly and repeatedly protested to me, in our conversation, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it."

In the month of February, 1791, the House of Representatives of the United States passed a resolution calling on the Secretary of State [Mr. Jefferson] "to report to congress the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which be should think proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same." This report was not delivered until December, 1793; and on the last day of that month Mr. Jefferson resigned his office. On the 4th of January following, the house resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the report above alluded to, "when Mr. Madison laid on the table a series of resolutions for the consideration of the members."

"These memorable resolutions," says Judge Marshall, in his Life of Washington, " almost completely embraced the idea of the report. They imposed an additional duty on the manufactures, and on the tonnage of vessels, of nations having no commercial treaty with the United States; while they reduced the duties already imposed by law on the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations having such commercial treaty; and they reciprocated the restrictions which were imposed on American navigation."

Mr. Pitkin, in his " Political and Civil History of the United States," when alluding to this subject, says,"This report of Mr. Jefferson formed the basis of the celebrated commercial resolutions, as they were called, submitted to the house by Mr. Madison early in January, 1794. The substance of the first of these resolutions was, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations. The additional duties were to be laid on certain articles manufactured by those European nations which had no commercial treaties with the United States." The last of the resolutions declared, that provision ought to be made for ascertaining the losses sustained by American citizens, from the operation of particular regulations of any country contravening the law of nations; and that these losses be reimbursed, in the first instance, out of the additional duties on the manufactures and vessels of the nations establishing such regulations.''

A long debate ensued on these resolutions, in the course of which, Mr. Fitzsimmons, a member from Pennsylvania, moved that in their operations they should extend to all nations. The motion was met by one from Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, the object of which was to exempt all nations from their operation except Great Britain.

"In discussing these resolutions," says Mr. Pitkin, " a wide range was taken; their political as well as commercial effects upon foreign nations, were brought into view. In the course of the debate it was soon apparent, that their political bearing was considered as the most important, particularly on that nation to which its operation was finally limited, by the motion of Mr. ~Nicholas."

Judge Marshall gives a more extended sketch of the debate. The advocates of the resolutions said, they "conceived it impracticable to do justice to the interests of the United States without some allusion to politics;" and after a long discussion of the character and effects of the resolutions, "It was denied that any real advantage was derived from the extensive credit given by the merchants of Great Britain. On the contrary the use made of British capital was pronounced a great political evil. It increased the unfavourable balance of trade, discouraged domestic manufactures, and promoted luxury. But its greatest mischief was, that it favored a system of British influence, which was dangerous to their political security."

"It was said to be proper in deciding the question under debate, to take into view political, as well as commercial considerations. Ill will and jealousy had at all times been the predominant features of the conduct of England to the United States. That government had grossly violated the treaty of peace, had declined a commercial...

(to be continued in Issue the Twelfth)

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

by Jonathan Edwards

This is one of the most famous Sermons ever preached by a Pastor in America. It has inspired Christians and Condemned Humanists for over two centuries. If you are tired of modern preaching, sample some of the best from the past.

Jonathan Edwards was one of the movers and shakers during The Great Awakening which sparked the War for Christian Liberty (1776-83).

"Their foot shall slide in due time." Deuteronomy 32:35

In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God's visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God's wonderful works towards them, remained (as ver. 28.) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text. The expression I have chosen for my text, Their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed.

1. That they were always exposed to Destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction."

2. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18, 19. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!"

3. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall OF THEMSELVES, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down.

4. That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God's appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, THEIR FOOT SHALL SLIDE. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.

The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." By the MERE pleasure of God, I mean his SOVEREIGN pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. The truth of this observation may appear by the following considerations.

1. There is no want of POWER in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

2. They DESERVE to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

3. They are already under a sentence of CONDEMNATION to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John 3:18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. "Ye are from beneath:" And thither he is bound; it is the place that justice, and God's word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him.

4. They are now the objects of that very same ANGER and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.

So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hash opened its mouth under them.

5. The DEVIL stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 11:12. The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.

6. There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish PRINCIPLES reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isaiah 57:20. For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked me live here, it is like fire pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.

7. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence, that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The unseen, unthought-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God's hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.

8. Natural men's prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony. There is this clear evidence that men's own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Ecclesiastes 2:16. "How dieth the wise man? even as the fool."

9. All wicked men's pains and CONTRIVANCE which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail. But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell, ever to be the subjects of misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, "No, I never intended to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief, Death outwitted me: God's wrath was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction came upon me."

10. God has laid himself under no OBLIGATION, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.

So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.

So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.

APPLICATION

The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether inexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly,

1. WHOSE wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Proverbs 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth.

It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4, 5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

2. It is the FIERCENESS of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isaiah 59:18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isaiah 66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Revelation 19:15, we read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful that must be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of ALMIGHTY God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this! Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so fastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall NOT SUFFER BEYOND WHAT STRICT JUSTICE REQUIRES. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezekiel 8:18.

"Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Proverbs 1:25, 26, etc.

How awful are those words, Isaiah 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favor, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

3. The MISERY you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Romans 9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isaiah 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," etc. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isaiah 66:23, 24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

4. It is EVERLASTING wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?" How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you.

Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God. And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?

And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God's word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favor to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the ax is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

The Long Road Out of Commerce

Jodie Lynn

Editor's Note: The following is from a sister in the Lord and should give all of us hope that we can do the same.

My husband and I got married the twenty eighth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred eighty. By the eleventh month of the same year we had purchased (land sales mortgage)a twenty eight acre farm in the Willamette Valley in Marion county, Oregon.

The farm was financed by the State VA Program and Our parents. At the same time we borrowed money(parents again) to purchase sheep to raise on the farm.

Then the fights began. Either I was spending to much or He was, or He wasn't working enough or I wasn't. He got mad when I borrowed from My father, I got mad when his Mother offered unwanted advise.

Time went on and We were learning not to purchase on time, that is, the small things.

The winter of eighty one I attended classes on Tax Preparation, and then passed the test. The Spring of eighty two I started work at H & R Block as a Licensed Tax Preparer.

During the same era We started a greenhouse business on the farm that was quite successful.

My father got ill and we had to take care of him and his farm.

More bills and more debt.

I continued to prepare Taxes for the next five tax seasons for various firms. In the fall of eighty five I passed the exam to be a "Licensed Tax Consultant" and then opened my own office "Woodburn Tax Service & Bookkeeping". On Hwy 99E there was an office I rented, and then hired a Gal to help me. The business was very successful. Because of the growth, I needed more space, so I made an offer to the adjacent land owner on the purchase (Land Sales Contract e.i.Mortgage) of his building, rental house and lot. I plopped the money down and it was a done deal.

Now the debt was larger and the fights were bigger. Let's not forget to mention by now we have a son and two daughters.

The tax and bookkeeping business continued to grow so I hired a couple more Gals to help. At one time I had three full time employees besides myself. I had payroll taxes and huge overhead with computers and office equipment. I felt that my liability was great and I was sticking my neck out and wa la! I incorporated my business. Now I was a corporate officer.

The greenhouse business was going good and we had started into Christmas trees so we incorporated the farm business too. Now my Husband was a corporate Office just like Me!

Now back in the Spring of eighty seven we accepted the Lord into Our lives. He had been working on us in different ways and We are glad We heard the knock at the door. We knew things were not correct, but how do you get from Point A to Point B when the canyon looks so deep?

Trying to get on the correct path and follow it, is hard, especially when you are learning so much at one time; Christianity, Parenting, Business, and Farming not to forget to mention matrimony. Well the Lord had(has) a plan and I guess it is up to us to seek it out.

One day in the third month of ninety three my Husband was reading the Farm newspaper and saw a ranch for sale in Eastern Oregon, he jokingly said "let's go look at it" I said OK and that weekend we did. It was fifty four ranches later before we bought one.

In the mean time I sold my tax business, sold the office building, and sold the farms I inherited after my fathers death. At the time We started liquidating We had four rental house, four different pieces of property and I rented out three office suites and a warehouse, I had the tax business, We had the nursery and Christmas trees and oh yes three children (we weren't able to liquidate them).

During the same time on one evening in the spring of ninety three a very close friend of Ours Ronald Lowell, mentioned in conversation that there was two kinds of citizens and did I know which I was? (We know now we are neither, but it was the start for us down the correct path). I confessed I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Curious about all his findings I needed to know more.

Now tax research was one of my all time favorite things to do, find the loop hole find the truth, find the gray area...! So I went to Salem to the Marion county Law Library, literally sitting on the floor in the aisle way with books piled around me, reading for five hours straight, about "Citizen" and "citizen" and I came out of there with the understanding that It was something that I didn't want to be.

Now the idea to move to Eastern Oregon made more sense. Get away from the commercialism get back to the basics and more importantly back to God.

In the Winter of ninety five we purchased Ranch number fifty four, it was paid for with cash and Gold no mortgage, no borrowing and no fights.

We lived in an Elk hunting tent (we still had our house in the valley) for six weeks while building a pole barn for shelter. It got down to 12 degrees in the tent. When the pole barn was completed we moved in and the next night it got down to -5 degrees. We moved everything from Our old place and it finally sold in the summer of ninety six.

This ranch does not have an address or a mailbox. We receive everything General Delivery. We owe no one any money, We pay as We go and if We don't have the money We simply don't buy it. We do not have any charge cards, charge accounts, or bank accounts of any sort.

The only monthly bill we have is the telephone bill, but to keep from having easements across the property we would not allow the telephone company to put in the phoneline. I do all my calling from along side the county road. (Don't call me I'll call you.) It really keeps the phone bill down. This has not been an overnight change, it has been a long learning process and We are still learning and we have made mistakes and we will make more. Our motive is correct and Our hearts are in the correct spot too. We now think about everything We do and how it will affect us. My husband barters with the neighbors for some of Our needs and I take homemade bread and Eggs to the neighbor lady, who in turn provides Us with fresh milk. To keep from being involved as much as possible with commerce, We are working toward being completely God sufficient, learning how to grow all Our food needs and learning how to use what is provided for us.

Discerning between wants and needs, comforts and conveniences. Learning to let him lead and provide. Oh yes, the Children I almost forgot they are doing very well, they love Our new home, they have six hundred forty acres on which to ride their horses, they are home taught and they enjoy that too. We have lots of wildlife around Us and everyday We all see or learn something new.

Continuing to seek His path, - Jodie Lynn

Editor's note: We at The Christian Jural Society News welcome letters for reprint from fellow-Christians on similar stories of successful disengagement from the Beast.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Humanitarian

(hû-man-i-tâ'r î-an)

n. a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; one who believes that the duty of man consists of acting rightly to others; a perfectionist: adj. philanthropic.Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928 edition.

sb. I. Theol. One who affirms the mere humanity of Christ. 2. One who professes the 'Religion of Humanity', holding that man's duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the welfare of the human race 1831. 3. A philanthropist; esp. one who goes to excess in his humane principals 1844. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principals, 1933 edition.

"HUMANITARIAN is very stangely perverted by a certain class of speakers and writers. It is a theological word; and its original meaning is, One who denies the godhead of Jesus Christ, and insists upon his human nature. But it is used by the people in question, whose example has infected others, as if it meant humane, and something more. Now, as the meaning of humane is recognizing in a common humanity a bond of kindness, good will, and good offices, it is difficult to discover what more humanitarian, used in the sense of widely-benevolent and philanthropic, is mere cant, the result of an effort by certain people to elevate and to approximate to themselves a common feeling by giving it a grand and peculiar name." Words and Their Uses, Past and Present, (1889), by Richard Grant White.

Humanitarianism. n. the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.Random House Webster's College Dictionary, (1990).

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Old Humphrey's short way with Infidels

In moving among mankind, I have now and then fallen in with infidels, who had not only declared their disbelief of the Bible, but endeavored also to destroy the faith of others in that blessed book. The way in which they have always begun their attack is, to higgle and wriggle about some disputed point of little importance, with as much confidence, as if they were on the point of overturning the whole truth of scripture by their silly prattle. Just as soon would a poor blind mole tear up from the ground an oak of a hundred years growth, by burrowing under one of the least of its roots.

If ever you fall in with one of these unhappy beings, don't be drawn in cavil with them about trifles, but boldly declare your opinion leaving them to wrangle, if they like, by themselves.

Tell them that if there be any thing good, and pure, and holy, and heavenly in the world, the Bible exhorts us to practice it; and if there be any thing that is evil, and base, and vile, in the world, the Bible commands us to avoid it. That will be a poser.

Tell them that the Bible contains more knowledge and wisdom than all the books that were ever printed, put together; and that those who believe its promises and obey its comandments, have peace and hope and joy, in the cares of life, and the trying hours of death. That will be a poser too.

Tell them that the Bible has been believed in by the wisest and best men from generation to generation, as the word of the living God, and that it makes known to a sinner the only way of salvation through the merits and death of a crucified Redeemer. That will be another poser.

And then ask them, before they pull the book to pieces any more, to produce one that has done a thousandth part as much good in making men happy on earth, and in guiding them in the way of heaven; and that will be the greatest poser of them all.

Depend upon it, this course will be better than wrangling and jangling about sticks and straws, losing your temper, and feeling yourself outwitted into the bargain, by the borrowed conceits of silly coxcombs, whose hearts and whose heads are equally empty.

The Sabbath

'I have ever found," says the great lord chief justice Hale, "that a due observation of the duty of Sunday, has ever had joined to it a blessing upon the rest of my time; and the week that has so begun, has been blessed and prosperous to me; and, on the other side, and when I have been negligent of the duties of this day, the rest of the week has been unsuccessful and unhappy to my own secular employments. So that I could easily make an estimate of my success the week following, by the manner of my passing this day. And I do not write this lightly, but by long and sound experience."

God may be Trusted

A military officer being at sea in a dreadful storm, his lady, who was sitting near him, and filled with alarm for the safety of the vessel, was so surprised at his composure and serenity, that she cried out, "My dear, are you not afraid? How is it possible that you can be so calm in such a storm?" He arose from a chair lashed to the deck, and supporting himself by a pillar of a bed-place, he drew his sword, and pointing it to the breast of his wife, he exclaimed, "Are you not afraid?" She instantly replied, "No, certainly not." "Why?" said the officer. "Because," rejoined the lady, "I know the sword is in the hands of my husband, and he loves me too well to hurt me." "Then," said he, "remember I know in whom I have Believed, and that He holds the winds in His fist, and the waters in the hollow of His hand."

Issue the Twelfth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Pursuing Your Christian Calling vs. Engaging in Commercial Activity...

Land vs. Real Property, Part Two...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part One...

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

R.J. Rushdoony on Political Apostasy and on Nationalism...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Pursuing Your Christian Calling

vs.

Engaging in Commercial Activity

by Randy Lee

The purpose of this article is to display the subtle differences between 'engaging in commercial activity' and 'pursuing your Christian calling.' I hope and pray that the following will provide the basics for a better grasp on this vital subject matter. To supplement this article, please read 'Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights,' (Parts One and Two) from Issues the Fifth and Sixth. As always, the full answers will be found in Scripture and The Word of God.

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God."
I Cor. 7:23-24
"Nothing is more complex than commerce"; 6 Webster's Wks. 8.

'Modern commerce' being a non-christian form of activity, one must go all the way 'round the barn in order to understand why it is so complex. Non-christian thought constantly modifies its position and with each modification it must redefine the words and terms it uses, which introduces confusion in the minds of everyone except those who create it, i.e., the secular lawyers.

Each time a modification takes place, the new 'creation' becomes more confused than previously. Thus, abstraction from reality is an on-going process in non-christian thought.

The most important thing to understand, is that the term 'commercial activity' is a recently created term governed by the Law Merchant (lex mercatoria). Using that law's customs and usages (commercial instruments, a business license, profit and loss records, balance sheets, advertising, receipts, business cards, insurance policies, social security number, driver's license, commercial speech, extended credit, limited liability, free mail service, ownership, etc.) is what determines whether you are in 'their' activity or not. The use of such modes and instruments makes you subject and regulatable under the Uniform Commercial Code (a privately copy- righted 'law' by The American Law Institute).

A general definition of 'commercial activity' may be stated as:

'any form of express or implied economic activity contrary to God's Law.'

In this definition, is included all forms of debt and suretyship to man, and benefits, privileges, and opportunities, contrary to God's Law, acquired from secular 'civil' government.

As simple as the above definition is, it is still difficult to understand, because many modern Christians do not know God's Laws concerning economic activity. To these 'moderns', obedience to God's Law is not required because "you may sink into the nasty pit of 'legalism'."

For those of you who don't know, 'legalism' is the belief that one's works gain salvation. This was the view of Jews in the first century.

But, Christians know, or should know, that we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, so the 'legalism' charge cannot apply to Christians. The charge is leveled against Us, by those who do not want to obey God, and prefer to take the easy, broad way, by obeying the secular governments rather than God.

Category One

Buying, selling or trading

Buying, selling or trading is not necessarily 'commercial activity' or contrary to Scripture. How, for what purpose and with whom that buying, selling or trading is transacted, determines whether it is considered a 'commercial activity' and contrary to The Law of God. Creating a record, such as the giving or receiving of a receipt, profit and loss records, balance sheets, etc., constitutes commercial activity. Buying, selling or trading with someone other than your neighbor (fellow-Christian) or outside of your community (outside of Christendom), constitutes commercial activity and is not favored in Scripture. Calling yourself 'the owner' (which is a commercial term) constitutes commercial activity, for God is 'The Owner' of every thing (The earth is the LORDS and the fullness thereof). Charging or paying interest through extended credit for such transactions constitutes commercial activity through 'suretyship' and is contrary to Scripture ('Owe no man any thing, but to love one another'... Rom.13:8). Advertising to the 'general public' (the secular world, i.e., non-christians, atheists, and other infidels), to sell a product or your labor, constitutes commercial activity and is not favored by God.

"The power of Congress to regulate commerce confers no power to declare the status which any person shall sustain within a State." Lemmon v. People (1857), 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 270.

It simply has to do with venue and jurisdiction... (are you living the Law in accordance with the One True God of Scripture or the god Mercury, who is the god of commerce?).

"Mercury was not only the messenger of the gods, but was also appointed god of eloquence, commerce, rain, wind, and the special patron of travelers, shepherds, cheats, and thieves." Myths of Greece and Rome (1893), p. 134.

As Christ said,

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15.

Therefore, 'love' is: living the Law of God.

As The Apostle Paul said,

"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10.

When operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians ( your community and brethren) - receipts, records, advertising, profiteering for abundant gain, the free government benefit of home mail delivery, charging or paying interest etc., is not necessary and therefore should not be used if you wish to remain non- commercial. All Christians should be operating by word of mouth within their community and supporting one another (...for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom. 13:8).

It should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal, to remove him or herself from transacting any kind of business with the secular world; only accept mail matter at General Delivery; and stay within Christendom only. This will not be an easy thing to do, considering the current commercial world we find ourselves surrounded by. This will not be done 'overnight' and it is suggested that one does not try to do it overnight. It will take much sacrifice, but it will be Honored and Rewarded by God if there is repentance taking place in these areas.

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25.

Little steps can become giant ones in time. As an example of this, see Issue the Eleventh of The News, 'The Long Road Out of Commerce.'

"According to the multitude of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee.
According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee.
Ye shall not therefore oppress (take advantage) one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 25:15-17.

Category Two

Employment and Your Christian Calling

Under commercial law, all employee-employ- er relationships are considered 'master-servant' relationships. When one works for or is employed by an individual or company that gets its privilege to operate from the State through business licenses, incorporation, etc., that person becomes, as the company has become, subject to regulation, taxation, etc., through the master-servant doctrine (rendering unto Caesar). Social Security Numbers, Driver's Licenses, Insurance Policies and all of the other indicators of commercial activity are required and made a matter of record for commercial tracking purposes.

This 'master-servant' relationship only occurs when one is 'hired' on a 'day-to-day' basis. In contrast, when one is payed daily, it is considered 'casual labor,' and is not subject to taxation and regulation. This just 'happens' to be Biblical (see James 4:13-17, Mat. 6:34).

In reality, when you work for someone that pays you on a weekly or monthly basis or after the sun sets, you are extending credit to that employer. For you expend your labor daily, but extend the payment for that labor to a future date. This is clearly commercial activity (for the standard, see Mat. 6:11 and Luke 11:3).

Again, as with buying, selling and trading, it should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal to work for only those of like mind and heart that will 'give you this day, your daily bread (the 'bread' produced from your labor, in contrast to God's Spiritual Bread) or 'an honest day's pay for an honest day's work,' daily.

You should work for or with only another Good and Lawful Christian that doesn't look to the State for his or her right to pursue their Christian Calling, whatever that form of 'business,' gift or talent might be. It's a matter of finding and remaining with those of like mind that are educated in these matters and who fear The LORD and not the State.

In this way, you will remain out of commercial activity and you will be trading your labor for your sustainance according to Scripture.

Again,

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God." I Cor. 7:23-24

Pursuing Your Christian Calling is, therefore:

Working and operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians for The Glory of God, wherein all obey The Law of God.

The talents and gifts that God has given you can only be used to that end. This is love.

Category Three

Traveling vs. Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways

Traveling is a purely commercial term (see Issue the Ninth, "Myths of the Patriot Movement"). Therefore, for one to be involved in 'moving about on the military roads,' the term used, should be, 'exercising your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways.' As Scripture says;

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillippians 4:13.

Only in this way, will you import 'your' Law into a potential situation with the 'military police.'

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." Galatians 5:13.

In other words, that activity can not be of a commercial nature, but limited to only two purposes. For going to church and market. To church for spiritual sustainance, which includes fellowship with fellow-Christians anywhere and other activity for the edification of the church (Christendom), and to market (with Christians only) for physical sustainance.

Your King James Family Bible and your Baptismal Certificate should be carried with you at all times when you venture out on the 'military roads.' If you are stopped and asked for your 'drivers license,' simply hand them your Bible and say that you have something better than that, and repeat Phillipians 4:13. Use your Baptismal Certicate if they want to know who you are, your age, etc. Point out to them that you are not out there to hurt anyone or profit from anyone, and that you have a Higher Law you have to answer to.

"Each principal is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters.' Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298. Rotwein, Law of Agency, page 40.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. See also Luke 16:13.

If you choose to 'travel' for 'financial profit' through sales calls, a delivery service, transporting passengers or goods for a price, etc., then you will be under the jurisdiction of and regulated by the god of commercial roads, Mercury.

"We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion.Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety is, that no government is to be submitted to at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government--the common good and safety of society." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission," cited in Clinton Rossiter's, 'Seedtime of the Republic,' p. 241. [These parts of Mayhew's discourse concern Romans 13:1.]

With the current situation of martial rule in America, expect be to treated as follows when engaged in commercial activity:

"In the war with Mexico, declared by Congress to exist by the act of Mexico, (see 9 Statutes-at-Large, page 9,) the Supreme Court have maintained, in two cases, that the President, without any act of Congress, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, could exert the belligerent right of levying contributions on the enemy to annoy and weaken him. In the case of Fleming et al. v. Page, 9 Howard 615, the present Chief Justice says, 'As Commander-in-Chief he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces, placed by law, at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy;' again and page 616, 'The person who acted in the character of collector [judge] in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander, and in obedience to his orders, and the duties he exacted, and the regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as Commander-in-Chief. The Custom House [municipal court] was established in an enemy's country as one of the weapons of war. It was established not for the purpose of giving the people of Tamaulipas the benefit of commerce with the United States or with other countries, but a measure of hostility, and as a part of the military operations in Mexico, it was a mode of exacting of contributions from the enemy to support our army, and intended also to cripple the resources of Mexico, and make it feel the evils and the burdens of the war. The duties required to be paid were regulated with this view, and were nothing more than contributions levied upon the enemy which the usages of war justify when an army is operating in the enemy's country.' United States et al. v. "Tropic Wind" (1861), 2 D.C. 374.

In contrast, God's Promise to Christians:

"And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing.
And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.
And I shall raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." Ezekiel 34:26-29

Being Christians, we are sojourners with God. If you are walking with Mercurius, God does not sojourn with you.

Land vs. Real Property

Part Two

by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Eleventh)

"The principle of emphyteusis furnishes a connecting link between the Roman imperial system of land tenure and the medieval system. It arose out of the custom whereby land taken in war [Lincoln, Lieber, and Co. v.. All Christian states] was rented by the State on long leases. The rent paid in such cases was called vectigal, and the land was called ager vectigalis. It was a form of leasehold property especially advantageous to corporations of all kinds, as they were relieved from all duties and cares as landlords and were assured of a fixed income.

When this form was employed by private persons and corporations, it was known as emphyteusis, the land as [*312] fundus emphyteuticarius, and the person to whom the land was given as emphyteuta. An emphyteusis was a grant of land or houses forever, or for a long period, on the condition that an annual sum (canon or pensio) [property tax] should be paid to the owner--dominus--or his successors, and that if such sum was not duly paid, the grant should be forfeited. According to the law of the Emperor Zeno (475-491), emphyteusis was neither a sale nor a lease, but a special form of contract [equity].

The rights of emphyteuta were, first of all, the right of use and enjoyment. But he was better off than a mere usufructuary. He was rather the bona fide possessor of the property. The only restriction to his use of the land was that he must not cause depreciation in value of the property. Furthermore, he could, subject to certain restrictions, alienate property. It passed to his heirs [subject to inheritance taxes on the property of the deceased]; it could be mortgaged or hypothecated; and it could be burdened with servitudes.

But these rights depended upon the fulfillment of certain duties. If the canon [property tax] was not paid for three years (in the case of Church lands, for two years), or if the land tax remained unpaid for the same period, the grant was forfeited. Here his position was different from that of the usufructuary, for the latter paid no rent. The original rent of the land granted could not be increased by the owner, but on the other hand it was not diminished by any partial loss of the property. The emphyteuta had to pay all the burdens attached to the land, and deliver all tax receipts to the owner.

The method of alienating the property was as follows: 'The emphyteuta ought to transmit to the dominus formal notice of the sum that a purchaser is willing to give for it. The owner has two months to decide whether he will take the emphyteusis at that sum; and if he wishes it, the transfer must be made to him. If he does not buy at the price named within two months, the [*313] emphyteuta can sell to any fit and proper person without the consent of the dominus. If such a person is found, the dominus must accept him as his emphyteuta, and admit him into possession either personally, by written authority, or by attestation, before notaries or a magistrate [County Recorder]. For this trouble, the dominus is entitled to charge a sum (laudenium) [closing costs] not exceeding two per cent on the purchase money. If the owner does not make acknowledgment within two months, then the emphyteuta can, without his consent, transfer his right and give him possession. [Hunter, Roman Law, p. 429.]" Guy Carleton Lee, Historical Jurisprudence (1922), pp. 311-313. [Ed. note: This excellent reference is available from Randy Lee. Call 818 347-7080 for information; or fax requests to 818 313-8814.]

Remember, we all were warned:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecc 1:9. [Emphasis added.]

Note bona fide use meant you continued to pay your yearly use fees, now called "property taxes" (vectigal), thus showing your good faith:

"VECTIGAL, -ALIS, n. [vect-is]. (A thing pertaining to carrying goods, etc., into a country; hence) I. Prop.: A toll, tax, impost paid to the State: Cic. II. Meton.: Of private affairs: Revenue, rents, income, etc.: Cic.; Hor.
"VECTIGAL-IS, E, adj. [vectigal] I. Prop.: A. Of, or belonging to, imposts or taxes; tribute: pecunia, Cic.--B. Tributary, or paying tribute: civitas, Cic.--As Subst.: vectigalis, is m. (sc. homo) one paying tribute, a tributary: Caes.; Liv. II. Meton.: Of or belonging to, the revenue; that brings in revenue or income equi, Cic." White, A Complete Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 633.

Thus, you could use and enjoy the property against all others, except the State--eminent domain doctrine. But how could this be, "in the land of the free?" The answer is that an equitable, though not feudal, relationship has been set up between you and the State.

"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas --Law creates a fiction where equity exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143;
"In fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas --In a legal fiction equity always exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2138.

Where? I can tell you it is not the purported Fourteenth Amendment. You will have to go back a few years before the Fourteenth Amendment to find the answer. The thread or chain is there, unbroken. It hinges on the acts of the lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, and Associates, Inc. to ascend the throne of perfidy. Now to the coup de grace:

"84. Of Entry.
"The act, by which the owner of an estate in corporeal real property takes physical possession of the same, is known as entry. If his estate is created by actual livery of seisin [not by mortgage under the person acting as commander-in-chief], his reception of the seisin on the land, from the grantor [God], constitutes his entry. If his estate is otherwise created, or if it descends to him from a deceased ancestor, or if, once having had possession, he has been disseised, or if estates, whose possession takes precedence of his own, have been determined, his entry consists of going on the land and [*47] claiming it as his, according to the nature of his actual estate [by Inheritance from God through Jesus Christ]. Read 2 Bl. Comm., p. 312; 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 174-179; 1 Cruise Dig., Tit. I, 24-28; 2 Cruise Dig., Tit. xiii, Ch. ii, 41-55; 1 Wash. R. P., B. I, Ch. ii, 66; 2 Wash. R. P. B. I, Ch. xiv, 15, 16; 3 Wash. R. P., B. iii, Ch. ii, Sec. 7, 12." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), pp. 46-47. [Insertions added.]
"As time goes on a great variety of writs of entry is devised. At first the writ recounts all the hands through which the land has passed since the original defect, although there were limits placed upon the number of changes (whether alienations or descents) which could be alleged; finally, by statute demandants were allowed to say that the tenant had no entry save after (post) a particular defective title; dealings in the land subsequent to that event and leading down to the entry of the tenant no longer need be specified in the writ [Statute of Marlborough, c. 29 (1267); Pollock and Maitland, ii. 71; Plucknett, Statutes and their Interpretation, 80.]." Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (1956), pp. 361-362.

What does it all mean? It means this: Whatever act(s) of usurpation Lincoln committed during his term in office, affecting any land titles or property rights in land, which are carried forward through codes, rules, and regulations can only give defective, but "marketable [commercial, lex mercatoria]" title, under the cognizance of the State franchised governments, which are under the person acting as commander-in-chief. Generally speaking, if you used the means [remember title is the means or manner of acquisition] of a Federal Reserve System sponsored bank mortgage, which is under the cognizance of that same person, to "purchase" "your" "real estate," the title ab origine is defective and polluted--human beings, because they know not God, needed the handout of that person, who is a thief walking with Mercurius and entered by some other way, to get "property."

Now, notice another thing here. How did this person get the title in the first place? Did God vacate His Throne? Can any one Lawfully convey what he does not Lawfully possess? See how the god of the venue changes everything? He gave you a "commercial interest", i.e. "real estate," but never gave you the right to have and hold the land under God! Only a government ordained by God can do such. Thus, You never entered the land. What was it that Adam lost in Eden--Dominion, by Inheritance from God? They cannot give true perfect title to land, because land was never theirs to give. It is imperfect or defective but "commercially marketable title" which needs "title insurance" under the Roman doctrine of emphyteusis, ante. Now do you get the story???

And the present equity, by deceit, exists as long as you do nothing to remove or destroy the evidence of it:

"Where performance [payment of vectigal] depends on existence of a given thing [civil right, consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement [to "own" property], performance is excused to extent that thing ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent." Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert (1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.

[Abatement any one?] For it is also written,

"Fictio legis neminem laedit --A fiction of law injures no one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.
"Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum --Long sufferance is construed as consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2144.
"Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur damnum sentire --He who suffers a damage by his own fault is not held to suffer damage." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2159.

In other words, as long as you do nothing about the presumption imposing equity and the fiction of law, you are consenting to whatever burdens it places upon you, and cannot claim any damage, including, but not limited to deceit or fraud.

"Negligentia semper habet infortuniam comitem --Negligence always has misfortune for a companion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146.

See how honest Abe really was? I will leave you to find the rest of the evidence, because the Course and Speed have been determined by God Himself. May He richly Bless You in this righteous Endeavor to reclaiming Your Inheritance. I leave you with some thoughts from a relatively unknown Good and Lawful Christian:

"If a Man invades my Property, he becomes an Aggressor, and puts himself into a State of War with me: I have a Right to oppose this Invader; If I have not Strength to repel him, I must submit, but he acquires no Right to my Estate which he has usurped. Whenever I recover Strength I may renew my Claim, and attempt to regain my Possession; if I am never strong enough, my Son, or his Son, when able, may recover the natural Right of his Ancestor which has been unjustly taken from him." Richard Bland, in the Inquiry, 1775. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196.

But how will today's de facto government, with its de facto courts, decide the political question? The de facto courts have no standing in Law to make such adjudications, because:

One, courts do not decide political questions; and,
Two, "There is no principle of law under which a de facto court can be sustained. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct.Rep. 1121." Gorman v. People (1892), 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335.

In deciding a political question, it is necessary to understand the nature of all political questions: if it involves two or more diametrically opposed systems of law competing for the allegiance or obedience either of land or people, it is political:

"War is simply the exercise of force of bodies politic against each other for the purpose of coercion." Lewis v. Ludwick (1869), 46 Tenn.(Coldw.) 368, 98 Am.Dec. 454.

This goes back to the question of venue which Christ had in the exchanges noted above.

"[A government is] sovereign within its own territories. There necessarily its jurisdiction is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. This is the result of its independence. It may be conceded that its actions should accord with natural justice and equity. If they do not, however, our courts are not competent to review them. They may not bring a foreign sovereign before our bar, not because of comity, but because he has not submitted himself to our laws. Without his consent he is not subject to them. Concededly, that is so as to a foreign government that has received recognition. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287; Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, 16 Ann.Cas. 1026; Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc.Rep. 511, 61 N.Y.Supp. 939, aff'd 173 N.Y. 645, 66 N.E. 1110; Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass. 349, 83 N.E. 876, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 276, 125 Am.St.Rep. 371, 14 Ann.Cas. 574; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch.Div. 351; Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 44 L.T. 199.
"But whether recognized or not, the evil of such an attempt would be the same. 'To cite a foreign potentate into a municipal court for any complaint against him in his public capacity is contrary to the law of nations, and an insult which he is entitled to resent.' De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q.B. 171. In either case, to do so would `vex the peace of nations.'The question is a political one, not confided to the courts, but to another department of government. Whenever an act done by a sovereign in his sovereign character is questioned, it becomes a matter of negotiations, or reprisals, or of war." Wulfsohn v. Russian Soviet Socialist Federated Republic (1923), 234 N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24. [Emphasis added.] [This is the authority for using "reasonable means" to abate an action, i.e. writs of right and entry.]

How then can they possibly summon your Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, under Whom you claim?

Part III

Notice the basis of the land issue--sojourning. What does that mean?

"SOJOURN. Reside, stay. XIII (S. Eng. (Leg.) ME. Sorjourni soiourni -OF. sorjorner, sojorner (mod. Sejourner)=Pr. Sorjornar, It. soggiornare:-Rom. Sub diurnare 'spend the day', f. L. sub-+late L. diurnare day (cf. JOURNAL). So sojourn sb. XIII. -AN. su(r)jurn, OF. sojor, etc. (Mod. Sejour), f. the vb." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 843.

It obviously means to conduct your affairs as though you could be leaving this earth at any time:

"SOJOURN, v.i.; sojourned, pt., pp.; sojourning, ppr. [Ofr. sojorner, sojourner; It. Soggiornare, from LL. (Hyp.) subdiurnare; sub, under, and diurnus, pertaining to a day, from dies, a day.] to dwell for a time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident, or as a stranger, not considering the place as a permanent habitation; as, Abraham sojourned in Egypt.
"Syn.--abide, tarry, dwell, stay, live." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1725.

Which means that you are merely transient with respect to your time here on earth:

"TRANSIENT. Passing by or away. XVII. -L. transiens (obl. transeunt-, repr. In some uses by transeunt), prp. of transire pass over, f. trans TRANS-+ire go; cf. AMBIENT." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 936.

It does not mean you are "on the run" or "on the move." See Genesis 1:1-31 and nota bona how God in the Creation finished each day's work. Is God a "sojourner?" Now this has much to do with the present state of affairs in respect to your "real estate." If You are a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, You are located at General Delivery, because this is where God's Court is: everywhere in general and nowhere in specific. It also means that His Court closes at the close of every day at sundown. If You are here, how can You conduct Your affairs for longer than a day? This is what it means to "sojourn."

Now this has to do with the land issue, because when You are "landed," the land is free from all encumbering servitudes, and You are depending on God to complete His Work with respect to You and the land in Your care in that day. This is the reason for Christ testifying, "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mt 6:34. If you are walking with Mercurius, God does not sojourn with you.

In the coming year, Writs of Entry to Land.

Let This Mind Be In You,

Part One

by John Quade

Scripture tells us clearly, that in order to be Christ-like, we must learn to think and reason as Christ did. This does not mean that we are to be omniscient or to take on the extent of God's attributes. We are told, however, to "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:..." Phil. 2:5, and Paul says that, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

The closer we get to this state of thinking in interpreting the world about us, the more we glorify God. The problem is, modern Christians do not think in such terms because their Christianity occupies one part of their mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another. This is what Dr. Rushdoony has called, 'intellectual schizophrenia.' We know that a mind or house divided against itself cannot stand, or be effective against the world's ideas.

Many Christians make a great deal of the literal interpretation of the Scripture, but when it comes to taking into captivity every thought, they divide their minds into the secular and profane and thus live in intellectual schizophrenia and a constant state of contradiction and what is worse, they never know it.

Recently on a tour stop back east, I was cornered in the hall by a group of people and their pastor, all from the same church. They proceeded to beat me about the head and shoulders with something I had said during an earlier address to the group, which was: "One may be a pre-millenialist and totally committed to the 'rapture fever, scare and share' doctrines that are being taught in the churches today, but one cannot at the same time work for reform without contradicting himself."

The pastor and his group proceeded to argue that they were both pre-mil, rapture fever types and also worked for reform, which is why they were at Our conference.

Note carefully, I did not say one could not work for reform if he were a pre-mil, rapture fever type, but that, one could not be consistently pre-mil, rapture fever, etc., and also work for reform.

My point had to do with consistent thinking, not whether one could in fact do or not do a thing. To this day, I still hold that one cannot - consistently - look for the Lord's return next Wednesday at 12:15 or 12:28, and still work for the reform of the world about him..

As a footnote to this incident, I received a message from one of the pastor's people who was present during the incident and he said that, time brought the pastor to his senses and my prediction came true. Given enough time, the errors of one's thinking will manifest themselves whether we like it or not.

The point in bringing up this incident is to illustrate that today, with all the intellectual tools at man's disposal, Christians are typically the most inconsistent, self-contradictory, and self-refuting thinkers of the day. Yet, these characteristics are supposed to be indicative of humanistic thought, not Christian thought.

If this movement we are involved in is to have any real long term success, then a radical change must take place in the quality of Christian thought if we are to have any long-term hope of reformation and reconstuction.

Two men who have perhaps, more than any others in America, pointed us in the right direction and to right thinking as Christians - are Dr. Cornelius Van Til, former Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, in Philadelphia, and Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, California, who is recognized as the father of Christian Reconstruction, the fastest growing movement of its kind in Christendom around the world.

In this article I want to focus on the thinking of Dr. Van Til, who passed on to be with the Lord a few years ago, on a Good Friday. His works indeed live after him in the minds and hearts of millions of laymen and also in the present works of many men of the cloth.

I met Dr. Van Til just a few years before his death and with Dr. Rushdoony, they have had a greater impact on my thinking than all the others I've read outside Scripture. I love them both as father's in the faith. It is my belief that these two men will, in the future, be recognized as the men that initiated the New Reformation now beginning in the land. We owe them both a great deal and ought to be on Our knees thanking God for His blessing us with their great learning (see Page fourteen for a sample of Rushdoony).

Though Van Til confined himself to apologetics, i.e., the defense of the faith, his thought was so fundamental that it sparked a new philosophy for Christians. Van Til's apologetics, when applied to philosophy is called Christian Presuppositional Philosophy, for reasons that will become clearer as we progress. His most important works are, "The Defense of the Faith," and "Common Grace." His widest influence on the greatest number of people, however, has come through his class syllabi, short works that summarize his teaching in his apologetics classes at Westminster.

Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching impact on every area of Christian thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be reduced to one of two starting points or, presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers mind in order for him to say what he does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless one's ultimate starting point or presuppositon is Christian.

Thus, it does not matter whether one is a Christian or not; all ideas are derived ultimately from one of the two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins with, if one is consistent, his presupposition will govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes and how he will act on his belief. In a sense, over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition is.

Thus, one's presuppostion predestines the nature and meaning of one's life. Von Hayek, the noted Austrian economists said something similar when he said that 'all ideas have consequences.' Rushdoony described the same thing in his own thought and called it 'the given.' Therefore, everyone begins from some ultimate starting point in all their thinking and that ultimate starting point determines the meaning and consequences of our thought in everything we say, do, feel, and think.

The difference in Van Til' (and Rushdoony) that caused such an uproar was, he said that both of these two starting points or presuppositions, are religious. The thought of all men is predestined by the ultimate, religious presupposition the man holds to. In theology, philosophy, law, science, biology, education, politics, the family, and all other things, a man who holds to one of the two possible starting points comes to one conclusion as to what these things are, while the man who holds to the opposing presupposition comes to an entirely different conclusion as to what they are.

If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent with his own presupposition. If one can predict the general outcome of an idea implemented on a specific presupposition, held self-consciously, one has a very powerful intellectual tool that can be used to great effect in propagating the Gospel and in combating humanism in the culture about us.

Now, when we say 'self-consciously' we mean that, one knows consciously, what his presupposition is and he knows consciously, the connection between his ideas and his presupposition and that his idea is consistent with his presupposition. One has a good idea of where it will all lead. The key is, he knows all this - consciously.

To be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus, the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do something because it makes him feel good, or because it gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but, because he knows that he does what he does because of his desire to be consistent with his ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that he himself knows about, consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his authority and even when men advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition.

This will be clearer if we define the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all his life.

Presupposition One begins and ends with the idea that God is who He claims to be in Scripture, which is His own inspired revelation to Man. This is the presupposition of the Christian.

Presupposition Two holds to the idea that all knowledge is derived solely from man's reason which is a law unto itself. He does not believe that one needs or should harken to any revelation outside his own mind. This is autonomous reason at work in the religion of humanism.

At no point does either presupposition share a common starting point, and thus, they are called 'mutually exclusive ultimates' because, each denies the validity of the other, logically and in fact.

Both are religious in the sense that religion is the reverence or worship of an ultimate ground of appeal. The Christian appeals to God and Scripture, while the Humanist appeals to his own autonomous reason. They are similar in that each presupposes an ultimate starting point for all their thinking.

To show the importance of presuppositional study, consider the following.

A talks with B about some subject or idea and B comes to a conclusion. In the discussion, no mention of presuppositions is made. The idea and its consequence stated by B hangs in a vacuum and is mere opinion.

Why? Because there is no context for interpreting what man A or B says.

But, 'A does not allow B's conclusion to stand in a vacuum and he questions 'B' about his presuppositions. B does likewise to A. Now, we find that A and B are both Christian. The next move on the part of A is to determine if B's conclusion is valid on Christian presuppositions. If B's conclusion is consistent with his Christian presupposition, the conclusion no longer hangs in a vacuum, but rests on a solid foundation, because both sides are now speaking within the context of their presuppositions.

In the end, B's conclusion is tested by the law of Scripture if A is consistent with his own presuppositions.

But, suppose we now interject a specific idea, such as abortion. If B is pro-abortion, he is no longer thinking, consistently, as a Christian, because the Scripture opposes abortion. At this point, A knows that B is not thinking like a Christian, but like a humanist. B may still profess to be a Christian, but his ideas contradict him, and know A knows something about B, i.e., that 'B' is a double-minded man.

Now, if B is a humanist, his pro-abortion stand is more consistent with his avowed presupposition, but it is still not the right consequence, because abortion is contrary to God's Law. But, if B were pro-life and an avowed humanist, there is the inconistency all over again, because the pro-life conclusion is only possible on Christian presuppositions.

The point of all this discussion about A and B is, to illustrate how all men, most without knowing it, always argue questions that are important to them, on the basis of specific presuppositons, whether they are aware of it or not. And, most haven't got a clue as to whether or not they are being consistent with their presuppositions. The man who is consciously aware of the importance of knowing which presuppositon lies behind a specific idea, is in a position to know a great deal more than his friend who suffers from epistemological myopia.

Another premise of Van Til, equally radical, was, that the humanist never knows truth unless he smuggles God into his equation somewhere. In simple terms, the humanist may deny God's existence, or redefine His nature and attributes to eliminate His presence in humanistic thought, but, he must at the same time presuppose that God exists, or he would not even be able to communicate with other humanists.

For example, since 1900, there have been many continental philosophers who have sought to create 'new' philosophies, based upon the possibility of inventing languages that are devoid of so-called 'God-words.' Wittgenstein was typical of these. But, all such attempts have failed and the linguistic philosophers have given up for one simple reason. Language and communication between men is impossible without presupposing God's hand in the creation of languages.

In science, if a humanist conducts a scientific experiment and then expects that the experiment can be repeated with the same results, he presupposes on one hand that God has created a consistent universe of Law, while at the same time he posits, in his public speaking, that all is relative and chance rules in his theory of evolution. In other words, he wants his cake and he wants to eat it as well.

In this case, the humanist contradicts himself. What he says in his writings and speeches may be evolutionary in nature, but when he does real work, he must presuppose that God is in the background upholding and sustaining all things by His power. To think otherwise provides no justification for doing the experiment a second time and expecting his results to be the same in both cases.

Thus, to use an oft-quoted phrase of Van Til's, "the humanist possesses knowledge as a thief possesses goods." He steals knowledge from the very God whose existence makes knowledge possible in the first place and never admits it.

Van Til has also pointed out that it does not matter if a man knows his thought is religious or not, or whether he admits to his religious stance or not, he is still a religious being and thinker, even in his own ignorance of himself.

As Paul has said so tellingly, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their follish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Van Til took Paul literally, as he should have. This means that the atheist, agnostic, buddhist, and all others who deny the God of Scripture and His existence, still know in fact, that He does exist, whether their heart has been darkened or not. One can travel to the furtherest reaches of the universe and still not avoid the revelation of God that surrounds him, 'in Whom he lives, and moves, and has his being.'

Thus, a denial of God is an act of will that is ethical in nature and content. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Men deny that God is, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and suppress their real knowledge of Him as a conscious act, knowingly, willingly, and deliberately to advance their own agenda while suppressing their true knowledge of Him.

Stop for a moment and think about this.

If Christians dealt with Non-christians, in their day to day dealings as if Paul's statement of fact is true, i.e., if this presupposition was the Christians' presupposition, then the Christian would know something about the Non-christian that the Non-christian believes he has hidden. What an enormous intellectual and psychological advantage this should be for the Christian!!!

More importantly, if Christians knew, consciously, that this was the case and acted consistently with this stance, and put into practice Van Til's extension of Pauls statement, what a difference it would make in the way Christians think.

How is this possible?

First, we have been talking about knowing. The sub-set of philosophy that deals with the problems of knowing is called epistemology. The word comes from 'episteme' (knowing) and 'ology' (the study of ...) Epistemology is the study of how we know, but also the basis of certainty in knowing. It asks the questions, 'how do you know, you know?'

And, if we look at today's philosophy teaching in universities, we find that while there is always an overview of what the great philosophers have said about epistemology, there is never any attempt to answer how one knows which system of philosophy really answers the problem of knowledge.

This is because humanist philosophic thought has given up trying to answer the questions of epistemology, because no sooner does the humanist attempt to answer it, than another humanist comes along and blows up the argument. This in-fighting between humanists, has destroyed all real philosophic study in the humanist controlled schools, because given their presupposition about knowing, i.e., that it proceeds from the autonomous reason of man, there is no solution to the problem of knowing. And, whether they know it or not, in their system, all knowledge is purely a matter of opinion.

The Christian, however, already has an answer to the problem of knowledge, knowing, and knowing how and why he knows. His answer is found in the Godhead, and in the words used to define God in Genesis 1:1.

But, first, let us look a little more closely at the nature of the problem of knowledge that epistemology tries to answer, for this problem has plagued philosophers since the Greeks and on the answer to the problem whole systems of government and civilizations have floundered and collapsed.

The solution to the problem of knowledge lies in solving the relationship between the whole and the parts, the one and the many, the universal and the particular.

An example of how the solution is applied might explain the seriousness of the effort to solve the problem. Thus, in civil government, we have the government (the one) and the people (the many). How do we balance the two ends of the spectrum here? Is a balance even desirable? If we cannot answer the problem of the relationship between the one and the many in civil government, then we are left in the following quandry:

If the scales favor civil government, then we will have some form of socialism, communism, a dictatorship, or other tyranny, that will be supported by the military, and there will be great bloodshed.

If the scales favor the power of the people, then we will have a democracy, autocracy, and finally, anarchy, and great bloodshed.

These two extremes are the history of civil government in the world, until the formation of the Constitution of the united States of America, which was the first instrument of civl government that explicitly sought to create a balance between the civil power and the power of the people. Needless to say, in the entire history of man, no Non-christian philosopher has ever set forth a solution to the problem of knowledge that lasted more than one generation. The basic reason why, is; they could not decide whether the one, or the many should dominate. Any idea of the two being balanced was out of the question, for no such thing was possible - given their presuppositions.

That the founders of America were aware of the problem of knowledge is well known. That modern man, including the modern Christian could care less, changes nothing. The problem of the one and the many in epistemology is of vital interest to all of us, whether we know it or not. Examples could be shown in virtually every area of life, in the family, the church, in one's calling, and so on.

Genesis 1:1, says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Of specific interest is the Hebrew word for 'God,' which is 'elohim.' Elohim means, literally, 'unity and diversity, equally ultimate.'

As many commentators have pointed out, this says that God in His unity as God, is equally ultimate with God in His diversity as Father, Son, and spirit. In God, there is a perfect balance between Himself as One and as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thus, in the name of God in the very first verse of the Scripture, there is the key for the Christian, to the problem of knowledge and the answer to the epistemological question of 'how do we know we know.'

Again, we see a telling example of the importance of the presupposition to all of our thought, including the answers we give to problems that face us. In Greek thought, the possibility of balancing the one and the many never occurred to them, because given the starting point of the autonomy of reason, they could only see the two extremes, the one, or the many, and because they knew not the God of Scripture, it never occurred to them that there was even a remote possibility that they could be balanced.

This is the reason why Greek thought vacillated between Socialism and Communism and ultimately collapsed. This is the reason why all subsequent systems of thought that began from the presupposition of autonomous reason also collapsed.

If the Scripture is the Christians' alpha and omega in all his thought, all facts, regardless of what they look like at first glance, must be interpreted by Scripture. No fact interprets itself. There is no brute fact, i.e., one that speaks for itself, because all facts can only have meaning when interpreted and understood in the light of God's Word, for the omniscient God of Scripture knows every fact that is, exhaustively.

For the non-believer, facts are only interpreted in the light of his own reason. This presents major problems for him, because he cannot know if his view of the facts is the true view. Another humanist will have a different view of the same fact. Neither has any standard by which to measure the truth or falsity of either view. Who knows, the meaning of the fact may change tomorrow, or next week, or next year. As to who's interpretation is actually put to use, well, that's all a matter of who has the greater power and influence. Truth has nothing to do with it.

This is why all humanistic systems of government can only maintain control by military force. And, why all power in humanism flows from the top down, not the bottom up.

Conversely, Christian civil governments de-emphasize military power and emphasize the rule of Law. And, why in Christian systems, power flows from the bottom up? "Not by power, but by My Spirit," sayeth the Lord.

Second, since the Christian knows that God created man in His own image and created all that is, then its possible for a Christian who thinks like God, analogically, to truely interpret the facts before him. All facts are created by the same God, including God's earthly interpreter, i.e., the Christian.

As Van Til would say, "we must learn to think God's thoughts after him." If this becomes our goal, to see and interpret all facts as God has already interpreted them, then the Christian can know truth and properly interpret reality, but he cannot know it exhaustively, as God does.

Third, in humanism, as suggested above, all facts are subject to change and hence there can never be any confidence in the humanistic view of any fact. This was the failing of Plato's view of the facts. By his own admission, Plato could not conceive of the ultimate idea of 'mud, hair, and filth.' He believed that he could conceive of the ideas of good, beauty, right, and justice, but he could not handle mud, hair, and filth, and for this reason, Platonic and Neo-platonic thought floundered on the rocks of skepticism. For one never knew when a fact such as mud, hair, and filth might turn up to change everything.

The Christian, however, with the Holy Spirit as his teacher and Scripture as his textbook of life and reality, can take confidence in the fact that God would not deceive him. Though he may not know any more than the humanist, what the Christian does know he can know truly and take confidence in it. The future for the Christian may not be known in great detail, but he knows also that God is in control and that all things work together for the Chritians good. As the Scripture says, "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask for bread, will he give him a stone?" Matthew 7:9.

Fourth, with humanism, dominated as it is by relativism, uncertainty, and so on, we see that over time, the level of confusion and chaos must increase and the system must eventually collapse. Thus, a humanist may put a certain view of the facts into practice, but, as time goes on, his view will increasingly interpret the outcome of his view of the facts - incorrectly. He may see quite clearly, that there is something wrong, but he cannot possibly know, truly, how to fix it. He will then try something else, which will be just as wrong as his first view of the facts, because his relativistic reason cannot do otherwise. His second view will also be fraught with error as his first view was, and thus he will merely add error to error and the confusion level will rise accordingly.

When civil govrnments are dominated by humanism, the ideas never fail because they are wrong, but only because the civil power hasn't enough money or power to do it right. The result: at the next session of the legislature, more power and taxes will be demanded to fix the problems, "so that it will never happen again."

How many times do we hear the modern politician make a 'guarantee' to the people, that with only a little more power and taxes, 'thus and so, will never happen again.'

This process is further aggravated by the humanists' own ego that cannot admit that its interpretation of the facts was wrong the first time. No, such an admission would be tantamount to an admission that reason has failed with the obvious conclusion being, that for the answer we must turn to God, which in the humanists heart, he knows is always there. In short, he will not willingly repent of his first error, because he has no basis upon which repentence is possible.

We must not forget that there is no forgiveness for error (sin) in the humanistic system. How often have we seen them savage their own people, like pyrannha, when their mistake becomes public.

The Christian can, however, move forward with confidence in his interpretation of the facts, knowing all the time that he will likely have to modify his position as time goes on. We assume here, that the Christian has made a full study of the facts, both sacred and profane and that he has interpreted them by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. And, when he or a brother or sister in Christ, sees error in the first view of the facts, there can be an immediate repentence of the error, the view of the facts can be modified and one moves on. The Christian knows that in all he does, the Lord is guiding him, teaching him, and reproving him, because the Lord God loves him and cares for him.

Fifth, the humanist has great difficulty communicating his view of the facts to all men, both humanist and Christian. This is because he has no standard of meaning and content for his thinking that he can appeal to, or point to, to illustrate his meaning. In short, he has no Scripture. Thus, no matter how hard he tries, other humanists and Christians will always mis-interpret his view of the facts. The humanist is therefore constantly put in the position of explaining and justifying himself, especially as time goes on and more and more error is seen by all, in his original interpretation of the facts.

Humanistic egos will modify word meanings that depart from accepted meanings and the dictionary meanings. This is why humanistic thought, over time, constantly re-defines every area of life and thought in terms of its own god (reason). All ideas must be re-made in its own image, not conformed to the image of God that he bears within himself. This is no where more evident than in the humanist idea of law and justice, evidence of which is all about us, today.

But, for a Christian, the meaning of the words he uses are always controlled by Scripture. Communication between Christians and the meaning a Christian imparts to the humanist, should always be the same, because God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Law is thus always the same in its meaning and hence true justice is always available.

The form in which the law is applied by Christians, changes with time, but its meaning and God's intent in His Law, never changes.

Sixth, since the humanist cannot make up his mind whether the one or the many is ultimate, and he ignores the answer found in a balance of the two in the Godhead, he is also bound up in arguing over whether his method of reasoning is inductive, or deductive.

Deductive reasoning, reasons from the general, the one, to the particulars, or the many.

Inductive reasoning, reasons from facts, particulars, or the many, to some general premise, i.e., the one.

In other words, the method of reasoning one uses will likely be determined by whether we are reasoning from the one or the many. The battle over which method is valid, especially in the sciences, has been long and bitter for centuries.

But, Van Til has made it clear, that given the solution to the problem of knowledge in the Godhead, the Christian is free to use both with equal emphasis and utility.

In sum, one can argue from the one to the many and back to the one or from the many to the one and back again. Both processes of reasoning are used without conflict. And, thus, deductive and inductive reasoning are compliments, not opposites.

Seventh, the realm of science and its prevailing whims have often been called upon to lead us in the right paths, and usually this means that one infers from certain facts, some new alleged truth about the meaning of the facts before us.

But, within the sciences, there is a pre-occupation with cause and effect. And, it is because of this doctrine of cause and effect that science has always sought some 'mechanical' solution to the problem of the orbits of planets.

On the one hand, science wants a cause for the planetary rotation, allegedly about the sun, but in his seeking for the cause to account for the rotational effect of the planets, he invariably leaves out of his equations, the fact of agency.

As Christians, we know, for example, that nothing happens without God's hand in it. In this age, God's agent is the Holy Spirit. And, we know that God sustains all things by his power. We also know that all things were created through Christ in whom we live and move and have Our being.

Thus, for the Christian, there is no bare cause and effect without God acting as the agent to keep everything in order and sustain it.

Thus, the problems that science faces in the doctrine of cause and effect, will often be sustained with great intellectual force, which are problems created by the scientist himself who has bought into a false dichotomy.

By the scientists attempting to account for the relationships between things and explaining it on the basis of cause and effect only, without God's hand in the picture, is to posit a false premise from the outset.

Eighth, is the problem of limits. Commonly, modern man asserts that he must have unlimited possibilities for finding a solution to any problem. This means, that he wants a world without limits to the possible paths down which his thinking may take him.

Yet, it is obvious to every man, great thinker or not, that man lives and moves and has his being in a world of limits.

The problem for the humanist is that, if he admits to limits on the possibilities for his thoughts or acts, he must tell us what those limits are and where the boundary lines are drawn, whether we speak of the intellectual world of the mind, or of the concrete world that we live in.

But, modern man and his humanistic leaders want to live in a world that has no defined limits, because the limits may get in the way of his freedoms, or the free exercise of intellecutal possibility. Apparently life is not complex enough for these people; they want to make it more complex.

This raises the subject of a talk show I saw many years ago, in which, Charles Williams, the brilliant black economist was being interviewed. Mr. Williams gave an answer to a question asked by the host that was very simple and direct. The host replied, "But, isn't the solution much more complex than that."

Mr. Williams looked the host in the eye and said: "Tyranny always takes refuge in complexity."

This telling destruction of the host's typical answer led me to think of what a great blessing it was to have the Law of God and all the statements of the historic creeds and doctrines that have come down to us from The Great Reformation.

God's revelation and the historic work of the church has defined for us the limits of possibility in the most crucial areas of Our thought and this is just one reason why the study of Scripture and great works of the church are so important.

God has, in effect told us, 'don't bother to look over there, you won't find the answers.' It is amazing that in the era of humanistic dominance and its obsession with 'freedoms,' that many books have been written on the subject ofpower of limits.

Ninth, the mind of man is a unity with yet great diversity of thought in a thousand areas of life. This is vital to understand the confusion in the world of thought, for it relates directly to the problems of correspondence and coherence.

These problems are concernced with some very simple questions, such as: does my thought really correspond to what's out there? How are my thoughts related to things about me? What does correspondence and coherence have to do with my presuppositions? If my thoughts correspond to things as they are, does that mean my thought is coherent?

Without a solution to the problems of correspondence and coherence we are mired in doubt, uncertainty, and indecision. It is these problems, that have plagued all modern philosophers since Immanuel Kant (1724-1802) and his "Critique of Pure Reason."

Since Non-christian philosophers have utterly failed to satisfactorily answer the problems, they no longer even raise questions about whether or not the image in my mind really corresponds to what's out there, or not .

If the image I have in my mind of the object out there, is not really what's out there, then there is no possibility of my thought and ideas being coherent.

The Christian, has no problem with either correspondence or coherence, because he knows that God has created all things, including the Christian, and thus everything is already coherent and related in a logical way. And, the questions of whether the object out there corresponds to the image I have of the object in my mind never comes up, because God has created us in His image and likeness and placed us within His creation in which we were designed to function.

Again, God would not deceive us and place us in an environment that he did not want us to understand.

At this point, we must realize that the process of being a Christian carries with it certain obligations that are usually ignored, if not deprecated, by the modern Christian; the goal of which is the 'renewing' of Our minds, and this means, changing the way we think.

Next month, we will move from the theoretical to the concrete and show how Dr. Van Til's view point can be applied towards the renewing of Our minds.

We can 'bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.'

(continued in Issue the Thirteenth)

Thomas Jefferson:

Friend or Foe of Christian America?

Part Four

(continued from Issue the Eleventh)

...treaty, had instigated the Indians to raise the tomahawk and scalping knife against American citizens, had let loose the Algerines upon their unprotected commerce, and had insulted their flag, and pillaged their trade in every quarter of the world. These facts being notorious, it was astonishing to hear gentlemen ask how had Britain injured their commerce?

The conduct of France, on the contrary, had been warm and friendly. That nation had respected American rights, and had offered to enter into commercial arrangements on the liberal basis of perfect reciprocity.

"In contrasting the ability of the two nations to support a commercial conflict, it was said Great Britain, tottering under the weight of a king, a court, a nobility, a priesthood, armies, navies, debts, and all the complicated machinery of oppression which serves to increase the number of unproductive, and lessen the number of productive hands; at this moment engaged in a foreign war; taxation already carried to the ultimatum of financial device; the ability of the people already displayed in the payment of taxes constituting a political phenomenon; all prove the debility of the system and the decrepitude of old age. On the other hand, the United States, in the flower of youth; increasing in hands; increasing in wealth; and although an imitative policy has unfortunately prevailed in the erection of a funded debt, in the establishment of an army, in the establishment of a navy, and all the paper machinery for increasing the number of unproductive, and lessening the number of productive hands; yet the operation of natural causes has, as yet, in some degree, countervailed their influence, and still furnishes a great superiority in comparison with Great Britain."

"The present time was declared to be peculiarly favourable to the views of the United States. It was only while their enemy was embarrassed with a dangerous foreign war, that they could hope for the establishment of just and equal principles."

The real object of this report by the Secretary of State, and of the resolutions introduced by Mr. Madison, was stated in the course of the debate upon the latter. "The discussion of this subject, it was said, "has assumed an appearance which must be surprising to a stranger, and painful in the extreme to ourselves. The supreme legislatore of the United States is seriously deliberating, not upon the welfare of our own citizens, but upon the relative circumstances of two European nations; and this deliberation has not for its object the relative benefits of their markets to us, but which form of government is best and most like our own, which people feel the greatest affection for us, and what measures we can adopt which will best humble one, and exalt the other.

"The primary motive of these resolutions, as acknowledged by their defenders, is not the increase of our agriculture, manufactures, or navigation but to humble Great Britain, and build up France."

And such was unquestionably their real character and object. But the intended operation of them, and of the language and sentiments uttered respecting them in debate, was so clear and explicit, that they could not be mistaken, and therefore they could not fail of producing their designed effect upon the feelings of the British government and people. Nor could they be viewed in any other light, than as expressing great hostility to the interests of that nation, and strong partiality to those of France. And hence may be discerned the first traces of that system of policy towards Great Britain, which originated with Mr. Jefferson, and was steadily pursued by him through the remainder of his political life, and by his immediate successor in the administration of the national government, until it terminated in the war of 1812.

To establish the truth of the position just advanced, it will be necessary to give a historical account of the measures of the government, relating to the general subject, under the administrations of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. The facts which will be adduced, will be derived from the public records and state papers, or from other sources equally authentic and creditable.

In April, 1794, Mr. Jay, then Chief Justice of the United states, was appointed minister extraordinary to the court of Great Britain. This mission was strongly disliked by the party of which Mr. Jefferson was the acknowledged leader. But notwithstanding their disapprobation it was pursued; and in November following, a treaty was concluded, in which the great causes of uneasiness and animosity between the two nations were adjusted, and a foundation laid for their future peace, harmony, and friendship. As soon as the news reached this country that such a treaty had been concluded and signed, and long before its contents were known, there was a great degree of excitement among what Mr. Jefferson called the republican party. Notwithstanding all the clamour, the treaty was submitted to the Senate, who advised its ratification, with the exception of one article. One member of that body, however, in violation of the injunction of secrecy under which they acted, and before the treaty was signed by the President, published it in a newspaper. Immediately upon its appearance, the country was thrown into a ferment, and every possible effort was made to induce the President to reject it. Meetings were held, violent resolutions were passed, and inflammatory addresses were made, and circulated, with the hope, if not the expectation, of overawing that dignified and inflexible magistrate and patriot, and of inducing him to withhold his final approbation from the treaty. The attempts all failed; - the treaty was ratified; and the nation derived from it numerous and substantial benefits.

But it met the most decided disapprobation of Mr. Jefferson. In a letter to Mann Page, dated August 80th, 1795, he says - "I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes, that fourteen out of fifteen men are rogues. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favour of general honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion is too strong for the highest orders, and for those who, rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive to nestle themselves into the places of power and profit. These rogues set out with stealing the people's good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations against the power of the people themselves. Our part of the country is in a considerable fermentation on what they suspect to be a recent roguery of this kind. They say that while all hands were below deck, mending sails, splicing ropes, and every one at his own business, and the captain in his cabin attending to his log-book and chart, a rogue of a pilot has run them into an enemy's port. But metaphor apart, there is much dissatisfaction with Mr. Jay and his treaty." In a letter to William B. Giles, dated December 31, 1795, he says- "I am well pleased with the manner in which your house have testified their sense of the treaty: while their refusal to pass the original clause of the reported answer proved their condemnation, the contrivance to let it disappear silently respected appearances in favour of the president, who errs as other men do, but errs with integrity." In a letter to Edward Rutledge, dated November 30th, 1795, he says- "I join with you in thinking the treaty an execrable thing. But both negotiators must have understood, that as there were articles in it which could not be carried into execution without the aid of the legislatures on both sides, therefore it must be referred to them, and that these legislatures, being free agents, would not give it their support if they disappproved of it. I trust the popular branch of our legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of an infamous act, which is really nothing more than a treaty of alliance between England and the Anglomen of this country, against the legislature and people of the United States."

This animosity against the treaty cannot be counted for, on the ground that it was not a beneficial measure to the nation. After the excitement which its publication and ratification produced had subsided, its advantages were realized and acknowledged; and it may be said with safety, that no subsequent arrangement between the two nations has ever been as beneficial to the United States as this. But it removed many sources of difficulty - the western posts, which the British had retained in violation of the treaty of 1783, were surrendered; and the commerce of the country was greatly benefited. And it was calculated to remove a variety of causes of uneasiness, of complaint, of interference, and of recrimination, between the nations, and therefore was thoroughly reprobated by Mr. Jefferson. And it appears, by the last quotation from his letters, that rather than have it established, and go into operation, he would have rejoiced if the House of Representatives had encroached upon the constitutional prerogative of the President and Senate, and withheld the necessary legislative aid to carry its provisions into effect. The constitution authorizes the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties; and treaties, when constitutionally made, are declared to be the supreme law of the land. Of course, when thus made, if they require legislative acts to carry them into effect, the legislature are bound by their constitutional duty, to pass such laws; otherwise the supreme law of the land may be rendered inoperative, and be defeated, by one branch of the government. This bold experiment, Mr. Jefferson would have been gratified to see made, rather than have peace and friendship established between this country and Great Britain.

Nor is the coarse attack upon Mr. Jay's character, by Mr. Jefferson, in his letter above quoted, the least reprehensible circumstance in his conduct in relation to this treaty. Mr. Jay was one of the most pure and virtuous patriots that this country ever produced. His talents were of a very high order, his public services were of the most meritorious and disinterested description, and his public and private reputation without reproach. Yet, with an air of levity, approaching jocularity, he is represented by Mr. Jefferson as one of those fortunate "rogues," who contrive to keep themselves uppermost in the world, - one who had been guilty of an "infamous act " in making the treaty. Happy would it have been for his calumniator, if his character had been equally pure, and his services equally disinterested and patriotic.

When Mr. Jefferson came into office as chief magistrate of the Union, in 1801, Rufus King was minister from the United States to Great Britain. In June, 1802, that gentleman was instructed to adjust the boundary line between the two nations; and in May, 1803, in pursuance of his instructions, he concluded a convention with that government. A dispute on this subject had existed between the two countries, from the ratification of the treaty of peace in 1783, to the date of the above mentioned convention. In forming this convention, it is known that Mr. King's views were fully acceded to by the British commissioner, Lord Hawkesbury, the latter having left the draft of the convention to Mr. King, and fully approved of that which he prepared. In a message of the President of the United States to Congress, dated October 17, 1803, is the following passage- "A further knowledge of the ground, in the north-eastern and north-western angles of the United States, has evinced that the boundaries established by the treaty of Paris, between the British territories and ours in those parts, were too imperfectly described to be susceptive of execution. It has therefore been thought worthy of attention for preserving and cherishing the harmony and useful intercourse subsisting between the two nations, to remove by timely arrangements, what unfavourable incidents might otherwise render a ground of future misunderstanding. A convention has therefore been entered into, which provides for a practicable demarcation of those limits, to the satisfaction of both parties. The following is a copy of a letter from Mr. King, which accompanied the convention, when it was transmitted to the United States government "London, ] May 13, 1803.

"SIR,--I have the honour to transmit herewith the convention which I yesterday signed in triplicate with Lord Hawkesbury relative to our boundaries. The convention does not vary in any thing material from the tenour of my instructions. The line through the bay of Passamaquoddy secures our interest in that quarter. The provision for running, instead of describing, the line between the northwest corner of Nova Scotia and the source of Connecticut river, has been inserted as well on account of the progress of the British settlements towards the source of the Connecticut, as of the difficulty in agreeing upon any new description of the manner of running this line without more exact information than is at present possessed of the geography of the country.
"The source of the Mississippi nearest to the Lake of the Woods, according to Mackenzie's report, will be found about twenty-nine miles to the westward of any part of that lake, which is represented to be nearly circular. Hence a direct line between the northwesternmost part of the lake, and the nearest source of the Mississippi, which is preferred by this government, has appeared to me equally advantageous with the lines we had proposed." signed "RUFUS KING."

On the 24th of October, one week after the delivery of the message to Congress, from which the passage above quoted is taken, Mr. Jefferson submitted this convention to the Senate, accompanied by the following message "I lay before you the convention signed on the 12th day of May last, between the United States and Great Britain, for settling their boundaries in the north-eastern and north-western parts of the United States, which was mentioned in my general message of the 17th instant; together with such papers relating thereto as may enable you to determine whether you will advise and consent to its ratification."

A letter from Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, minister at Great Britain, dated February 14th, 1801, contains the following passage:

"You will herewith receive the ratification, by the President and Senate, of the convention with the British government, signed on the 12th of May, 1803, with an exception of the 5th article. Should the British government accede to this change in the instrument, you will proceed to an exchange of ratifications, and transmit the one received without delay, in order that the proper steps may be taken for carrying the convention into effect."

"The objection to the fifth article appears to have arisen from the posteriority of the signature and ratification of this convention to those of the last convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the United States, and from a presumption that the line to be run in pursuance of the fifth article, might thence be found or alleged to abridge the northern extent of that acquisition."

Then follow a series of reasons intended to show why the British government ought not to make objections to the alterations proposed by ours.

"First. It would be unreasonable that any advantage against the United States should be constructively authorized by the posteriority of the dates in question, the instructions given to enter into the convention, and the understanding of the parties at the time of signing it, having no reference whatever to any territorial rights of the United States acquired by the previous convention with France, but referring merely to the territorial rights as understood at the date of the instructions for and signature of the British convention. The copy of a letter from Mr. King, hereto annexed, is precise and conclusive on this subject.

"Secondly. If the fifth article be expunged, the north boundary of Louisiana will, as is reasonable, remain the same in the hands of the United States as it was in the bands of France, and may be adjusted and established according to the principles and authorities which would in that case have been applicable.

"Fourthly. Laying aside, however, all the objections to the fifth article, the proper extension of a dividing line in that quarter will be equally open for friendly negotiating after, as without, agreeing to the other parts of the convention, and considering the remoteness of the time at which such a line will become actually necessary, the postponement of it is of little consequence. The truth is that the British government seemed at one time to favour this delay, and the instructions given by the United States readily acquiesced in it."

It will be recollected, that in the message to Congress, on the 17th of October, 1803, from which we have just quoted a passage, Mr. Jefferson speaks of this convention as one that would give satisfaction to all parties. It seems, however, not to have been ratified, although it was submitted to the Senate for their approbation only one week after the date of the abovementioned message to Congress. All that can be ascertained respecting the causes of its rejection, are to be found in the above cited letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, where the principal ground appears to be that it might in some way affect our concerns with France. By its rejection, however, the dispute about the boundary line was left unadjusted, and has remained so to this day.

Mr. Jay's treaty expired in 1804. As the country had experienced its beneficial effects for ten years, it was reasonable to expect that it would have been renewed at the earliest opportunity. On the 7th of August, 1804, Mr. Monroe, then ambassador from the United States to Great Britain, wrote a letter on that subject to Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, from which the following are extracts.

I received a note from Lord Harrowby on the 3d instant, requesting me to call on him at his office the next day, which I did. His lordship asked me, in what light was our treaty viewed by our government? I replied that it had been ratified with the exception of the fifth article, as I had informed him on a former occasion. He observed that he meant the treaty of 1794, which by one of its stipulations was to expire two years after the signature of preliminary articles for concluding the then existing war between Great Britain and France. He wished to know whether we considered the treaty as actually expired. I said that I did presume there could be but one opinion on that point in respect to the commercial part of the treaty, which was, that it had expired: that the first ten articles were made permanent; that other articles had been executed, but then, being limited to a definite period which had passed, must be considered as having expired with it."

After a further detail of the conversation, the letter proceeds--

"He asked, how far it would be agreeable to our government to stipulate, that the treaty of 1794 should remain in force until two years should expire after the conclusion of the present war? I told his lordship that I had no power to agree to such a proposal; that the President, animated by a sincere desire to cherish and perpetuate the friendly relations subsisting between the two countries, had been disposed to postpone the regulation of their general commercial system till the period should arrive, when each party, enjoying the blessings of peace, might find itself at liberty to pay the subject the attention it merited; that he wished those regulations to be founded in the permanent interests, justly and liberally viewed, of both countries; that he sought for the present only to remove certain topics which produced irritation in the intercourse, such as the impressment of seamen, and in our commerce with other powers, parties to the present war, according to a project which I had the honor to present to his predecessor some months since, with which I presumed his lordship was acquainted. He seemed desirous to decline any conversation on this latter subject, though it was clearly to be inferred, from what he said, to be his opinion, that the policy which our government seemed disposed to pursue in respect to the general system, could not otherwise than be agreeable to his. He then added, that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty of 1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to duties on importations from our country, and, as I understood him, all other subjects to which it extended; in which case, he said, if the treaty had expired, the ministry would take the responsibility on itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure: that in so doing, he presumed that the measure would be well received by our government, and a similar practice, in what concerned Great Britain, reciprocated. I observed, that on that particular topic I had no authority to say any thing specially, the proposal being altogether new and unexpected; that I should communicate it to you; and that I doubted not that it would be considered by the President with the attention it merited. Not wishing, however, to authorize an inference, that that treaty should ever form a basis of a future one between the two countries, I repeated some remarks which I had made to Lord Hawkesbury in the interview which we had just before he left the department of foreign affairs, by observing that in forming a new treaty we must begin de novo; that America was a young and thriving country; that at the time that treaty was formed, she had little experience of her relations with foreign powers; that ten years had since elapsed, a great portion of the term within which she had held the rank of a separate and independent nation, and exercised the powers belonging to it; that our interests were better understood on both sides at this time than they then were; that the treaty was known to contain things that neither liked; that I spoke with confidence on that point on our part; that in making a new treaty we might ingraft from that into it what suited us, omit what we disliked, and add what the experience of our respective interests might suggest to be proper; and being equally anxious to preclude the inference of any sanction to the maritime pretensions under that treaty, in respect to neutral commerce, I deemed it proper to advert again to the project, which I had presented some time since, for the regulation of those points, to notice its contents, and express an earnest wish that his lordship would find leisure, and be disposed to act on it. He excused himself again from entering into this subject, from the weight and urgency of other business, the difficulty of the subject, and other general remarks of the kind."

By this correspondence it appears, that it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, whenever Mr. Jay's treaty should expire, not to renew it. There were undoubtedly personal reasons for the adoption of this course. Mr. Jefferson, as has been seen, considered that treaty as an execrable measure, and regarded its ratification as opposed to the interests of revolutionary France, to which he was, in heart and soul, devoted. The advantages of the treaty had been so fully realized, that it was natural to expect that our government would have yielded at once to the offer of the British ministry to renew it. Their willingness to form a new treaty, upon the principles of Mr. Jay's, was repeatedly expressed, first by Lord Hawkesbury, in April, 1804, and afterwards by Lord Harrowby, in August of the same year....

Conclusion and comments in Issue the Thirteenth

Political Apostasy

by Rev. R. J. Rushdoony

The following two articles are reprinted from The Chalcedon Report, published by The Chalcedon Foundation, which is available by freely requesting it from the Foundation at:

P. O. Box 158, Vallecito, California {95251].

Man's most ancient heresy is humanism, and we first encounter it in Genesis 3:5; its essential faith is in man as his own god, knowing or determining good and evil, law and morality for himself. Very often man has expressed this faith by making himself, very openly, his own god; at other times, man objectifies his own goals and makes images which he calls gods. Very commonly, man has expressed his self-worship collectively in the state. In fact, the oldest religious institution in history is the state. The worship of the state has sometimes meant that the state has been seen as divine; at other times, its rulers; and at still other times, its offices. In modern thinking, the voice of the people is held to be god, and democracy is seen as divinely right.

Although the early church, and then the councils, notably Chalcedon in 451 A.D., fought against this re-divinization of the state, it returned in full force after a time. At first, it bore a Christian facade; then it became increasingly anti-Christian, covertly or openly.

As a result, especially in the twentieth century, we have seen a re-paganization of the state and of society, a trend strongly supported by the media. The U.S. Supreme Court, since c. 1952, has furthered this trend, as in Roe v. Wade, and, more recently, in the case of a Colorado state constitutional amendment securing special legal rights for homosexuals as a class. Only Justice Anthony Scalia opposed it, calling strong attention in his Romer v. Evans dissent, to the specious character of the majority opinion. There are, currently, more radical cases in process attacking the very life of the church. Our political candidates for offices high and low maintain a facade of piety with an absence of faith. Christians are treated as idiots who can be easily placated with meaningless gestures, as indeed too many are. However, a growing number of Christians are deeply disturbed over these trends, and at the tendency of prominent churchmen to act as chaplains to our modern caesars.

On the one hand, we have churchmen using 1 Timothy 2:1 and 2 wrongly, as though we are to pray for our rulers to be blessed. But the goal of the prayer is to be "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," i.e., that they may leave us alone! We should pray for political rulers "and for all that are in authority" that they may be converted or judged or whatever is required. How can we ask God to bless our modern equivalents of Nero?

On the other hand, we have many who want to fight over everything, or resort to arms. Assuming for a moment the very unlikely prospect of winning, what difference would it make, given our current population? The old proverb is still true: You can't make a good omelet with rotten eggs. History shows us how ridiculous such efforts are, as does the present political scene.

The change we are required to make is by regeneration, not by revolution. Nothing short of that will satisfy our Lord. Since the French Revolution, the political heresy has strongly emphasized revolution as the true means of change. Such a view is a return to paganism, to a belief that external conformity is the key to a good society; it is an echo of Plato's insane Republic.

Politics must be an area of responsible action. Our Lord stressed patience and gradualism in the work of the Kingdom: "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear" (Mk. 4:28); in other words, we cannot expect the full ear of corn when we have only just planted the seed! God warned Zechariah against all who have "despised the day of small things" (Zech. 4:10), for to do so is to despise the future. The gigantic starts are much noise and show but empty of results. It is political apostasy to trust in them, and a departure from common sense. Mark 4:28 should be our premise in every area of life.

Chalcedon's premise has been "first the blade." In our area of endeavor, as in all, we believe that this is what God blesses.

Nationalism

By R. J. Rushdoony

One of the problems to the modern intellectual is nationalism. It is a disturbing phenomenon to the modern mind because it is an irrational idea. Most modern national states are all made up of very different groups. Thus, a few European countries have substantial Celtic minorities whose desire for freedom is a real one. The Spanish Basques are intense in their insistence on freedom, and so on and on. Marxism is strongly opposed to nationalism, but the Soviet Union became an incubator for many national-istic causes on the part of various minorities.

Intellectuals have long promoted internationalism, a one-world order, but it seems as though efforts in that direction are counterproductive. Not only nationalism but localism is in resurgence.

Now nationalism is indeed irrational. Few countries have 'natural boundaries.' Even island countries have differing groups. Britain has the English, the Scots, and the Welsh, not the most harmonious of fellowships. Japan has, under the surface, very ancient and differing groups. Mexico has Indians, Spanish, and Mexicans.

Despite these problems, the modern nation state survives and reasserts itself. In the face of a growing internationalism, we have seen such break-ups as Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Others may soon occur.

At the same time, the drive for a one-world order is very great. Intellectuals and "liberals" see it as the intelligent and inevitable solution to mankind's problems. The formation of the modern state was, after all, in most cases the union of various states of differing characters. France was once a collection of nations, and Germany, well into the eighteenth century, was an array of very many states, great and small. Even now, many "Germans" prefer to identify themselves as Hessians, Pomeranians, Bavarians, and so on and on.

Our purpose is not to defend nationalism nor to criticize internationalism but to call attention to a modern fallacy. To call nationalism irrational does not mean that it is contrary to reason but it can mean that it is not a rational need. Rather, it can be a product of intelligent historical developments and necessities. Again, to call internationalism a rational idea does not make it a necessity. The world is too much influenced by Hegelian ideas which see the world state as the logical development. However, history is not the outworkings of reason, nor of Hegel's Geist or Spirit. Its goals and developments are not determined by what philosophers see as rational. Far from it!

The attempt to reduce history to a rational order and goal is a product of humanism from at least Plato (if not the Tower of Babel) to the present. But the "reason" governing history is not man's but God's: it is His sovereign purpose and decree. Its meaning is not to be found in man's reason but in God's eternal plan.

The goal of a one-world order in the Tower of Babel was to establish determination and control not in God but in man. The "good" society was to be created and determined by man, and its reason was man's idea of truth, and freedom from God. Nationalism has been a road-block to man's efforts to play god. The confusion of tongues serves to divide men for whom division, not sin, is the evil.

Nationalism does not necessarily mean "natural" and good divisions into nation states, but it at least provides a limited insurance against world tyranny. Precisely because the various forms of tyranny are growing, so too will the divisions. Marxism, the triumph of reason (usually bad reason) over history will continue to beget more nationalism. China may well see a return to various actually free realms within the united front but in effect a return to the old regional war lords. There is a rush to divide as the pressure grows to unite.

The intellectuals are so convinced of the rationality of their one-world state that they fail to recognize that the world does not move in terms of their rationalistic imagination. Contemporary attempts to determine the future of man rationally are doomed to fail because they have no roots in history nor in man's hopes for his future.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

compiled by Randy Lee

Humanism

(hiu maniz'm)

I. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ. COLERIDGE. 2. The quality of being human; devotion to human interests 1836. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests, or with those of the human race in general; the 'Religion of Humanity' 1860. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists 1832. 5. Comtism or Positivism, or, as it may be called, Humanism. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), page 931. Oxford University Press.

1. n. Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, esp. an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God. 2. Devotion to or the study of the humanities. 3. the studies, principals, or culture of the Renaissance humanists. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1990), page 653.

i. The intellectual development of the 14th-16th centuries in Europe which sought to base all art and learning on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Humanism opposed itself to Scholasticism. The movement was nursed by the Church: such popes as Nicholas V, Pius II and Leo X were its champions, and such men as Cardinal Bessarion, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Vives, and Pico della Mirandola among its leaders. But Humanism was well named; its enthusiasm was not tempered by control, it produced Carlo Aretino and Machiavelli as well as Dean Colet and St. Thomas More, and it helped pave the way for the Reformation. In the event, Scholasticism returned and again flourishes. Among the legacies of Humanism are the insubordination of the state, whether represented by a dictator or a soviet, arising from its classical doctrine of collective morality as opposed to personal morality; and the substitution of class distinctions for differentiation by function. "Humanism was..... mundane, pagan, irreligious, positive" (J.A. Symonds).

ii. In its more extended meaning, deriving from the above, Humanism is devotion to human interests or a system concerned with real or supposed human interests without reference to God or divine things; the belief in the self-sufficiency of the natural man, and of human values (cf.,Pragmatism). But see PERSON, i. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary (1961), The MacMillan Co.

natural man

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Apt Illustration

A valuable minister of the gospel recently made use of the following illustration, to impress on the minds of the members of his church, that they ought to exert all the influence they had on the side of Christ, whatever that influence might be. Suppose, said he, that the small fibres of which a cable rope is composed, were each a living creature, and suppose one of these fibres or threads, when the anchor is cast out, and the ship tossed by winds and waves, should say, "I will not hold; my strength is small, it will not bear an ounce. It cannot be of much consequence that it be exerted in holding the largest ship; I will let go;" and so that fibre or thread lets go. Another reasons in the same way, comes to the same conclusion--that its strength is so small that it can be of no use--and lets go; and so another and another, until two thirds of them have let go, and the rest of the fibres or threads composing the cable rope are broken in twain, and the ship driven ashore and wrecked.

The application is obvious. Let Christians, when they are disposed to imagine that they can have but little influence--too little to be of any use, and therefore they will not strive to exert themselves--think of the fibres or threads of the cable rope, and beware of letting go, lest for want of these little influences, the church is driven from its steadfastness; great detriment received and souls lost.

Religion

The genius of Christianity which is from God, like the solar fire, moves in a sphere of its own, far above earthly things; while it penetrates our mundane elements without being contaminated by them, it gives beauty and lovliness to every object and to every scene to which it imparts its life-giving energies, and over which it pours its celestial radiance. It touches the heart of the proud man, and he becomes humble as a little child; it touches the heart of the sensualist, and he becomes pure and heavenly; it touches the affections of the covetous, and he becomes liberal; it touches the chain of caste, and it melts; it touches the idols of the heathen, and they fall to the ground like Dagon before the ark of God; it touches the heart of savages, and they take their places among civilized men; it sends down its fructifying showers on the barren wilderness, and it blossoms as the rose; it smiles upon the desert, and the wilderness, and the inhabitants of the rock, the wandering bushmen, sing for joy and shout from the mountains; it touches the heart of the philanthropist, and the prisons are visited, the depressed are raised, the neglected are remembered, the wounds of the broken-hearted are bound up, the vicious are reclaimed, and the prodigal son is restored. It touches the heart of the missionary, and he goes forth, forsaking country, friends and ease, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

The Clock

Clocks are of various kinds. Some are of wood, some are brass, some of wood and ivory; others of various substances. They usually beat or tick once in a second; but sometimes twice. In order to have them continue to beat, they must be wound up once in twenty-four or thirty hours. One kind, however, will run eight days without winding up. If a good clock is wound up at suitable times, it will run twenty or thirty years and sometimes longer. This, some of you may say, is wonderful; but I can tell you something which is more wonderful still. There is a kind of machine which will run months and years without winding up at all. A machine, did I say? There are several hundred millions of them. They do not beat slower than a clock, the smaller ones faster. Mine beats just about once in a second, or sixty times in a minute. Some of them run one year; others not so long, others again ten, twenty, fifty, and occasionally more than a hundred years. One in England, a few years ago, ran one hundred and sixty-nine years.

Do you think I am jesting? By no means. The human heart, in an adult; beats sixty times in a minute, or once in a second; in a child, the motion is much swifter. I know a man who is over ninety-seven years old. His machine, or heart, has therefore beat constantly ninety-seven years.

It would be curious to estimate the number of times the heart of that old man has beat in his whole life. But this cannot be done with exactness, because it has beat sometimes faster than at others. But it has always beat at least sixty times in one minute; this is 3,600 times an hour, 86,400 times a-day, 31,547,600 times a-year; and during ninety-seven years, 3,061,087,200. Even now the machine is not quite worn out. It may last to one hundred years, and perhaps longer. The owner can walk a half mile or a mile at a time, and perform considerable light labor in the course of a day. The Perfect clock.

Issue the Thirteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Christian Stand Against Licensure...

Admissions and Confessions, Part One...

Let This Mind Be in You, Part Two...

Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe (conclusion)...

'Statism is Idolatry,' A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver...

Remembering the Old Ways...

A Christian Stand Against Licensure

by Greg Loren: Durand

Editor's Note

Today, We at the Christian Jural Society News greet with open arms our Brother in Christ, Greg Loren: Durand, who has written the following article on "State Licensure," which We find, as We hope you will, most edifying. The basis of his argument centers around two basic tenets dear to Us, and All Brothers in Christ: One, "What is required to fulfill the Law?; And, Two, "By whose authority do the 'licensors' do the things they do?" The answers can be summed up in two Scripture verses.

Turning to Romans 13:8, The Apostle Paul writes to our Brothers at Rome:

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law."

When you have fulfilled the Law of God, what other duty is there outside of the love which the Word of God addresses? Have you not done your duty already when you came to Christ, and had a renewing of your mind and heart? Everything else is an interposition between your Self and God. Thus, licensure is such an interposition, because it creates a new obligation to another outside of love, and God; and becomes an addition to the Word of God. Licensure is not love; licensure is loveless and lawless.

And to answer the second question, We need look no further than The Word of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in John 3:17-18:

"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Can the condemned create law? Can one who believes in the limited reason of man found in Constitutions, proclamations, codes, rules, and regulations be fulfilling the Law of God? Greg Loren leaves no doubt to what the answer is!!!

The Biblical Truth of Christ's Present Reign

Scripture openly and without equivocation proclaims the rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary to the Premillennial/Dispensational views which are so popular in modern Evangelicalism, this rulership is not limited to the future when Christ will allegedly return to earth to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem. According to Psalm 2:8, the nations have been given to Christ by the Father as His inheritance. We are told that this inheritance went into effect at Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33-35, 13:33-34; I Corinthians 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:20-22; Hebrews 1:5, 8, 13). Consequently, "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15b). This rulership is not spoken of in the future tense, but as an established fact in the heavenlies which will continue to manifest itself throughout history and into eternity:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever." (Isaiah 9:7).

Contrary to the Amillennial position, this rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ is also not limited to the Church. The kingship of Christ over the nations implies much more than merely the preaching of the Gospel; it necessarily involves the implementation of His Law in society as a whole, for a king who does not require obedience from his subjects is certainly no true king. Returning to Psalm 2, we find that both kings (civil magistrates) and judges are instructed to "serve the LORD with fear" (verse 11) and to "kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way" (verse 12). Those civil rulers who rebel "against the LORD and against His Anointed" and "take counsel together" to "break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords," are warned that Christ "shall break them with a rod of iron" and "shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel" (verse 9). There is no ethical neutrality in God's government; there is no middle ground between God's Law and man's law; there is no philosophical "cease fire" between the victorious and advancing Kingdom of Christ and the defeated and retreating kingdom of fallen men. The only terms that Christ offers the rulers of the vanquished nations is either unconditional surrender or utter destruction; there will be no prisoners of war when the battle is over.

Christians are Ambassadors of King Jesus

So how does the established reign of the Lord Jesus Christ over the nations relate to Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women who have been adopted as Heirs of the Father and made Citizens of His Kingdom? Christ's instructions to His Church in Matthew 28:18-20 gives us the answer:

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The so-called "Great Commission" is firmly founded on the fact that Christ rules all nations in fullness of power here and now - in history. Christians are "deputized" by Christ in this passage and entrusted with His power and His authority. As "ambassadors of Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20) and "good soldier[s] of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3), we are to be actively involved in "mop up" operations in this world: in the heavenly realm, all things are already accounted as being placed "under His feet" (Ephesians 1:22; Hebrews 2:8); in the earthly realm, this spiritual fact is made an actual fact through the work of individual Christians in taking dominion over the earth in Christ's Name (Genesis 1:28). God has "raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6), and He has "made us kings and priests" with Christ (Revelation 1:6).

If we are deputies of Christ, who has conquered the nations, what does this have to say about our relationship to the current martial powers occupying this country? Do we surrender our legal status as "joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17) and forfeit His Dominion for permits to do and to own those things which are already given to us by our Father? Are we to exchange, as did Esau, our birth right for a "morsel of food" (Hebrews 12:16)?

Psalm 24:1 states:

"The earth is the LORD's and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein."

The LORD God through His Son Jesus Christ is the sole owner of all things, and even all people, in this world. His are "every beast of the forest... and the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10). His is the day and His is the night (Psalm 74:16). His is "the kingdom, the power and the glory forever" (Matthew 6:13). "He does whatever He pleases" (Psalm 115:3) with that which is His own, and He has graciously given us all things in Christ and instructed us to possess the land in His Name (Deuteronomy 1:8; Isaiah 57:13b). We are therefore the Caretakers of our Father's world and the Stewards of His possessions (Psalm 115:16).

In demanding licensure from Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that Scripture requires us to give to God alone (Deuteronomy 6:13-14; Matthew 4:10). In its wicked rebellion, the modern State attempts to usurp the throne of the Lord Jesus Christ and sets itself up as the "gold image" to which all its subjects are expected to bow. However, we as servants of Christ need to realize that there is no neutrality in life; everything we do has an underlying religious implication. When we succumb to intimidation from the godless rulers of our time to submit our private property, our household pets, and even our children to licensure from the State, we are acting as if Christ the King no longer owns and rules over all things, but has been Himself vanquished by His enemies. Simply put, we are violating the very First Commandment, which tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).

The Ungodly State is a "Beast"

In the book of Revelation, the ungodly State is pictured as a "beast" which, in claiming for itself the prerogatives of God, is described as "speaking great things and blasphemies" (Revelation 13:5). The Christians of the first-century were under the military authority of Rome - a nation which openly proclaimed its rulers, the Caesars, to be divine. All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is Lord." Upon compliance with this law, the citizens and subjects were given a papyrus document called a "libellus," which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace. In this way, Roman society became, for all intents and purposes, closed to anyone not willing to adhere himself and his family to the established religion of Caesar-worship (statism). To be "a friend of the world" was, in a very real sense, to be "an enemy of God" (James 4:4b). This is the essence of Scripture's warnings to the early Christians against taking upon themselves the "mark of the beast":

"All who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world...
"He causes all, both small and great, rich or poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name...
If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 13:8, 16-17, 14:9b-12).

It should be remembered that "it was granted to [Caesar] to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7a). Our Brothers and Sisters were torn apart by wild animals in the Roman Coliseum and used as living candles in the gardens of Nero because they refused to offer up even a tiny pinch of incense in his name and proclaim that he, not Christ, was Lord. In essence, they refused to submit to licensure (permission) from the State to live and worship as God had commanded them.

Modern imperial America is very similar, in both its 'laws' and its social climate, to ancient imperial Rome. We are, as were the Christians of the first century, commanded by the godless "powers that be" to obtain the "mark of the beast" in our "right hand or forehead" by submitting to fictitious creation as commercial "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. We are confronted, as they were, with the increasing difficulty of "buying or selling" without Social Security enumeration, which is the modern "number of his name." It may very well be that our Lord has decreed that we shall soon suffer for His Crown and Covenant as did His servants before us and pay the ultimate price for our obedience. Because of this possibility, we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with the story of the three Hebrew youths in Daniel 3. They were, as we in America are today, subjects of the mightiest military power on earth. The pagan Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, like our current Federal government, had proclaimed himself to be the only god to whom the people were to submit and had even set up a golden image to which they were commanded to bow in symbolic worship of his name. When brought before the king and threatened with death in a furnace of fire for their disobedience to this edict, their response was respectful yet unwavering:

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up" (Daniel 3:16b-18).

We as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women are commanded by our Commander-in-Chief to be His witnesses before the nations (Isaiah 43:10; Matthew 10:32; Acts 1:8). Contrary to the proponents of the so-called "Patriot movement," we are not to be about the vain work of asserting our own personal sovereignty, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is His flag which we are to follow and it is Citizenship in His State which we are to proclaim. In the faithful exercise of this duty, we are assured a great reward, if not in this life, then certainly in that which is to come. Though we may be persecuted by the haters of our Lord and even "beheaded for [our] witness to Jesus and for the word of God" (Revelation 20:4), we are not to "fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" but rather "Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

Conclusion

Contrary once again to the secular patriotism ("Americanism") so prevalent in the tax-protest, state Citizenship, and sovereignty movements, America deserves to live on in history only if its people return to the Lord Jesus Christ and submit themselves once again to His Law. And since the Church is called to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:13-14), such will never happen until individual Christians begin to abandon their Federal benefits, revoke their licenses, forsake their corporations, and stand faithfully upon the promises of God's Word. A generation that is more enamored with the "cradle to grave" guarantees of "Egypt" than with the challenges of "the Promised Land" ahead, is a generation which God will judge and whose "corpses [will fall] in the wilderness" (Hebrews 3:17). Our King asks of such a people, "[Y]ou lift up your eyes toward your idols.... Should you then possess the land?" (Ezekiel 33:25). May the Lord grant that our children will remember us as those who stood as bold champions for the Crown Rights of King Jesus rather than those who grovelled at the feet of His enemies for a handout.

Let us conclude by returning once again to Psalm 2:

"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us."
"He who sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure." (Psalm 2:1-5).

Admissions and Confessions

Part One:

Written and compiled by John Joseph

The Bankruptcy of The United States

The following begins the series, 'Admissions and Confessions,' which is intended to document full disclosures by 'government officials.'

John Joseph's commentary is in italics.

Robert Bork once said that the majority of people who are in vinculis (in chains), are in jail because of the admissions and confessions they made to those seeking them out. They, however, are not alone. All admissions and confessions are usable, and We keep a record of these admissions and confessions to help Us understand their pre-suppositions, perspective, and eschatology. Their admissions and confessions are full disclosure, making 'fraud' very hard to prove, and the burden of proving any issue is on those who affirm the issue, not on those who deny it.

For the same reason, God has given His Word in Scripture to light and guide the Christians path in their lives here on earth. Whatever is not prohibited by Scripture is permitted. Whatever is condemned by Scripture is prohibited. We are then left with this: because Scripture has been notice to all, then all are without excuse, which includes any allegation of deceit or fraud. So, bringing actions or accusations of fraud, when these disclosures have been fully made and approved of by the public, are for naught.

The Congressional Record

March 17, 1993---H1303

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.

Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

Mr. Trafficant has openly admitted that the United States, i.e., the federal corporation established in 1871, is bankrupt, and that Congress is merely managing the bankruptcy, the largest such bankruptcy in history. But, who are They Trustees for? The bondholders of the national debt!! What is being used as collateral for the bondholders, in order to avoid receivership? These are the questions we must find the answers to in other admissions and confessions that are yet to be found and understood.

The point is, this bankruptcy would not have happened if the Scriptures, God's Word, had not been abandoned by Christians.

"Nunquam res humanae prospere succedunt ubi negliguntur divinae, or Human things never prosper when divine things are neglected." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

We are without excuse. It is up to Us to set things right for our Posterity, in order to give them a better start in Christian living than what We may or may not have been enjoined with.

Letter from the CEO and

Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon

excerpts from 1997 Postal Service Employee Brochure

"I am pleased to introduce to you the indicator that we will be using from now on to measure our financial performance - Economic Value Added, known as EVA.
"An important part of our mission is in our name--the United States Postal Service. We serve the American public. Like shareholders in a private, for-profit business, the American people are our stakeholders.
You are critical to the success of EVA. Examine what you do, devise ways to do it better, and use EVA to measure the effectiveness of your ideas. Working together, we must review how we do things, how we invest capital--both dollars and people--to get things done. Think of ways to improve how we move the mail, get more out of our product line, use capital more effectively, and maximize the return on the capital we use".

So, Mr. Runyon considers the American people stakeholders!! What is a stakeholder?

In Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., pg. 1404:

Stakeholder. "Generally, a stakeholder is a third party chosen by two or more persons to keep on deposit property or money, the right or possession of which is contested between them and to be delivered to one who shall establish his right to it; and it is one who is entitled to interplead rival or contesting claimants to property or funds in his hands. Cochran v. Bank Hancock County, 118 Ga.App. 100, 162 S.E.2d 765, 770. A person who is or may be exposed to multiple liability as the result of adverse claims. A stakeholder may commence an action of interpleader against two or more claimants. New York C.P.L. R. Sec. 1006. See also Interpleader.
A person with whom money is deposited pending the decision of a bet or wager (q.v.) His function is to receive the sums wagered and hold them against the determining event, whether that event be a horse race or otherwise, and then pay them over to the winner."

It appears that the American people have been reduced, through the bankruptcy, to 'multiple liability' and holders of the fictions in a giant krap shoot.

Mr. Runyon also admits that not only dollars, but also people, are capital. So, what is capital?

From the same Law Dictionary, page 208:

Capital. "Accumulated goods, possessions, and assets used for the production of profits and wealth. Often used equally correctly to mean the total assets of a business. Sometimes used to mean capital assets."

How does it feel to be considered 'accumulated goods, possessions and assets,' of Commercial Babylon and the bondholders thereof?

State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders

by Edwin Borchard, pp. 123-128,

published by Yale University Press, 1951

State or National Insolvency

"State insolvency may take various forms, some mild, some drastic; it may be open and acknowledged or disguised, such as devaluation of the currency or unit of payment; it may relate only to interest, principal, or sinking fund, or to some or all of these in combination; it may be in good faith or bad, unavoidable or willful; it may be formally acknowledged by legislation or be undeclared and left to inference. It may involve discrimination among different creditors or among different groups of creditors, nationals, or foreigners, or among foreigners of different nationality. [As in the case of Germany, which claimed in 1933 that its favorable trade balance with Holland and Switzerland enabled the Reich to treat bondholders of those countries more favorably than American bondholders. See Charles R. S. Harris, Germany's Foreign Indebtedness (London, Oxford University Press, 1935), p. 53.] It may involve discrimination between large and small bondholders, between holders of the floating debt and long-term bondholders, between secured and unsecured creditors, according to or in violation of the terms of the loan.

"The types of state insolvency have been classified as follows: state bankruptcy may be divided into (1) the total nonperformance of (a) the obligation to pay the principal, (b) the duty to pay interest, or (c) of both duties simultaneously; (2) the partial nonperformance of the obligations mentioned under (a), (b), (c). [For other classifications of the types of state insolvency, see Madden and Nadler, Foreign Securities, pp. 264 ff., who distinguish between defaults as to interest; suspension of interest; reduction of interest without consent of the lender; cancellation of interest and agreement to pay principal only; imposing of new coupon taxes which reduce the interest on the loan; and defaults as to principal; forced conversion of loan without consent of the lender; suspension of amortization charges; alienation of pledged revenues; compulsory prolongation of a loan that has matured].

Korner, Staatsschuldentilgung und Staatsbankrott, pp. 80, 87, Jeze, loc. Cit., says:

'History affords many examples of States failing to fulfill their engagements. Thus, States may suspend the payment of interest or sinking fund; they may perform their obligations in a currency different from the one stipulated in the contract; or they divert revenues assigned for the service of the debt to other purposes.' Feilchenfeld, in Quindry, Bonds and Bondholders, Rights and Remedies, Vol. II, sc. 647, distinguishes between default, quasi confiscatory measures, confiscation and repudiation, voiding. Winkler 'Defaults and Repudiation of Foreign Loans,' Foreign Policy Association, Information Service, August 3, 1928, IV, 235, enumerates the following forms of government default: (1) reduction of the rate of interest; (2) delay in the payment of interest; (3) suspension of payment of interest; (4) reduction in the rate of interest through the levy (subsequent to the flotation of the loan) of taxes upon the rate of interest agreed upon; (5) delay in payment of principal; (6) forced conversion of loans; (7) reduction in the principal amount of loans; (8) payment of 'gold' loans in depreciated currency; (9) reduction in the amount of sinking fund payments; (10) suspension of the sinking fund; (11) reduction of both interest and sinking fund; (12) repudiation of both interest and principal.]

1. Nonpayment of interest--by reducing the rate, by postponing the payment for a period, by complete and indefinite suspension of interest payments, by reduction of the coupon interest by a special tax on the coupons in breach of the [loan] contract.

2. A failure to fulfill the obligations as to repayment of principal, either by postponing the duty to repay, by transforming the obligation in to a different type, including compulsory conversion, by reducing the capital amount of the debt, by depreciation of the prescribed standard of payment either through devaluation, through going off a metallic standard on to an inconvertible paper basis.

This type of insolvency was known even in ancient Rome. In ancient times the amount of metal in the coin was debased so as to make it less valuable. In modern times, the unit of currency is depreciated ["debased"] or "devalued" or a promise to redeem in gold is repudiated by redeeming in paper of an arbitrary or uncertain value. Thus, under the French law of June 28, 1928, the French franc lost four fifths of its value. The devaluation may confirm an existing depreciation, as in France, or it may deliberately and suddenly depreciate or "go off gold" as in England in 1931 and the United States in 1933. From 1864 to 1879 the United States currency was not redeemable in gold. The French assignats of the French Revolution, bonds issued as currency and "secured" on state lands, became worthless. Managed currency has left the paper without a reliable basis for in any fixed value. Excessive issues of paper constitute a method of depreciating the monetary unit in which a debt is "repaid." The unit retains its character as legal tender. Germany had this experience in 1922, and the German courts, down to the time in 1923 when the currency was completely destroyed, held that "a mark is a mark." Foreign bondholders of German marks had to bear the loss as did nationals. Ginlini v. The Reich, R. G. IV, 359/26, January 27, 1927. Mortgages, insurance policies, and other obligations were by statute revived or revalued (Aufwertung) at 12% of their face amount.

After World War I the payment in an inflated paper currency of an obligation contracted in a metal currency became common throughout many of the exbelligerent countries. It is a form of confiscation and admission of insolvency. Russia entered on such a transaction in 1839, though in Russia it affected practically only Russian creditors. This Russian affair has been characterized by writers as an intentionally fraudulent transaction, for they took silver away from the people and gave them worthless paper in its place.] or through a marked inflation. [Sometimes a combination of all three.]

"3. A reduction or repudiation of interest payments and the simultaneous reduction or repudiation of the capital debt.

"4. The 'blocking of foreign exchange' by transfer prohibitions or licenses, with a deposit in untransferable currency of funds representing the debt charges. This amounts to a retardation or suspension of payment, possibly for an indefinite period, although the debt is not repudiated nor open insolvency admitted."

In effect, martial law is used to secure the bondholder's rights to the payment of the bonds. This is one of the 'reasons' for the continued 'permanent state of emergency' since 1933.

The most important question is: Is the bankruptcy real and legitimate or a created fiction by 'the powers that be.'

Only through diligent research and the sharing of information by all who seek The Truth, will there be a re-establishment of the inherited Dominions which Our Lord and Saviour has given Us, to be Good Stewards over.

(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)

Let This Mind Be In You

Part Two

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Twelfth)

The Flaw in Modern Christian Thought

In the so-called golden Age of Scholasticism (the 10th to 13th centuries), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Roman Catholic scholar, tried to merge the thought of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Christ. He sought to take the best of what he found in Aristotle and merge it with the best of Christianity, and thereby create a system of thought that would account for both the inner and outer world of man's existence. Aquinas set forth his ideas in a very large work, called Summa Theologica.

Thomas failed to realize that he was not thinking like a Christian, because he depended on his own reason to tell him where Aristotle's thought ended and Christianity began. It never occurred to Thomas to see Aristotle in the light of Christianity and Scripture and by so doing, discover major flaws in Greek philosophy. He merely assumed that Christianity was limited to the inner man, the realm of grace, and that the outer man in the realm of nature, was under reason. Most important of all, Aquinas never asked whether it was even possible for such a merger of two mutually exclusive systems, in the first place. His first presupposition was--that his own reason was capable of achieving such a thing.

The result was, Thomas bifurcated man's existence by splitting man's mind into two different realms, with each under a different authority, neither of which came under the authority of Christ and Scripture. The inner man literally came under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, while the outer man, in the world of nature, was under the authority of Aristotle and reason. The Roman Church thought so much of Aquinas' work, that he and his work were canonized and became the accepted doctrine of the Church at Rome.

Thomism began to collapse, however, as the victim of its own bifurcation, and it fell, as Aristotle's idea of reason was applied by later generations of thinkers that revealed the hidden flaws, or presuppositions of Thomas Aquinas. The problem was then, and still is--if Christ has nothing authoritative to say about the world of nature, perhaps He has nothing authoritative to say about anything else. Christianity became increasingly irrelevant to the new humanism that gave birth to the Renaissance and autonomous reason was enthroned as king, in principal.

The Reformation reacted against the Renaissance. We have all heard how the Reformation began with Martin Luther (1483-1546) nailing his Ninety-six Thesis to the door of the Wittenburg church in Germany, but, what most do not know is, the Reformation asserted that Christ was King over the inner and outer man, over both Grace and Nature. The Great Reformation rejected any bifurcation of man existence, and asserted the contrary, by calling the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church into question on the authority of Christ and Scripture alone.

This is the background to the popular phrase of Our founding father's: "No King but Christ." This is the core of John Calvin's (1509-1564) great work, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," first published in 1536. Calvin's work called all thought into question that did not conform to the Scriptures of God. It is Calvinism that is embodied in the marginal references of the Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Reformation and the early Puritans.

Interestingly, Leonardo Da Vinci, the chief example of Renaissance man, spent the last two years of his life wallowing in skepticism as the guest of the King of France. Ironically, this great icon of the Renaissance arrived at the French Court at the same time as Calvin's Institutes.

Calvin's body was barely cold in his grave, when a challenge to his views came down the pike in the works of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) who said that Calvin's idea of predestination did not do justice to reason and free will. It was ignored by Arminius's followers that Calvin wrote very little about predestination. Luther's "Bondage of the Will," was an earlier and larger work on predestination.

At any rate, Arminius's followers wrote a Remonstrance against Calvin and the Calvinists responded with a Counter-remonstrance. A heated debate followed that led to a split in the Reformation into the Calvinists who held to the Sovereignty of God and the Arminians who asserted the sovereignty of free will. A total of five points of disagreement stood between the two camps.

Key to Arminian doctrine is the assertion that man cannot be responsible for sin unless he has a free will. Appealing not to Scripture, but to the ego of man, Arminians assert that man's will is free to resist God's Will which is beyond the sovereign power of God.

It has apparently never occurred to the Arminians that the phrase free will nor its equivalent never appears in Scripture nor has another more telling question ever arose, i.e., would or could God, ever create something that was beyond his power to control???

Thus, as Aquinas asserted that nature was under the authority of reason and not under the authority of God and Scripture, so also did Arminius assert that man's will was under his own control and guided by his own reason. Today, more than ninety percent of the modern Protestant Evangelical churches are Arminian in doctrine, if not explicitly, then implicitly.

The result is, Christ occupies one part of mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another. This is what Dr. Rushdoony has called, 'intellectual schizophrenia' and it is this intellectual schizophrenia that is the primary reason why the Christian church has become so ineffective against the advance of humanism.

Until the work of Cornelius Van Til and his contemporaries, no one bothered to seriously challenge whether or not the question of responsibility vs. free will, vs. predestination, vs. etc., etc., was even a valid question.

In other words, is man responsible because he has a free will, or is man responsible for some other reason? If it can be shown that man is responsible whether he has a so-called free will or not, then the whole of Arminianism goes out the window, and here is where Van Til comes to the defense of the Christian position, for reasons which will become clearer further on.

Just as surely as quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other, the form, language, and even the meaning of words may be altered, but the essential core of an idea, its meaning or content, never change the way it is manifest in history, and the same consequences always follow the same idea.

If we assume that any part of a man's life or thought is outside the power and authority of God, then it will not be long, before other aspects of life are removed from God's authority. Once the toe is in the door, the foot soon follows, and one area of life after another is all of a sudden thought of as outside the authority of Scripture and Our King, Jesus Christ. "As a man thinketh, so is he." Man does what he thinks. As Aquinas, so also Arminius, and so also the modern Christian church.

Thus, the rule confirmed by the history of thought is, grant the exception in one case and there is no reason why the exception cannot be granted in every case. This is the inescapable consequence of any idea that seeks to assert itself as being based in some area outside the realm of God's Power and Authority.

In concluding this part, we say; if this law reform movement we are involved in is to have any real hope for long term success, then a radical change must take place in the type and quality of Christian thought that we apply to the problems that face us, and Our righteousness must exceed that of the fathers if we are to stand any hope of success.

Enter Presuppositional Philosophy

As we have mentioned before, Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching impact on every area of Christian thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be reduced to one of two starting points or presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers mind in order for him to say what he does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless one's ultimate starting point or presupposition is Christian. Or, to put it another way, Non-christians do not knowingly make statements in support of Christianity, if they understand what they are saying, in the first place.

It is not a matter that some, or only the most important ideas are derived from an ultimate presupposition; all ideas are presuppositionally based, and all Our ideas can only be derived from one of two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins with, a specific idea with a specific meaning or content is always derived from the same presupposition. The presupposition behind an idea and its meaning is not arbitrary. Thus, we may speak of law, as an idea, but the meaning of law and its consequence in practice, is absolutely determined by one's presupposition. One kind of law always stems from a particular presupposition and a different kind of law stems from the opposing presupposition.

The presupposition behind an idea and its consequence must be consistently maintained. Often, one may begin with an idea of law based on a very specific presupposition, but while applying the idea, one can be side-tracked, without realizing it, or one may know that one has deviated from his original idea's meaning and still continue without a return to his original meaning. Usually, this is justified by asserting the necessity to be practical, or in the interests of compromise, or some similar excuse. The fact remains that one has contradicted ones self and is now working on a new presupposition that will change the intended consequence of the idea over the long term.

It takes courage to be consistent with one's presupposition and follow it to its logical consequence. There are always influences about us which demand that we go along to get along. But, if one is to be honest to ones self and to his compatriots, he must maintain consistency, and then his presupposition will truly govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes and how he will act on his belief. In a sense, over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition is--if the presupposition is maintained consistently and acts as a real check on one's thinking.

As shown last month, all thoughts of all men are predestined by the ultimate, religious presupposition one holds to. In theology (or atheology), philosophy, law, science, biology, education, politics, the family, and all other things, this is the case. And, in the end, one who holds to one presupposition comes to one conclusion as to what these things are, while one who holds to the opposing presupposition comes to an entirely different conclusion as to what they are.

If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent. Yet, one must know, self-consciously, what his own presupposition is, how it is put into practice, and what impact to expect from his presupposition over time. And, when we say one must know, self-consciously, we do not mean it in the sense that one 'suspects' or feels good about his presupposition, nor do we mean that the presupposition is held in a subjective, or emotional sense. One must know everything possible about his own presupposition in as much detail as possible, and know how it differs from an opposing presupposition.

To know self-consciously means, to know consciously, to be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus, the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do something because it makes him feel good, or because it gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but, because he knows, consciously, that he does what he does because of his desire to be consistent with his ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that he himself knows about, consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his authority and even when men advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition. This will be clearer if we define the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all his life.

Again, harking back to last month's article, we know that the two basic presuppositions of all men are either; one, God is Who He claims to be in Scripture, and two, the reason of man is autonomous and can know all truth without any reference to God or revelation.

At no point does either presuppositions share a common starting point, as each mutually excludes the other from its own system. Both are religious in the sense that both appeal to an ultimate.

In the discussion last month between Man 'A' and 'B' we also pointed out the importance of presuppositional analysis and how all of us think in terms of Our presuppositions whether we know it or not.

Theology vs. Atheology

Since all men are created in the image and likeness of their Creator, potentially, all men could think in such a way that their thought would correspond to the way things are, be coherent and consistent with God's view of reality. Further, the concatenation of ideas, i.e., a sequence of, or string of ideas put together, line upon line, would make logical sense and there would be no contradiction.

But, one effect of sin is the corruption of the image of God in man which divides men and introduces confusion and contradiction that is only corrected, potentially, by the regeneration of man's spirit through salvation by the Grace of God.

We use the word 'potentially,' to emphasize the difference between what is possible and what in fact exists at the moment. Man may be saved by God in an instant, but sanctification takes a lifetime. We may plant the seed of an apple and say that it is an apple tree, but, it will take a good many years and considerable care before it actually becomes a tree that produces apples, assuming all the necessary pre-conditions are in place, i.e., good soil, plenty of water, etc.

At any rate, men divide on presuppositions. Yet, all need the same things that are basic to their existence because all are created by the same God. Whether one is a Christian or humanist, the over-whelming need of man is to fulfill the image and likeness of God impressed on his nature. The Christian can fulfill his needs and realize his potential through sanctification, the study of Scripture, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, the humanist cannot because his only tool is his own reason, which is confused by his effort to suppress the image of God impressed on his nature.

Like the blind man, the humanist will grope in the dark, trying to fulfill the image of God within him, but on his own terms and presuppositions, not on Godly terms and presuppositions. Humanists need salvation, sanctification, justification, and fulfillment of all the other God-placed needs within him, but he has no potential to achieve them, in fact and in a way that corresponds to the way things are.

And, while all men have the same needs, two entirely separate means are applied to fulfill them. For the Christian, needs are fulfilled by God, while, for the humanist, needs are fulfilled by autonomous reason.

At the bottom of this page is a chart of ideas classified by whether the idea is based upon the Christian or humanistic presupposition. The chart can be extended to include as many ideas and related categories of ideas as one can think of. Additional ideas of a general nature can be added to this list, but enough is shown to illustrate the point. We can now take any of the general ideas and break them down into more specific sub-categories, which can in turn, be broken down into greater and greater detail. In this chart, the impact of the presuppositions are more clearly seen. Since the primary focus of this study is to arrive at a systematic Christian approach to Law and civil government through the right system of thought, some detail has been added to the idea of the State in the chart on Page seven. Note, under the humanist idea of the State, the State takes on the nature and attributes of God. As long as such a State exists, it will seek to fulfill its presupposition as 'the State is God walking on earth,' and it will attempt to emulate in the State, all the nature and attributes of the image of God that is stamped on the humanists nature.

There is a very subtle difference between humanistic States before and after Christ that is worth noting. Before Christ, the principal form of civil government was a monarchy bound to an official state religion that was often polytheistic in its expression. The king was expected to promote and publicly support the State religion and was often the head of both church and state.

The king was more or less deified and autonomous reason dominated, especially with the Greeks who sought to bring the idea of autonomous reason more to the forefront in the idea of philosopher kings. Alexander the Great was typical of this type of ruler. In each state, military power was essential and since much of this power was drawn from mercenary armies, the king must have a very healthy treasury in order to secure the allegiance of his armies and navies. Since resources within a state are limited, the need to sustain military power meant that kings coveted the wealth of other nations and kings. Thus, for most states in this period before Christ, conquest was a way of life.

After Christ, there began to be a tension between church and state under the growing influence of Christianity. In the Hebrew republics based on Scripture, there was a separation between church and state, i.e., Moses was head of the state and Aaron was head of the church. Both adhered to the Law of God but the church had only the power of excommunication, although it could bring charges from its ecclesiastical courts. This remained true in the Christian West until the 19th and early 20th centuries when the churches sacrificed their authority in these areas for the sake of evangelism.

In humanistic states after Christ, from about 400 A.D., kings justified their authority by right of inheritance and divine right, which was still supported by a very healthy military power.

But, from the time of Wycliffe (1320-1384), Christians began to challenge divine right and the doctrines of primogeniture (the laws of inheritance), on Biblical grounds. Wycliffe asserted that even kings were subject to the Law of God and thus, as in the best Hebrew states, the final authority in both church and state was Scripture, with the result that, humanism declined. It is worth noting that the best Hebrew states existed before the reign of kings, i.e., under the judges, and only rarely after that. Indeed, after the installation of Saul as King of Israel, the reign of kings was erratic and often the reign of one or another was as different as night and day.

With the re-emergence of humanism in the Renaissance and again in the mid-nineteenth century, autonomous reason is disguised because of the recognized power of Christian thought. Autonomous reason, as a general concept implements its ideas in the State, but under the guise of compassion and concern for the welfare of those less fortunate.

Here we must digress a bit to make a very important observation.

First, both the Roman and modern state's begin from the same presupposition, i.e., that the State is god walking on earth.

Second, both engage in bread and circuses, i.e., social welfare. Both even had widespread abortion practiced.

But, the Roman state made no pretenses that its reason for welfare was compassion and concern for the less fortunate. In Rome, state welfare was the only way the masses could be kept in line and not openly rebel against the Army and the Emperors. Yet, the idea of compassion and concern for the less fortunate is an idea that originated in the Old and New Testaments, and no where else. In all pagan states before Christ, social welfare was implemented purely as a tactical move by the state, to keep the masses in tow, i.e., to help the masses enjoy their slavery.

The modern welfare state, however, has borrowed an idea from Christianity and incorporated it as a major component of justification for a social welfare state, but the end result is the same as it was under the Roman Imperial powers--high tax rates and only a thinly disguised slavery for both rich and poor.

The point of this digression is simply to provide yet another example of what we have been saying throughout this series of articles. The appearance or form may change from one era to another, but the same ideas, implemented on the same presuppositions, always end with the same consequences. And, it does not matter one whit whether the idea is ancient or modern.

The modern disguises began by borrowing Christian buzz-words, especially in the Abolitionist Movement. By 1860 and Lincoln's War Against Christianity, the disguise didn't have to be very good because already the church had lost its ability to think in a consistently Christian manner and discern the times.

Thus, pre-Christian ideas of the state were manifest as monarchies based on autonomous reason, modern states embody autonomous reason in a President or Prime Minister. Humanistic states still seek to realize the all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent god/State. And as with the Pre-christian states, it can never realize itself fully, because invariably, as the power of the State increases, other factors begin to build that undermine a states ability to govern.

Notes on Income Taxes

While it is not mathematically definable as yet, it is clear that there is a maximum point at which a state may tax--Lawfully. Any tax beyond this maximum Lawful tax rate (MLTR) must be illegal as a form of theft, however it is disguised.

States may tax well beyond the MLTR for years. But, this short term gain solution--if continued--produces long term pain, because the state is consuming so many resources out of a finite potential populace, that it adversely affects the economy as a whole and the entire system just implodes on itself.

The question is, is there some idea of what the maximum Lawful tax rate should be???

At this point, we cannot say. However, Drs. Rushdoony and Young have written a book entitled "Tithing and Dominion," which, with careful study, may bear something more than a mere guideline for taxes. The MLTR for purposes of sustaining civil government, seems to be about four percent (4%).

This is based upon a systematic breakdown of how the mandatory Biblical Tithe was distributed in ancient Israel. Roughly, it is as follows:

Four percent for civil government,
Four percent for education,
One percent for the pastor,
One percent for the church or synagogue buildings. This total equals the tithe, or tenth as it was known.

Americans now pay about fifty-one (51%) percent of their income in taxes and the Founding Fathers went to war over an annual per capita tax rate of three percent (3%)!!!

What is more interesting is, once upon a time, Americans paid income taxes that amounted to 21% of the Federal Budget when the tax rate was about 18% per capita.

Now, the tax rate exceeds fifty percent, but, only accounts for about eleven percent (11%) of the total Federal Budget. In other words, the tax rate goes up by nearly sixty percent (60%), but accounts for only half of what it once took care of in the Federal Budget! What's going on here!!!

Most people believe that without income taxes the government would go belly-up, but as these numbers (available from government sources) show, as the tax rate goes up, the effective percentage of the Federal Budget paid by personal income taxes goes down. Imagine that!!!

Knowing these things, it should surprise no one that the modern states under the old Roman Imperial system (still supported by a vast military power) can never collect enough taxes or power to have enough to meet their needs as the humanistic state begins to crumble from the vacuum of its own presuppositions.

Over time, humanistic states become less efficient, failures become more obvious, the consumption of resources cripples a states economy, corruption rises, it is more and more arbitrary, and so on. But, as with Pre-christian states, so also with the modern states with respect to their military power which is always considerable, and conquest continues and expands until the bitter end of it all.

Thus, all Non-christian systems of civil power must become tyrannies supported by military force for a state that has no Law.

The will in humanism is the glorification of man whose principal agent in achieving this is always a state of Godly proportions and powers that can never be realized. They must centralize power in the One (the State), at the expense of the Many (the people) because the humanistic state never has enough power to make certain that it will not fail.

A tyrant merely seeks to realize the alleged potential of his presuppositions. The irony is, that such can never be realized in fact and reality over the long term, but the tyrants presuppositions blind him to this fact. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that no matter what the humanistic state does, it cannot erase the image of God in man that always lies in the background as a latent conscience, as a thorn, to annoy and remind the humanist that he is failing to realize his presuppositional fantasy.

The Christian on the other hand knows the state is not God and that it must be controlled by laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. The Christian knows that all the Laws of the state must conform to God's Law, or, as Blackstone has said, they are no law at all. The Christian knows that when the state is properly defined and its nature and purposes limited by Scripture, that its goal of justice for the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned and the protection of life, liberty, and property is achievable to such an extent that the Spirit of truth will lead the people into all righteousness and prosperity and that the Glory of God will be manifest where ever man casts his eye.

Then all men will know that Christ is on His throne and all is right with the world above and the world here and now. Then peace will walk among us in the Spirit of Him in Whom We live and move and Our being.

Chart 'A'

General Ideas

Christianity/Humanism

Theology/Atheology

Philosophy/Autonomous Reason

The Christian state/The secular State

The Family/The Resource Unit

God's Law/man's law

In next month's issue, we will begin the task of defining the details of Chart B and thereby bring some substance in Our system of thinking.

(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)

Thomas Jefferson:

Friend or Foe of Christian America?

Conclusion

(continued from Issue the Twelfth)

The following will conclude this series on The Hartford Convention's investigation into the policy of The United States Government that led to The War of 1812 and Thomas Jefferson's role thereof.

For those interested in this subject, 'The History of The Hartford Convention' 447 pages, written in 1833 by the Secretary of that Convention, Theodore Dwight, is available on special request from the Christian Jural Society Press, in re-copied book form.

The Hartford Resolutions and John Quade's comments on the full book, follow on Pages eleven, twelve and thirteen.

...and Lord Hawkesbury, in a conversation with Mr. Monroe, "went so far as to express a wish that the principles of the treaty of 1794 might be adopted in the convention, which it was then proposed to make; and Lord Harrowby informed him, "that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty of 1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to importations from our country, and as he understood him, all other subjects to which it extended." He even went further, and said, if the treaty had expired (about which Lord Harrowby appeared to doubt) the ministry would take the responsibility on itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure." But Mr. Monroe, acting under his instructions, was not willing to authorize even an inference, that the treaty of 1794 should ever form the basis of a future one, repeated to him the remarks he had previously made to Lord Hawkesbury, and observed, that in forming a new one, we must begin de novo -- that we were then but little experienced in our relations with foreign countries; that our interests were better understood on both sides than when the treaty was made--and that in making a new one, we might introduce into it what suited us, omit what we disliked, and add what experience might suggest to be proper.

The idea that the agents on the part of the United States, in this attempt at negotiation, understood the interests of their country more thoroughly than those connected with the negotiation of 1794, is but little short of ludicrous. The treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay, in its operation and effects, proved to be a most beneficial one to the country; and it is a little remarkable, that no subsequent arrangement with Great Britain has been equally advantageous. Under Mr. Jefferson's directions, an effort was constantly made to procure some provision against impressment--an object, certainly of great importance to our country. But, when it was found impracticable to induce the British government to enter into stipulations on that subject, it might well be doubted whether it was good policy, by insisting upon an impracticable measure, to sacrifice all the other advantages which must necessarily arise from a just and reasonable commercial treaty with that nation. To this day such a stipulation has not been obtained; but the disadvantages experienced by the trade of the United States, for the want of a treaty like that negotiated by Mr. Jay, have been numerous, and greatly detrimental. Those advantages were lost by not renewing that treaty; and the treaty was not renewed, it is believed the facts will warrant the declaration, because it comported with Mr. Jefferson's policy, at all times, to keep alive a controversy with Great Britain.

In April, 1806, William Pinkney, of Maryland, was appointed joint commissioner with Mr. Monroe, for the purpose of settling all matters of difference between the United States and Great Britain, "relative to wrongs committed between the parties on the high seas, or other waters, and for establishing the principles of navigation and commerce between them." Their negotiations were held under the ministry of Mr. Fox, who was considered as a great friend to the United States. Owing to his sickness, the business on the part of the British government was placed in the hands of his nephew, Lord Holland, and Lord Auckland. On the 11th of September, 1806, the American commissioners wrote to the secretary of state, giving him an account of their first interview with the noblemen abovementioned, in which, when noticing the matter of impressment, they say- "On the impressment subject it was soon apparent they (Lords Holland and Auckland) felt the strongest repugnance to a formal renunciation or abandonment of their claim to take from our vessels on the high seas such seamen as should appear to be their own subjects." And such was the answer, from first to last, to every attempt to come to a formal arrangement on this perplexing subject. Every ministry of Great Britain, however differently disposed on many other subjects, on this thought and acted alike. With all the evidence that they possessed of the impracticability of negotiating successfully on this topic, Mr. Jefferson made it the turning point of all his efforts. In pursuance of this determination, on the 3d of February, 1807, Mr. Madison, secretary of state, wrote to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, and after having alluded to the matter of impressments, said- "In the mean time, the President has, with all those friendly and conciliatory dispositions which produced your mission, and pervade your instructions, weighed the arrangement held out in your last letter, which contemplates a formal adjustment of the other topics under discussion, and an informal understanding only on that of impressment. The result of his deliberations which I am now to state to you, is, that it does not comport with his views of the national sentiment, or the legislative policy, that any treaty should be entered into with the British government which, whilst on every other point it is limited to, or short of strict right, would include no article providing for a case which both in principle and practice, is so feelingly connected with the honour and sovereignty of the nation, as well as with its fair interests; and indeed with the peace of both nations.

"The President thinks it more eligible, under all circumstances, that if no satisfactory or formal stipulation on the subject of impressment be attainable, the negotiation should be made to terminate without any formal compact whatever."

On the 3d of January, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney wrote to the Secretary of State, saying- "We have the honour to transmit to you a treaty, which we concluded with the British commissioners on the 31st of December. Although we had entertained great confidence from the commencement of the negotiation, that such would be its result, it was not till the 27th, that we were able to make any satisfactory arrangement of several of the most important points that were involved in it. A large proportion of the provisions of this treaty,--no less than eleven of its articles--was taken from that of 1794." After giving an account of the various articles, those gentlemen say--

"We are sorry to add that this treaty contains no provision against the impressment of our seamen. Our despatch of the 11th of November, communicated to you the result of our labours on that subject, and our opinion that, although this government did not feel itself at liberty to relinquish, formally by treaty, its claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, its practice would, nevertheless, be essentially, if not completely abandoned. That opinion has been since confirmed by frequent conferences on the subject with the British commissioners, who have repeatedly assured us, that, in their judgment, we were made as secure against the exercise of their pretension by the policy which their government had adopted in regard to that very delicate and important question, as we could have been made by treaty."

This treaty was received at Washington the beginning of March, 1807, but was never even submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent to its ratification. On the 20th of May following, Mr. Madison wrote to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney on the subject. The following is an extract from his letter:--

"The President has seen in your exertions to accomplish the great objects of your instructions, ample proofs of that zeal and patriotism in which he confided; and feels deep regret that your success has not corresponded with the reasonableness of your propositions, and the ability with which they were supported. He laments more especially that the British government has not yielded to the just and cogent considerations which forbid the practice of its cruisers in visiting and impressing the crews of our vessels, covered by an independent flag, and guarded by the laws of the high seas, which ought to be sacred with all nations.

"The President continues to regard this subject in the light in which it has been pressed on the justice and friendship of Great Britain. He cannot reconcile it with his duty to our sea-faring citizens, or with the sensibility or sovereignty of the nation to recognize even constructively, a principle that would expose on the high seas their liberty, their lives, every thing, in a word, that is dearest to the human heart, to the capricious or interested sentences which may be pronounced against their allegiance by officers of a foreign government, whom neither the laws of nations, nor even the laws of that government, will allow to decide on the ownership or character of the minutest article of property found in a like situation."

"It is considered, moreover, by the President, the more reasonable, that the necessary concession in this case should be made by Great Britain, rather than by the United States, on the double consideration, first, that a concession on our part would violate both a moral and political duty of the government to our citizens, which would not be the case on the other side; secondly, that a greater number of American citizens, than of British subjects, are in fact impressed from our vessels; and that, consequently more of wrong is done to the United States than of right to Great Britain, taking even her own claim for the criterion.

"On these grounds, the President is constrained to decline any arrangement, formal or informal, which does not comprise a provision against impressments from American vessels on the high seas, and which would, notwithstanding, be a bar to legislative measures, such as Congress have thought, or may think proper to adopt for controlling that species of aggression."

"That you may the more fully understand his impressions and purposes, I will explain the alterations which are to be regarded as essential, and proceed then to such observations on the several articles as will show the other alterations which are to be attempted, and the degree of importance respectively attached to them.

"Without a provision against impressments, substantially such as is contemplated in your original instructions, no treaty is to be concluded."

After a long series of instructions, and remarks, relative to the manner of conducting the negotiation, and of the concessions that may, if necessary, be made, it is said--

"Should the concession, (relating to the employment of seamen belonging to the respective countries,) contrary to all expectation, not succeed, even as to the essential objects, the course prescribed by prudence will be to signify your purpose of transmitting the result to your government, avoiding carefully any language or appearance of hostile anticipations; and receiving and transmitting, at the same time, any overtures which may be made on the other side, with a view to bring about an accommodation. As long as negotiation can be honourably protracted, it is a resource to be preferred under existing circumstances, to the peremptory alternative of improper concessions, or inevitable collisions."

Thus, it is apparent, that this treaty was rejected primarily on the ground, that no arrangement was made in it to prevent the impressment of seamen. Of the importance of such an arrangement, had it been practicable, there can be no difference of opinion among the inhabitants of the United States. But when it was perfectly ascertained, that no stipulations on that subject could be obtained, that every successive cabinet in England had agreed on this point, and the question only remained for our administration to determine, whether all the relations of the two nations, and impressments with them, should be left in a loose, undefined, and irritating condition, or all except that should be satisfactorily adjusted, leaving that for future consideration, no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the latter course should have been pursued. It will be recollected that the standing reason urged by Great Britain, against yielding the principle that our flag should protect the crew was, that she was struggling against the power of revolutionary France for her existence, and depended on her navy for her safety; and that under such circumstances she could not admit the force of mere abstract principles--self-preservation being with her the highest object of consideration. There certainly was much force in this objection on her part, to treating on that specific point, at that critical period. That Mr. Jefferson should feel differently from the British statesmen, was perfectly natural. It has been shown that his governing principle in politics was, animosity against Great Britain, and attachment to France. It was well known, that from the strong national resemblance between Britons and Americans, and particularly from the identity of language, great difficulty would exist in distinguishing between American citizens and British subjects; and this was one argument strongly urged against negotiation on this subject. But a clue to Mr. Jefferson's feelings towards that nation, may be discovered in his works published since his death, beyond the passages already quoted. The following is a letter to William B. Giles :--

"Monticello, April 27, 1795.
" DEAR SIR, - Your favour of the 16th came to hand by the last post. I sincerely congratulate you on the great prosperity of our two first allies, the French and the Dutch. If I could but see them now at peace with the rest of their continent, I should have but little doubt of dining with Pichegru in London next autumn; for I believe I should be tempted to leave my clover for awhile, to go and hail the dawn of liberty and republicanism in that island."

This is the language of Mr. Jefferson, when writing to an intimate and confidential friend. What must have been the principles and the heart of the man, who, from mere political feelings and resentments, could talk with such an air of levity, on such a subject? Wishing to dine with Pichegru in London, necessarily implied a wish that he might, as well as a belief that he would, be able to invade, overrun, and conquer Great Britain. That is, because the people of that nation preferred the government under which they lived, and which had been the means of elevating their country to a far greater height of freedom, prosperity, power, and renown, than any other European nation ever enjoyed, to Mr. Jefferson's notions of republicanism, he would have subjected them to all the miseries and horrors of an invading and victorious army, and to the tremendous consequences which must necessarily follow such a state of things, in such a country . Fortunately for Europe, and the interests of the civilized world, he was disappointed of the pleasure to be derived from such a festive entertainment. The French were not able to conquer Great Britain, and of course Pichegru had no opportunity of inviting his republican friends in other parts of the world to dine with him in London, and to heighten the hilarity of the entertainment, by witnessing the pillage and butcheries which must have attended a conquest over such a city.

The Hartford Resolutions

15th day of December, 1814

The delegates from the legislatures of the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, and from the counties of Graflon and Cheshire in the state of New-Hampshire and the county of Windham in the state of Vermont, assembled in convention, beg leave to report the following result of their conference.

"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the several states represented in this Convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said states from the operation and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States, which shall contain provisions, subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments, not authorized by the constitution of the United States.

"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the said Legislatures, to authorize an immediate a:nd earnest application to be made to the government of the United States, requesting their consent to some arrangement, whereby the said states may, separately or in concert, be empowered to assume upon themselves the defence of their territory against the enemy; and a reasonable portion of the taxes, collected within said States, may be paid into the respective treasuries thereof, and appropriated to the payment of the balance due said states, and to the future defence of the same. The amount so paid into the said treasuries to be credited, and the disbursements made as aforesaid to be charged to the United States.

"Resolved, That it be, and hereby is, recommended to the legislatures of the aforesaid states, to pass laws (where it has not already been done) authorizing the governors or commanders-in- chief of their militia to make detachments from the same, or to form voluntary corps, as shall be most convenient and conformable to their constitutions, and to cause the same to be well armed, equipped, and disciplined, and held in readiness for service; and upon the request of the governor of either of the other states to employ the whole of such detachment or corps, as well as the regular forces of the state, or such part thereof as may be required and can be spared consistently with the safety of the state, in assisting the state, making such request to repel any invasion thereof which shall be made or attempted by the public enemy.

"Resolved, That the following amendments of the constitution of the United States be recommended to the states represented as aforesaid, to be proposed by them for adoption by the state legislatures, and in such cases as may be deemed expedient by a convention chosen by the people of each state.

"And it is further recommended, that the said states shall persevere in their efforts to obtain such amendments, until the same shall be effected.

"First. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers of free persons, including those bound to serve for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, and all other persons.

"Second. No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by the constitution, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses.

Third. Congress shall riot have power to lay any embargo on the ships or vessels of the citizens of the United States, in the ports or harbours thereof, for more than sixty days.

"Fourth. Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and any foreign nation, or the dependencies thereof.

"Fifth. Congress shall not make or declare war, or authorize acts of hostility against any foreign nation, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, except such acts of hostility be in defence of the territories of the United States when actually invaded.

"Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be naturalized, shall be eligible as a member of the senate or house of representatives of the United States, nor capable of holding any civil office under the authority of the United States.

"Seventh. The same person shall not be elected president of the United States a second time nor shall the president be elected from the same state two terms in succession.

"Resolved, That if the application of these states to the government of the United States, recommended in a foregoing resolution, should be unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defence of these states should be neglected, as it has been since the commencement of the war, it will, in the opinion of this convention, be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint delegates to another convention, to meet at Boston in the state of Massachusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require.

"Resolved, That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. Chauncey Goodrich, and the Hon. Daniel Lyman, or any two of them, be authorized to call another meeting of this convention, to be holden in Boston, at any time before new delegates shall be chosen, as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment the situation of the country shall urgently require it."

This document was immediately published, arid extensively circulated through the country. It was looked for with much anxiety, and of course was read with great avidity. The expectations of those who apprehended it would contain sentiments of a seditious, if not of a treasonable character, were entirely disappointed. They looked in vain for either the one or the other, and were obliged to acknowledge that no such sentiments were to be found in it. Equally free was it from advancing doctrines which had a tendency to destroy the union of the states. On the contrary, it breathed an ardent attachment to the integrity of the republic. Its temper was mild, its tone moderate, and its sentiments were liberal and patriotic. Many leading members of the party who had always adhered to the administration and supported the war, did not hesitate to declare that it was an able and unexceptionable document; and politicians of every party, and of all descriptions, agreed that it displayed great ability, and contained principles and sentiments of much importance to the welfare of the nation.

John Quade's Comments

Jefferson's Legacy and Lincoln's War Against Christianity

After reading "The History of the Harford Convention," all of us at The Christian Jural Society Press have come to the following conclusions.

The number of parallels between Thomas Jefferson and modern presidents since Wilson and Roosevelt, is such that, in truth, he is almost the archetype for the modern reality. Here was a man obsessed with power on his own terms, and one who, believed in his own importance for the right development of world history. This product of French Enlightenment culture, engaged in intrigues while occupying the White House that resulted in the War of 1812, even though the War did not begin until after he had left the presidency, but, more important, was the long term impact of Jefferson's policies and his Anti-christian spirit.

We have seen how Jefferson's obsession with everything French and hatred of everything British led to his using the impressment issue against England while using his power in the White House to aid France. Even though Jefferson had the opportunity to gain a treaty by ignoring the impressment issue, he used impressment to justify opposition to the treaty.

The problems this created for America were aggravated by the war between France and England that was then in progress. The war produced blockades by England against France and vice versa. The result in America was economic depression that impacted chiefly on the northern states, i.e., New England, because such states were dependent on their shipping and trade for most of their economy.

At any rate, Jefferson's machinations and manipulations in this period succeeded only in making matters worse, between America, England, and France. Eventually, England and America came to blows in the War of 1812 and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention reflected the alarm in the States that resulted from that War, the responsibility for which must be placed squarely at the feet of Thomas Jefferson.

But, the aftermath of that War and Jefferson's policies, had a far greater impact long after Jefferson was dead and gone. At the time Theodore Dwight wrote his "History of the Hartford Convention," on which this series on Jefferson has been based, he could not possibly know the long-term outcome of these events and thus, his citation of secret correspondence between the Governor of Canada and his agent, Mr. John Henry, has telling significance.

It is significant because it points out that already, by 1810, there was a movement in the Northern states to separate from the Union. Thus, in one letter, Mr. Henry says:

"I have already given a decided opinion that a declaration of war is not to be expected: but, contrary to all reasonable calculation, should the Congress possess spirit and independence enough to place their popularity in jeopardy by so strong a measure, the legislature of Massachusetts will give the tone to the neighboring states; will declare itself permanent, until a new election of members; invite a Congress to be composed of delegates from the federal states, and erect a separate government for their common defence and common interest. This congress would probably begin by abrogating the offensive laws and adopting a plan for the maintenance of the power and authority thus assumed. They would by such an act be in a condition to make or receive proposals from Great Britain; and I should seize the first moment to open a correspondence with your excellency. Scarce any other aid would be necessary, and perhaps none required, than a few vessels of war, from the Halifax [Nova Scotia] station, to protect the maritime towns from the little navy which is at the disposal of the national government. What permanent connection between Great Britain and this section of the Republic could grow out of a civil commotion, such as might be expected, no person is prepared to describe; but it seems that a strict alliance must result of necessity. At present, the opposition party confine their calculations merely to resistance; and I can assure you that at this moment, they do not freely entertain the project of withdrawing the eastern states from the Union, finding it a very unpopular topic; although a course of events, such as I have already mentioned, would inevitably produce an incurable alienation of the New-England from the southern states."

In very simple terms then, by 1810, there was already a move by northern states, as a result of Jefferson's policies, to secede from the Union and the justification for it was strictly commercial interests between the New England states and England itself.

The Resolutions of the Hartford Convention were never adopted, which meant that the power of the states-- especially in the South-- was already declining. Commercial interests and those interests alone, motivated the North to force the South to secede, thereby being free to pursue its commercial interests.

It was this fact that Lincoln exploited to support abolition of the Constitution. But, with the abolition of the Constitution, the Union would break up and the South would go its own way. This Lincoln would not hear because of Federal interests in taxation on Southern exports that provided most of the Federal revenues.

Thus, when Lincoln was asked why he didn't just let the South go, he replied: "Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?" (from "Memoirs of Service Afloat," by Raphael Semmes, The Blue and the Gray Press, 1987, page 61.)

To the original question, 'Thomas Jefferson, Friend or Foe of Christian America?'--the answer has to be a major: Foe!!!

Statism is Idolatry

A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver

And God spake all these words, saying,

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:1-3.

At II Kings 17:1-20:

"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years.
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him.
Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents [tribute].
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.
Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, which they had made.
And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree:
And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger:
For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, 'Ye shall not do this thing.'
Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, 'Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to the law which I commanded your fathers, which I sent to you by My servants the prophets.'
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.
And they rejected His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.
And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images even two calves, and made a grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven [sun, moon, and stars], and served Baal.
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger.
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.
Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of of Israel which they made.
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.
For He rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.
For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;
Until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day."

Idolatry is plainly and obviously forbidden in the Scriptures. The problem that you and I have today with idolatry is our limited concept of idolatry. If you just simply mention the word 'idolatry,' most people automatically think of individuals who bow down to idols, who bow down to graven stones and images. And certainly bowing down to graven stones and images is a part of and an aspect of idolatry, but that is certainly not the whole of idolatry. In fact, we usually forget the fact that the word 'image' comes from the word 'imagination' and before someone can ever build an image, he has to imagine that thing in his mind and then he has to build it with his hands.

So, idolatry not only covers literal things, such as idols or graven images, but it also covers concepts in our mind. In the Bible, you often find idolatry spoken of in a limited sense, but more than likely, you find it in its broad, general sense. The reason you and I like to think of idolatry in its limited sense--that is, bowing down before some graven stone or graven image--is because we do not like to think of ourselves as idolaters.

May I ask you this question. And I want you to think seriously about it. Are you an idolater?

You say, "Well, I don't bow down before graven images." That's not what I asked you.

Take the following very seriously. For, that which I have to say is extremely important in light of our day and in light of our times.

We're talking about idolatry. At Ephesians 5:5, the Apostle Paul says,

"For this you know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

Now, I want you to note, that Paul said, that a whoremonger; that an unclean man; that a covetous man; is an idolater. So, fornicators and adulterous individuals, are idolaters. But also, covetous individuals.

At Colossians 3:5, once again, it is spelled out very plainly. Here, the LORD says,

"Mortify therefore your members [that is, subdue them], which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."

That means if I covet Brother Henry's wife, I am an idolater. If I covet his children, I am an idolater. If I covet his automobile, I am an idolater.

Covetousness is idolatry. In other words, idolatry is not given in the Bible just in a limited sense, the way we normally think of it; it's in a very broad sense.

Idolatry involves any and every attempt by man to be guided by his own word, rather than the Law Word of God. Anytime you replace God's Word with your word, you are an idolater. Anytime you replace God's Law with your law, you are an idolater.

If I was to turn to Genesis, chapter 3, and read there the description of 'the fall,' you would see very plainly that Adam and Eve traded God for Satan, they traded Truth for a lie, they traded Righteousness for sinfulness. And we can see very clearly that they were unfaithful to God, and unfaithful to the Charge of God, and we can charge Adam and Eve with the sin of idolatry. And that would be a correct charge.

But may I point out the fact, that modern day men and women who stubbornly and rebelliously substitute their own will for God's Will, their own words for God's Word and man's law for God's Law, are equally idolaters.

The basic question for the Christian is this. 'What is treason?' You say, ' but Pastor, you've been talking about idolatry. What in the world does treason have to do with idolatry?' A great deal. What is treason? Is treason unfaithfulness to the State. Or is treason unfaithfulness to God?

I want you to think about something with me. Whenever we use the word 'treason,' we normally think of it in terms of the State or in terms of civil government. But treason to the State, is the concept that has been used down through the ages to destroy the Godly.

Do you remember all of the Christians who were put to death in the Roman Empire? They were not put to death because they were Christians. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar; just as long as you said, 'Caesar is Lord.' Christians were put to death not because they were Christians, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State.

All down through history, Christians have been put to death because they said, 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' For the Christian, it is idolatry, which above all else, constitutes treason to the social order. We know, and we believe, that God is True and His Word is True. Disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is treason.

Did you know that the United States Constitution defines treason? In fact, Article 3, section 3, says this: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Who is the 'them and their'? The states or the people?

What if the enemy of the people and the Christian turns out to be the State; turns traitor against The Law of God--and against its own Constitution? If we as Christians obey the State, or if we obey any government--when that government is guilty of idolatry, and guilty of going contrary to the Word of God, and we obey the government that tells us to go contrary to the Word of God--we become idolaters. And we become partakers with its sin and its punishment.

There is a concept that is around in this country; it's been around down through the ages. It's the concept of Statism. Statism is the idea, that the State or the government is always right. And that the State or government can do no wrong. It was Hegel who said, " The State is God, walking on the earth."

I want you to know that that concept is idolatry, pure and simple. Because it ascribes to man--it ascribes to civil government the Perfections, the Righteousness and the Justice, that belongs to God alone. And anyone that says, "the government can do no wrong or the government is always right," is saying in essence, "government takes the place of God."

God alone, is always Right. God alone, can never do anything unjust and unkind. And so, that particular idea, is idolatry. Government can be an idol just as much as anything else.

In fact, throughout the Bible, it was usually civil government that led in idolatry. You know, that was a shock to me, when I realized that. And I want to go back and trace it down. I want to challenge you to do this. It would be interesting to study the Word of God and search the Scriptures, and find out which idolatries came into existence under which king.

Did you know that the worship of Moleck came into Israel under King Solomon and also, several other idolatries? At I Kings 11:4:

"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice."

Note that the worship of Molech came in under Solomon.

Now, at I Kings 12:26, we find another civil ruler, Jeroboam, who introduces idolatry:

"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:
If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah.
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.
And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.
And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the alter. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
So he offered upon the alter which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the alter, and burnt incense."

And again, we find civil government's introduction of idolatry at II Kings 21:1:

"Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
And he did that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abomination of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up alters for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served them."

Now, every verse so far, points out that it was the civil leaders who were introducing idolatry into the land.

Why are governments prone to introducing idolatry into the land? Several reasons:

Firstly, because government deals with law. Law is inherently religious. All law is religious. Behind every law, is a moral judgment. Behind every law is a value judgment. And your values and your morals are based upon your theology. It is based upon your religion.

Law may be Christian or it may be pagan, but it is still religious. The reason we have the laws in our country, that we have today, are because of the false religions that our leaders have; and that we the people, who elect them, have.

And by the way, how many lawgivers are there? Only One. There is one God; there is one King; there is one Lawgiver.

In reality, governments do not have to make laws; they just need to enforce God's Law, because His Law in sufficient.

But whenever you begin to make laws, you're going to make a law which is in line with your theology and in line with your religious motivation, whether it's pagan or Christian. The first reason governments are prone to idolatry is because they deal with law. And instead of enforcing God's Law, they make their own law.

Secondly, because it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself. Just as Jeroboam introduced idolatry to Israel, because he was afraid they were going to go back to Rehoboam. So Jeroboam said, 'it is too much for you to go down to Judah to worship, where the tabernacle is, where the true alter is, so I'm going to make some golden calves and I'm going to ordain a feast the way they had it, and I'm going to make some priests--their not Levites--but I'm going to make some priests and we're going to have our own religion.' You see, Jeroboam introduced idolatry into the land to perpetuate his own office; to keep his position. Have you ever known of a politician who did not want to be re-elected? Have you ever known of a political party that did not want to stay in power? And, have you ever known of either one of them who were not willing to do any thing to keep themselves in power?

John 11:47 proves exactly what I am saying:

"Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation."

They were in power, and they wanted to stay in power. And they were willing to crucify the Son of God to stay in power.

Now, the reason governments have the propensity to idolatry, is not only because it deals with the law, and it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself, but also:

Thirdly, because government is power. Government is authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of exercising dominion over God's Creation, and trying to have dominion over that, want to exercise dominion over men.

What did Satan have to say to Adam and Eve?: 'you shall be as God.' Who has control over men? God does. Well, if we are our own gods or if we think we're some type of god, then we're going to have to exercise some control over men in order to prove it. So governments, then, are prone to idolatry. It's interesting that it was Solomon that introduced Moleck worship. He also built an alter for Astarte worship. It's interesting that he did that as well. Astarte was the goddess of sex, or love; a lot of prostitution was involved in the worship of Astarte.

Now, Molech worship is a power religion. It is a political religion. There was no king in Israel that had the power that Solomon had. Solomon knew power. In fact, Solomon ruled from the river Euphrates, all the way to the sea. He ruled the whole of The Promised Land which God had given. No other king had done that before or after. So Solomon knew what power was.

You see, Molech worship is the worship of the State. The word 'Molech' means, 'king or kingship.' Molech worship is the concept of divine kingship. We know it in our time as, 'the divine right of kings.' And, do you know that that concept went out the window just a few hundred years ago? Do you realize that Europe still had kings that ruled as God? Their word was absolute law. The king could do no wrong. They ruled in the place of God. Molech worship was a power manifested in the political order. It was a political religion. And the king became identified with God to the degree that manifested absolute power. Thus, the Molech state, as the Molech king, claimed total jurisdiction over man. That's where we get the term, 'Statism.' That's where we get the term, 'totalitarianism.' It's a claim of total and absolute jurisdiction.

The Molech state-- the false pagan idolatrous governments of our day--claim unlimited jurisdiction. They claim unlimited control over man and the world. The Molech state claims jurisdiction from the cradle to the grave. Or as one man says, 'from the womb to the tomb.' Over welfare, education, worship, family, business, farming--you name it, they claim control of it. And if you don't believe that is true in our land today, try to enter into any of that without a license or certificate and you'll find out. The government claims absolute jurisdiction and control.

This past year, a Pastor friend of mine, W. N. Otwell--in Dallas, Texas--he and his church were concerned about the street people. There were a lot of people in Dallas who were going into the garbage cans and getting the food out and eating it. Now, I don't know about you, but I've always viewed that as being rather unhealthy, as well as unappetizing. Well, they got convicted about all of these people, so his church got together, and every Sunday they would bring sandwiches and other foods like that, and they would bring enough for themselves and enough for 2 or 3 others. And after church, they would go out and find these street people who were eating out of the garbage cans and share their lunches with them, and witness to them while they were doing so. And it got to the point where they were feeding hundreds of people each Sunday. And do you know, that the city came to them and told them that they could not do that without a license? Their food had not been inspected. Their food was not approved. They did not have a Health Certificate.

Pastor Otwell said to them, "you mean to tell me that I can't make a sandwich in my home and bring it down here and share it with a man, without having a license or certificate?" They said, "that's exactly right." He said, "let me ask you a question. What if I take all of these sandwiches and just throw them in the garbage can? I make them at home, I throw them in the garbage can and turn around and walk off. And these folks come out and dig it out of the garbage can and eat it. Do I have to have a license for that?" "No, you don't have to have a license for that." So, the next Sunday, he had several garbage cans on the sidewalk full of junk which said 'city food' and then over here he had 'church food.'

That's the Molech state!

Read Romans 13. Did you know that the State or government is not only called power and ordinance in Romans 13? There are two words that are very, very pointed. Twice, the government is called, 'the minister of God.' The word 'minister,' twice, is 'deaconos.' That's where we get our English word, 'deacon.' Government is to be the 'deacon of God.' Secondly, the word 'liturgos' is used, when it's called 'minister.' That's where we get our English word, 'liturgy.' A public worship. Government is to be God's liturgy, it is to be God's public worship. It is to serve God. It is to carry out God's commands. Government was given to us, according to Romans 13, for our protection, for our promotion. Not for a welfare state. The Word of God does not give the State the power or the authority to go beyond The Word of God.

Now, listen to me. To ascribe power, authority, reverence, submission, or anything else to the State--above The Word of God--is idolatry.

The State does not have 'infinite wisdom.' Only God has Infinite Wisdom. It is idolatry to talk about our government and our lawmakers as having infinite wisdom. You see, we are not to fear other gods. We are to fear The One True and The Living God, who is The LORD Jesus Christ. The reason why God punished and chastised Israel is found at II Kings 17:7; because they feared other gods.

Question. What does it mean 'to fear the LORD'? What does it mean 'to fear other gods'? When I talk about the fear of the LORD; and when the Bible says that 'the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all wisdom,' what does it mean? Well, when God talks about the fear of the LORD, He is not talking about a servile fear. He's not talking about a fear of punishment, a fear of wrath or a fear of hell. He's talking about a 'filial fear'; that is, a fatherly fear. A fear that is based upon the knowledge of God as Father. A reverencial affection for God which results in loving submission and loving obedience to Him and His Word. Note what God says at Job 28:28:

"Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding."

Now, wisdom is the fear of the LORD and to depart from evil is understanding. There is the positive and the negative. And at Proverbs 1:7:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

And at Proverbs 1:29:

"For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD." If you don't fear God, you hate the knowledge of Him.
Verse 30:
"They would have none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof."

The fear of the LORD, negatively speaking is, 'to depart from that which is wicked and sinful and contrary to God.' The fear of the LORD, positively speaking is, 'to obey God and His Law and His Statutes and to do that which is well pleasing in His sight.'

Let me put it to you in black and white. When you fear God, you keep His Word. You obey His Commandments.

When you fear a false god, you keep his law and his commandments. How do we know if a man fears a false god? He walks in the commandments and the statutes of the false god.

Now, what did the children of Israel do, to sin against God? One, they walked in idolatrous statutes and laws of the heathen god. Two, they walked in and kept the idolatrous laws of their kings, which they had made. In other words, they obeyed civil government when that government was against God and contrary to God.

The main question for Christians today is, 'what is treason'? Is treason against God or is treason against the State? For the Christian, it has to be against God. We have forgotten that idolatry and sin can come under the 'color of law.' Idolatry and sin can come under that which is 'right and just,' in the sense that it comes from civil government. At Psalm 94:20:

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief by a law?"

A 'throne' speaks of rulership, power and authority. 'Mischief' means sin and transgression. 'The throne of iniquity' is that which makes sin legal by passing a law. God asks this question, "shall that wicked civil power which violates My Law and My Word have fellowship Me?" The answer is obviously, "no."

Beloved, I submit to you that it is idolatry to place any power; any authority; any statutes;-- above the Word of God. God only, is God. He alone is to be worshiped and feared.

I challenge you to read II Kings 22 and 23. The main chapter is 23, because Josiah becomes king, a Godly civil ruler, and starts cleaning house. One Godly ruler stands for God and casts out all of the previous idolatry.

The current government will pass one little law, and we say, 'that doesn't bother us,' until all of a sudden there's a strangle hold. Pastor Craig of Kentucky is in jail right now, charged with the 'crime' of 'preaching without a license.'

You see, we need to be perceptive enough to know that God's Truth is Supreme and that God alone is Sovereign. And we must obey God, rather than man. And when someone causes us to vacillate or when we are threatened with punishment and fines and this and that, the only question we must ask ourselves is this; What does God's Word say? And then we must obey God and take whatever man dishes out.

Our LORD said this,

"fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28.

Our fear is to be of God alone.

Pastor Weavers sermon tapes are available at the following location: Dominion Tape Library, P. O. Box 684, Hephzibah, Georgia [30815]

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Two Strings to Our Bow

"Well, Hodge," said a smart looking Londoner to a plain cottager, who was on his way home from church, "so you are trudging home, after taking the benefit of the fine balmy breezes in the country this morning."

"Sir," said the man, "I have not been strolling about this sacred morning, wasting my time in idleness and neglect of religion; but I have been at the house of God, to worship Him, and to hear His preached Word."

"Ah, what then, you are one of those simpletons, that, in these country places, are weak enough to believe the Bible? Believe me, my man, that book is a pack of nonsense, and none but weak and ignorant people now think it true."

"Well, Mr. Stranger, but do you know, weak and ignorant people as we are, we like to have two strings to our bow."

"Two strings to our bow! What do you mean by that?"

"Why, sir, I mean to believe the Bible, and act up to it, is like having two strings to one's bow; for if it is not true, as you claim, I shall be the better man for living according to it; and so it will be for my good in this life--that is one string; and if it should be true, as I know it is, it will be better for me in the next life--that is another string! and a pretty strong one it is. But, sir, if you disbelieve the Bible, and on that account do not live as it requires, you have not one string to your bow. And oh! if its tremendous threats prove true, oh, think! what then, sir, will become of you?"

This plain apeal silenced the coxcomb, and made him feel, it is hoped, that he was not quite so wise as he had supposed.

Thomas Paine

An elder of a Presbyterian church in the city of New York, visited Paine a few days before his death. He was then a loathsome and pitiable object. His face, and particularly his nose, was greatly swollen and changed, by liquor, unto a dark color. The visitor said to him--"Mr. Paine, he that believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." "What is that you say?" said the dying man. The visitor repeated the gospel declaration. Paine immediately seized a large black stick, that was lying at his side, nearly the thickness of a man,s wrist, and raised it over the head of the visitor, said, with great anger and vehemence, "Away with your popish nonsense." The very name of Jesus Christ convulsed him with anger. The woman attending him, informed the visitor that he was occasionally visited by persons of like principles and habits with himself, and that his orders were to keep out of his room all who professed any respect for religion. She said that he was a wretched man. Thhat when alone, he kept groaning day and night, as if in great distress of mind. She once told him, that his groans so disturbed her, that she could not rest; when he replied,--"I have no rest myself, nor shall you have."

Thus Paine died an object of the most inconceivable filthiness and wretchedness. His expressions thus authenticated, and here recorded, breathe the spirit of pure infidelity. They are worthy the degraded being that uttered them. He, then, esteemed the gospel "popish nonsense;" but does he thus esteem it now? He may have had an enviable fame. But he warred against the Bible and its God, and has fallen in the unequal contest. His memory now must rot. A thick cload of shame is gathering around it, which can never be dissipated. He is now thought of with horror by all the good; and he will soon be thus esteemed by all the world.

Issue the Fourteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Two...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part Three...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part One...

That Knock on the Door...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on The Common Ways

by Randy Lee

"Let us all stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and not suffer ourselves to be entangled with any yoke of bondage. If we have submitted to the yoke hitherto, and ingloriously subjected ourselves to any human impositions in religious matters; it is better to throw off the yoke even now, than to let it gall us all our life-time; It is not yet too late to assert our liberty, and free ourselves from an ignominious slavery to the dictates of men." Jonathan Mayhew in The Huntington Sermons, March, 1750, pp. 85-88.

A difficult question for all Christians is:

"Should I take a license from government or not?"

For those discerning Christians who have carefully read the article by Greg Loren in Issue the Thirteenth, 'A Christian Stand Against Licensure,' the only answer is, Not.

The next question automatically follows:

"What do I do when I get stopped for not having a current registration and drivers license?"

As always, the answer is found in Scripture:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillipians 4:13.

Matthew Henry said of this verse:

"The word in the original is a participle of the present tense, and denotes a present and continued act; as if he had said, 'Through Christ, who is strengthening me; it is by His constant and renewed strength I am enabled to act in every thing; I wholly depend upon Him for all my spiritual power.' It did not come from covetousness, or an affection to worldly wealth."

Therefore, when you are out on the militarily controlled roads, you can not be doing anything that is contrary to Scripture, in order to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways. This would include, but is not limited to: speeding, reckless behaviour with a six thousand pound machine, "four-wheeling" on sidewalks, engaging in commercial activity for personal financial gain and profit, and other such acts of 'disturbing the public peace.'

If you choose to engage in such activity, you will be fully controlled and regulated by those that exercise that job, for you will be looked at by them as a 'low and lawless form of humanity.'

But on the other hand, if you act in the mode and character of a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, there are alternatives to State licensure. These alternatives have always been available to those who are willing to take the time to study and understand the differences between the jurisdictions of the ungodly martial rule 'powers,' and that of Christendom and the coverture of God.

In this, there are no gray areas. It's either, 'Rendering unto Caesar,' or -- 'Jesus, take all of me,' and 'Rendering unto God.'

There are no guarantees or silver bullets available when dealing with the arbitrary and capricious character of the current imperial powers. But there is the Promise of Christ, The Higher Power:

"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27 --

The Shield of Faith must be carried at all times.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules and regulations that 'govern' the areas of transportation and the other 'dominions' of the current government, apply only to natural persons, corporations and other godless entities of like kind. They do not apply to Christians (see 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being,' in Issue the Sixth, page two). When you carry a license, you are looked upon by these 'powers' as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status--as a natural person and human being, and not of a Christian.

Therefore, one of the evidences of who and what you are, and for all Christians, is your Family Bible and Baptismal Certificate. Don't leave home without them. These contain the substantive Law for the Right to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways under God. However, the primary evidence of who and what you are, is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the 'road patrol.'

The following is an example of what might happen when stopped:

The patrolman turns on the red lights and the driver pulls over. He comes to the car window and asks to see a drivers license and registration.
Driver: "I have something better than that. (He hands the patrolman his Bible). This is the Law I follow and in my Law, it says that I can do all things in Christ which strengthens me, and I'm not out here hurting anyone.
Patrolman: Well, that's fine and dandy, but when you're driving a vehicle on the public roads, you have to have a drivers license issued by the State.
Driver: Yes, I understand that, but I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to. If I were to take a license, I would be forsaking that Law, and God.
Patrolman: Do you have any I.D.
Driver: This is my Baptismal Certificate. This is who and what I am.
Patrolman: O.K., please step out the car and go back there with my partner.
(Note: Never refuse to exit the car. Be cooperative as possible and show no resistance. Simply stand on God's Law and don't move from it. Buckle on the Shield of Faith. Allow the patrolman to search your car, etc. Under current Supreme Court decisions, they have the power to order you out of the car and search it. Any resistance to this will only inflame the situation. As a Christian, you have nothing to fear or hide).
Patrolman: Do you own this car.
Driver: No, not really. I gave a friend a couple of hundred bucks for it about a year ago, but I don't really own it. Every thing belongs to God. I'm simply using it to exercise my Christian Liberty on this Common Way.
Patrolman: Where are you going right now.
Driver: Where ever God leads me.
Patrolman: Where do you live.
Driver: I live where ever I happen to be at the time. (At this point, he is trying to determine whether you are a 'resident' or not).
Patrolman: Well, where do you receive your mail.
Driver: At General Delivery at the Post Office in ......................
Patrolman: Oh, O.K. Well, you have to understand that I have a job to do out here, and when I see a violation taking place, I have to act on it.
Driver: Yes, I understand that. And, I don't have a problem with that. But, as I said before, I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to and that's all that matters to me. I realize that you can take the car and arrest me. But, I can only tell you what my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has told me, and that is, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." That is what I answer to.

It's not necessary for me to say any more on this conversation. At this point, the patrolman will make his decision on what he will do with the situation.

Note: If he decides to write you a ticket, never refuse to sign it. If you do refuse, it's a guarantee that they will take you to jail.

The dialog above comes from personal experience. It occurred about one year ago on a Los Angeles county freeway. The words that came out of my mouth had not been previously articulated by me. I believe to this day that it was through the Holy Spirit that they were presented.

The patrolman and his partner allowed me to continue on, did not take the car and did not ticket me. They never checked the registration on the car or ran a check on my name, even though they had the opportunity to do so. They never said they were Christians, but they did say that they had the ability to use their discretion, and that they felt that I was sincere in my convictions and had to respect those convictions. In other words, they didn't feel I was a threat to the peace and safety of the public.

It was a positive experience for me. I felt that I had truly been Blessed by God. It obviously could have been negative for me also. They could have arrested me, taken the car, etc.

It can be positive or negative for anyone that decides to take the same stand. The important thing to remember is that it will be positive in God's eyes. "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

Your stop situation will probably be different and the questions and answers somewhat different. Therefore:

"When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12

Since this is the only time I've been stopped in the past four years, I have truly been Blessed by God. During that time, and in the situation above, I had a facsimile Louisiana plate on the car similar to the one displayed below. It is sold in Bible book stores in Louisiana, and many Christians in Louisiana put these on the front of their cars. The car I was driving was not registered. I was driving safely when I was stopped. The reason they stopped me was because one of the cops was from Louisiana and recognized the plate.

More detailed information on plates will be in the new 3rd Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds,' available in late April.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Two:

Written and compiled by John Joseph

From Elector to Franchised Voter

In this Issue, we will examine certain areas of Lincoln's world he created in his own image and likeness. Many of you who are Patrons of The News, or have attended a Christian Liberty Seminar or called us on the phone, are well aware of our stand against Abraham Lincoln and Francis Lieber and the Roman commercial world they created within the states, primarily under the Reconstruction Acts and various other pieces of "legislation," which were results of their earlier actions.

Most of you know that courts do not decide political questions, but look to the acts of the political departments of government for the controlling law. Therefore, we look at court decisions quite heavily, because they are confirmation of the executive or legislative acts in regard to these particular questions.

"It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [*171] the States, and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature [Const. Art. I, sec. 2]. Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters of the State [ib. Article I, sec. 3]. Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President [ib. Article II, sec. 2]. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators [ib. Article I, sec. 4]. It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts." Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 170-171.

In other words, the "United States" originally had no Electors in any of the states separate and distinct from the Christian people in the states. The United States, then, was totally dependent on the decisions of the consociated Christian states for its continued longevity. That this is true is seen in Story's Commentaries and in Judge Sprague's instructions to the Grand Jury in 1863:

"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without the former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be elected at all; and the senate is exclusively and absolutely under the choice of the state legislatures. The representatives are chosen by the people of the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented; and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation. How is it possible, under such circumstances, that the national government can be dangerous to the liberties of the people, unless the states, and the people of the states, conspire together for their overthrow? If there should be such a conspiracy, is not this more justly deemed an act of the states through their own agents, and by their own choice, rather than a corrupt usurpation by the general government?" Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), 510, Vol. 1, p. 488. [Emphasis added.]
"It has been found even more potent in its practical operation than they had contemplated. They [the Good and Lawful Christian people in their states] secured to members [of the House] perfect freedom of debate, and certain means of information, that they might be able to form a correct judgment, and gave to them personal immunities and a certain tenure of office, that they might independently and conscientiously follow the dictates of their own informed understandings. But, in practice, almost every representative holds his own judgment in entire subjection to the will of his constituents. No matter how cogent the facts, or unanswerable the reasoning for or against any measure, he deems it a sufficient answer to say, 'My constituents think otherwise.' He takes an official oath and those who have taken no oath control his action. He hears the discussion, receives information and light from all parts of the country upon great measures affecting the whole nation; and others, at their distant homes, who have not heard the discussion, nor received that information, nor obtained that light, decide the question. Thus, instead of acting as a member of a deliberative assembly, he becomes in effect an ambassador, or diplomatic agent, with instructions in his pocket, and is constantly watching for indications of the will of a distant [sovereign Power in his constituents], to which he yields implicit obedience [allegiance].
"The members of the Senate have the same antecedents and predilections, and are equally devoted to state interests and submissive to state will. They are elected by the legislatures of the several states; and those bodies claim the right to give instructions to senators which shall be absolutely binding upon them. In nearly all the states, this asserted right has been freely exercised, and rarely indeed has a senator hesitated to render the most implicit obedience [allegiance].
"Indeed our whole system rests upon the states." Charge to the Grand Jury (1863), Fed.Cas.No. 18,274, 30 Fed.Cas. 1042, 1045, 2 Spr. 292. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

This was the situation before Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. What happened during or after that War?

"Moreover, Article I, section 2, is a clear indication that the Framers intended the States to determine the qualifications of their own voters for state offices, because those qualifications were adopted for federal offices unless Congress directs otherwise under Article I, section 4. It is a plain fact of history that the framers never imagined that the national Congress would set the qualifications for voters in every election from President to local constable or village alderman. It is obvious that the whole Constitution reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in state and local elections, except to the limited extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically narrowed the powers of the States. Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-four, each of which has assumed that the States had general supervisory power over state elections, are examples of express limitations on the power of the States to govern themselves.
"Of course, the original design of the Founding Fathers was altered by the Civil War Amendments and various other amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments have expressly authorized Congress to 'enforce' the limited prohibitions of those amendments by 'appropriate legislation.'
"Above all else, the framers of the Civil War Amendments intended to deny to the States the power to discriminate against persons on account of their race. Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 364 U.S. 339, 5 L.Ed.2d 110, 81 S.Ct. 125; Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 347 U.S. 483, 98 L.Ed. 873, 74 S.Ct. 686, 38 ALR2d 1180; Slaughter House Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 71-72, 21 L.Ed. 394, 407." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 125-126, 27 L.Ed.2d 272, 282, 91 S.Ct. 260. [Emphasis added.]

This is a repetition of what the United States Supreme Court said in Ex parte Yarbrough (1884), 110 U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274.

How's that for an admission or confession? The elections process has been changed, because it was, and still is, the will of the bondholders holding all of those 10-40 and 5-20 bonds from Lincoln's War vs. All Christian States. The bondholders now dictated the policy which ensures their getting a return from their investment in the blood shed during Lincoln's War, i.e., "...the borrower is servant to the lender."

"Drivers," "brokers," "residents," "consumers" "taxpayers," "homeowners," "employees," "persons," or other commercial franchisees licensed by or under the rules of war, now had the power to elect "persons" in return for allegiance to, and payment of, the public debt owed to the financiers of Lincoln's War, which according to the fourth section of the purported Fourteenth Amendment cannot be questioned by them, because they are the surety or guarantors of the debt payments to the collection agency under the guidance of the Federal Reserve Accounting House. And, for those of you who take benefit of any war measure under Lincoln, see Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.

Thus, the "United States" was lifted from its Christian foundations to become independent of the states, and control was lost to a secular government, which has no Christian roots, attempting to stay engaged in commercial enterprise to pay off these filthy phony war bonds. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S. 483. Does anyone wonder why it doesn't matter who you elect to office? The script doesn't change because the debt is larger--just the actors change. The secular form of worship, not a Christian form of worship, is what was implemented by the Lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, U.S. Grant, and W. T. Sherman.

By the way, Lincoln's income tax in 1863, the first ever in the history of the United States, was not used to fund the war; but to begin making payments on the debt during a time of confusion, when no one, "in their right mind" would want to appear "unpatriotic" by not paying their "fair share" to Lincoln's cause of "maintaining the Union." [This ruse of war was also used by F.D.R. during WWII]. The trouble is, no one at that time realized the war was to Reconstruct the Union, from a voluntary consociation of Christian states under God, to a federal corporation of franchisees under the President, based on debt imposed to perform this conversion through perversion.

The following are excerpts from the U.S. Attorney-General opinion at 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867), which makes full disclosure of the new methods, created by The Reconstruction Acts, of choosing state officers in the states; which by the way, also means that the method of choosing federal officers was also changed:

"This existing government [under presidential reconstruction by Andrew Johnson] is not set aside; it is recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of persons eligible to office, and the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it."
-------------------------
"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this [the 2nd Reconstruction] act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to [*186] punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions."
-------------------------
"We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States"--not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation--'as hereinafter prescribed.'"
-------------------------
"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867), 185-186. [Emphasis added.]

Now most of you will think that this applied only to the Southern states. Not true. This is seen in the fact that during 1862, West Virginia was, by presidential proclamation, carved out of the Southern state of Virginia and admitted as a State of the Union aligned constitutionally with Lincoln--their constitution being dictated to them. And during 1863, Lincoln ordered the military governor of Louisiana to call a constitutional convention to frame a new constitution embodying his infidel philosophy of fatalism, rationalism, and tribute to the Roman gods. What was wrong with their existing constitution? Nothing, as far as the Good and Lawful Christian people in that state were concerned.

All of the Northern States, in due course of time, changed their constitutions to fit better in Lincoln's World of heavy commerce under licensure by the laws of war, and no Biblical Christianity under the Law of Peace. Generally speaking, the phraseology in these constitutions is that of the oath of allegiance for granting amnesty. If you search your State's current constitution, you will find something similar to this: "The State of ... is an inseparable part of the United States, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." In the antebellum state constitutions this phrase never appeared, because Scripture, God's Word, is and was the supreme law of the land, under a Godly government. This has to be because it is God's Word that brought the land into being when He spoke it in the account of Creation, beginning in Genesis 1:1. It is elementary that the Law of the Sovereign governs that which He creates. The creature has no standing to challenge the Creator. If this be not so, then there is no sovereign anywhere, including the secular humanist sitting in the throne of infamy.

To further implement these secular, mundane and irreligious changes, both north and south, the Voting Rights Acts, as amended, were passed. These operate in all States, not just southern States.

If the Union were intact, then there was no need for Reconstruction. How do you reconstruct something that never was damaged or destroyed? If Lincoln's War was fought strictly for vindicating the rights of the federal government, then reconstruction was not necessary. Vindicating the rights of a fiction is not tolerated in Christian states, for God's Law has no place for fictions. The States would have been left intact, and depending on their favor, the federal government would continue to exist as it did before--dependent on that favor. But as one writer put it, "Never till the days of reconstruction was it suspected that our system recognized any power outside the people of a state, the authority to organize a government for the state. That the judiciary established a view so entirely repugnant to all established precedent, is significant of the embarrassments with which eras of political violence must always surround the department closely bound to the past." Dunning, The Constitution of the United States in Civil War and Reconstruction 120, (1885).

What Reconstruction did was establish a de facto imperial regime in America. Such is admitted by the courts:

"We do not question the doctrines of public law which have been invoked, nor their application in proper cases; but it will be found, upon examination, that there is an essential difference between the governments of the Confederate States and those de facto governments. The latter are of two kinds. One of them is such as exists after it has expelled the regular government from the seats of power and the public offices, and established its own functionaries in their places, so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation....As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained; its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled." Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176.

Now we need to ask the question:

"Can the Ethiopan change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Jer.13:23.

What has been shown so far is the de facto nature of the present government as it exists now. The powers which it exercises concern:

"Therefore, in the choice of means for obtaining an end, however good, congress cannot authorize the trial of any person, not impressed with a military character, for any infamous crime whatever, except by means of a grand jury first accusing, and a trial jury afterwards deciding the accusation. This prohibition is fatal to the military government of civilians, wherever, whenever, and under whatever circumstances attempted. Such a government cannot exist without military courts, military arrests, and military trials." David Dudley Field, argument for Lambdin P. Milligan, in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866).

Therefore, only those who have any military connection, i.e., take any benefit from any act during Lincoln's War or the fruits of it, have that "military character" impressed upon them which Judge Field argues gives the de facto government jurisdiction. Incidentally, those who sit in this de facto government have that same "military character" impressed upon them. This becomes all the more important when you read Christ's reply to the Pharisees:

"Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's [the military character created in the image and likeness of Caesar]; and to God the things of God."

If all of this has not convinced you that today's world is no longer based on Christianity, Roscoe Pound, made this observation in his excellent work, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921):

"But there are two growing periods of our [Christian] common law system; two periods in which rules and doctrines were formative, in which our authorities summed up the past for us and gave us principles for the future. These periods are (1) the classical common-law period, the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and (2) the period that some day, when the history of the common law as a law of the world comes to be written, will be regarded as no less classical than the first--the period of legal development in the United States that came to an end with the Civil War." at page 41.

Many so-called "patriot" groups scream they want the "rights of our forefathers" and deny the sole Source of those Rights--Almighty God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Law which secures them. If Christ is denied then they are denied by Him to the Father. Hence, they have no Rights common in all Good and Lawful Christians, and for this reason have no standing in Law, because it is a venue separate and distinct from equity:

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728. [Emphasis added.]
"The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations [not human relations] are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller et al (1799), 4 H.&McH. [Insertion added.]

Just as the so-called "voting rights" of "persons" have a different source than Almighty God, they must also have a different form of government, which declares a different form of worship.

By God's Law, a Republican form of government (res communis) is espoused--note Acts 2:44 & 4:32. By man's law, a democracy is espoused, because it gives the greatest confusion to the masses and allows the wielders of power the greatest freedom from restraint by the masses. And the form of law used to perform all this deception is Roman Imperial law.

With all this evidence on record, it is very clear that 'christian Amerika' today does not remotely resemble the Christian America of the Puritans.

To participate in "voting" any longer is evidence of who you are owned by, and the god you worship:

"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [applicable to "persons"], but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Brother Paul to our Brothers at Rome, chapter six verses thirteen through sixteen.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may [your] posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams. [Insertion added.]

(More Admissions and Confessions next month.)

Let This Mind Be In You

Part Three

by John Quade

The Characteristics and Attributes of the State

All states, Christian or Humanist, share certain characteristics that seem to be a necessary part of the state's existence. This series has focused on the application of presuppositional analysis and its use, and now, we will narrow Our focus to examine only the state, its characteristics and attributes. These will then be included in an expansion of Chart 'B' from the previous Issue, and published next month. Our object is to show that the presupposition behind the definition of the state determines all of its characteristics and attributes and also determines the consequence of the states policy in history.

What is most compelling about this study is, that if one consistently maintains the implementation of a given presupposition, then the laws that accompany the presupposition are determinative in the sense that one cannot implement a Humanist presupposition in the state and end up with a Christian consequence. Humanistic consequences follow Humanistic presuppositions and the same is true for Christianity.

A characteristic phenomena that accompanies the Humanist view of history is that all Christian presuppositions involved in the definition and implementation of Christian states, are ipso facto wrong. That is, from the Humanist perspective, the Christian state is an absurdity, is always repressive, a threat to freedom or liberty, and a whole host of other attributes which we will not catalogue here.

The truth of the matter, as true history shows, is exactly the opposite. But, in Humanism, it is not enough to merely say that a Christian state is all bad; the whole of history must be re-interpreted to make history appear to support the Humanist idea of the Christian state. Even the meaning of the words used to define the Christian state must be re-defined by the Humanist so that the words themselves do not say what they obviously appear to say.

In this study, as we have seen that the terms, words and phrases used by the Humanist to describe the terrors of a Christian state, actually apply to the Humanist state, in fact. This is because when the Humanist interprets reality about him, he has only his own categories of thought to use as a reference for meaning, whereas the Christian has the Scripture. The process of the re-definition of reality in terms of autonomous reason in Humanism, thus, cannot see the truth, even when it is right in front of his eyes.

At any rate, the characteristics that seem to be shared by all states are as follows:

One. States are designed to control the flow of force and power to a particular object. From this we get the idea of government, or governing. It is like a governor on a large truck which controls the application of power to the truck's wheels to control the truck speed on the highways.

And, like the truck, we must first know where we want to go before we apply the power to the governor. That is, for what object does the state exist? This is where the definition of the nature and purpose of civil government becomes important.

In Christian states, the purpose of civil government is clearly defined. That is, to protect life, liberty, and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, or property, without the Due Course of Law. This definition is the same as that adopted by the founding fathers when building this nation and writing the Constitution. The only point of disagreement between them was, how to achieve this end, or object.

The only point of clarity that we could add to this definition would be to include some statement respecting the authority of Scripture and Christian Common Law.

Thus, we could define the nature and purpose of civil government as: The protection of the life, liberty, land, and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, land, or property, without the Due Course of Law in accordance with Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the Christian people.

Now, in a Humanistic State, the nature and purpose of the state is never clearly defined nor limited in the scope of its power. This is because all Humanistic States attempt to take on the nature and attributes of God. In Humanism, the State is, as Hegel said, 'God walking on Earth.'

For five thousand years, this has been the dominant characteristic of all Non-biblical states. The reason why such states attempt to take on the character, nature, and attributes of God is, as the Apostle Paul said, "All men know God."

Thus, because the Humanist will not honor God, as God, they must still manifest his attributes in the next best thing: the almighty, all-knowing, everywhere present State, who has its own doctrine of providence in State welfare. The State becomes the source of salvation and the end-all and be-all, alpha and omega, of all that is.

Such a State can have no Law because its presuppositions will not permit it to enact the real Law and only true Law, of God. Such States are invariably dominated by commercial interests whether they are Communist, Socialist, or Fascist, because they seek to control all that is within their realm of influence or control, the same as God does.

A word must be said here about the omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present) and omnipotent (all-powerful) characteristics of the Humanist State.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omniscience, we see examples of this in the endless forms, applications, and information gathering aspects of the State in permits, licenses, tax forms, etc. The Humanist State must engage in such activities because it can never know when some new piece of information may turn up that will scuttle the State. It must also collect this information because it must know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipresence, the State must be everywhere because God is everywhere, and it must watch everyone and everything, because the State must know of anyone propagating the wrong ideas or information. The State must know these things because the State is in constant danger of being over-thrown. Examples of this are seen in the postmen who act as agents in the field, local police, sheriffs, and state police, the 'Special Agents' of the I.R.S. and D.E.A., the Amtrak railroad police, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the F.A.A. and countless other alphabet soup agencies, departments, bureaus, and service groups, all of whom are generically known as 'peace' officers.

As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipotence, the State must control all power as God does, because the State can't trust the people with power, because the people may want something contrary to the will of the State. This is the real need for the 100,000 Man Police force of current infamy. This is also the reason why all forms of transportation must have a police force to watch them, and why all major government buildings and agencies must have the same type of police forces.

As to the Humanistic State's will to providence in State welfare, it does this because God is in fact the real source of Providence. It does it also because the more people it has on welfare the fewer people there are who will join a reform movement. Humanistic States engage in welfare because they have a heart and compassion, etc., ad nauseum; in truth and reality all such States are fictitious entities and can not, therefore, have no heart.

There is also a legal reason for the welfare, in that they must grant some forms of welfare because without the welfare, there is no Lawful justification for their employment.

Today, four out of every ten people in America are on the dole in one form or another. Forty percent (40%) of the people are living off the other sixty (60%) percent of the population. And, ninety-eight (98%) percent of those working to support the forty percent, are engaged in commerce controlled by the State.

Two. States are consumers of resources, not producers. This fact is important to remember because so many politicians talk of creating jobs with various programs. But, what's forgotten is, the State only creates jobs at the expense of others who are working. Individual enterprise and not the State, is where all real, new jobs are created.

In states where the people do not directly control the State's consumption of resources, the State is out of control.

In Christian states, the power of the state is highly de-centralized and rests primarily within the county and township. This makes it easy for the people to keep an eye on the spending of local governments. The flow of tax money in Christian states is from the bottom up and was once collected at the county and state levels before it was sent on to the Federal government.

But, in Humanists States, the need is to centralize power in one state, which in America, is the Federal government.

In such a State, the people never control the flow of force and power in the State and yet, the propaganda of the State attempts to make it appear that they do. In Humanist States, the people do not control the tax rates. Instead, the government itself controls its own tax rates that are always levied to protect the states interests, not those of the people.

In simple terms, the further away the tax collector is from the people, the more likely there will be corruption and lawlessness in the tax system. And, there is more room for smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand and deception by the State.

Three. Related to Item Two above, the major form of resource consumption by the state is that of taxes, at least in Christian states.

But, in modern states the situation is significantly different. The Federal government in America, for example, along with one hundred fifty-seven other countries declared joint bankruptcy in September, 1944, at the Breton Woods Conference, in Breton Woods, New Hampshire. Since that time, the consumption of resources by the member states of the Breton Woods Conference have embarked on consumption programs that are unparalleled in the annals of recorded history.

The United States government not only consumes trillions of dollars in tax money every year, it also 'employs' millions of people that would otherwise be gainfully working in the production of real goods and services, and it also consumes millions of tons of raw and manufactured goods, not just in weapons systems it buys for its armed forces, but in automobiles, building materials, office machines and computers, and a whole host of other items.

The United States government is the largest single consumer of the taxes and work output of the American in history. Many people believe that this consumption is good for the nations economy, but in fact, it is a drain on the nations economy because none of the goods and services consumed are ever used in the production of new wealth and real jobs for the people as a whole.

Most of this consumption is for the creation of bureaus, departments, agencies, and services not authorized by the original Constitution, as we all know. It is this consumption of resources of all types that contributes to the massive inflation in this country over the last century, because such consumption represents a false stimulus to the nation's economy. A typical example of the current government's interference in the nations economy is seen in the billions spent to support prices of farm goods. In this case, the government consumes massive resources to pay others not to produce.

In Christian states, such consumption by the civil powers does not happen for the simple reason that the nature and purpose of civil government is defined in such a way that the civil government never exceeds its proper limits and thus, always constitutes a very small part of the nations total economy.

Four. States have at their disposal some means of enforcing the acts of the state.

Every state needs some means of enforcing the law of the land and protecting the people from evil. Such forces can be classified as either civil or military.

The civil force in Christian states is normally small because in Christian states there are fewer laws to break. The Law of the land is well known and the punishments for breaking the Law are well known. Indeed, everyone has a copy of the Law in his home; that is The Bible.

The military force in Christian states is also very small in terms of a standing army, yet it is very large in the number of troops that can be mobilized to repel invasion by an enemy. The military is small because Christian foreign policy is defensive, not offensive. That is, the Christian only goes to war to defend a just cause or after another has declared war on the Christian state. Mobilizing the people in a Christian state is relatively easy because all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 55 are already a part of the militia which is always kept in a high state of readiness. A militia force is the most cost effective means of providing a military force to protect the nation.

In Humanist States, both the civil and military forces are always a larger than necessary percentage of the total population.

The civil law enforcement forces of a Humanist State are nearly always tied into the standing army, or military force, and is usually as large as, or larger than the military force. Thus, in America, city police, county sheriffs, and the state police or highway patrol, forces that guard transportation and communication, though paid by their state and local governments, are always tied into the standing army and often funded by them in part. This is the plan currently used by the Federal government of the United States.

It is common in Humanist States to find them waging war against other states in foreign lands, if they have the resources to do so. The aggressive nature of Humanism itself permits this in the treaties created between States. Very large standing armies are the norm in such States, in part, because the state must protect itself from its own people, because in no Humanist State do we find real Law. All the sources on Humanist States admit that their law is arbitrary and capricious and even among Non-christians, when this is perceived by the people, unrest is born which the Humanist leaders are keenly aware of.

Thus, the first American President to use the Secret Service as his bodyguards was A. Lincoln. Some have suggested that the real purpose of the Service today is, to protect the bondholders interest in the nations debt. If the President does any act that adversely impacts the bondholders interests, what better security can the bondholders have than to be the very ones who guard the President. It is worth noting that the Secret Service is a branch of the Treasury Department under the Secretary of the Treasury.

One of the purposes of forming the United Nations was to share the cost of making war. Recently, we have seen in Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and Bosnia, this policy in action. In part, this policy has been used to keep some war partners in the game by re-imbursing them for the costs of waging war. In simple terms, we ask, is the United States in such a poor cash flow position that it can no longer afford to wage foreign wars?

Five. States legislate, which means, states can either make law, or extend existing law derived from some authority.

In Christian states, the legislative functions of civil government are minimized. This is because the authority for all Law is the Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the people, sometimes called the common law. Thus, legislation in Christian states is usually done by extending the existing Law of Scripture or the common law, to new situations as they arise.

Legislatures may also enact into law the decisions of juries who are the final arbiters of what constitutes the Law of God.

The only other form of legislation in a Christian state is that of organizing the existing Laws into a convenient system that is easily understood and accessible by the people and the courts.

In Christian states there is little rule-making and regulations because the state can not interfere with the Sovereignty and Word of God. There are no permits and licenses for any Lawful form of activity, no subsidies, and the use of commercial law is practically prohibited.

Currently, in the United States government, the Congress makes no law without the prior existence of an Executive Order from the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military side of the government.

On the administrative side of the Federal government, Congress, as Trustee's of the Chapter Eleven Bankruptcy of the United States are really responsible to the Bondholders of the United States debt. Congress controls the purse strings in such a way that the Bondholders always get the interest payments. By this means, some measure of the balance of power still exists between the Congress and the President.

Congress is also involved in the ratification of treaties because such may affect the rights of the Bondholders of the debt.

Six. States must have the capability to enforce the laws.

It is the function of the chief executive in every state to execute the laws against the lawless.

In Christian states, this is the primary function of the chief executive, whether he be called President, Governor, or Mayor. His secondary purpose is to protect the people from invasion by other states. The chief executive may also negotiate treaties or other arrangements with foreign states, but only on the terms and conditions of the Law of Scripture.

In Humanist states, especially since the Breton Woods treaty, the vast majority of the power of the State is kept in the hands of the chief executive, usually under some form of military or international law and this power is wielded through Executive Orders which then permit Congress to make an addition to the Codes to implement the E.O., which is also published in the Federal Register. The E.O. binds the Congress in all matters except those that would infringe on the Trusteeship of Congress and the bondholders.

Seven. States must have some means of determining whether or not the laws enforced by the state are lawful or legitimate, as well as the means to declare the same in Judicial proceedings.

In Christian states, the court only hears violations of God's Law and common law. Equity is not permitted because it gives discretion to the court to decide matters and such courts could rule in a manner contrary to Scripture. In other words, courts in equity grant too much power to the judge and are normally prohibited.

Juries in Christian court proceedings have the power to determine both the Law and the facts, and thus may decide that a law implemented by the state is bad law and over-turn it. In short, the jury may decide that the facts show the guilt of the defendant, but the law on which the defendant is charged is bad law, according to Scripture. The defendant is then released.

In Christian courts, attorneys are not allowed to argue the case, although they may advise a client who is either a defendant or demandant.

The court system in Christian states is usually very simple because the Law of God and the common law are simple. Jurisdictions and venues are relatively few in type. Proceedings are short with very few delays. In most cases, trials in Christian states last only a few days. It is rare to find a case that lasts for several weeks. In such courts, the Law of Evidence and Process is strictly adhered to.

And, since the common law is technically very precise, the vast majority of questions between Demandant and Defendant are resolved before going to trial. The object of process and the preliminary proceedings in Christian courts, is to reduce the Pleadings to the simplest possible set of issues for adjudication.

In Humanist court systems, on the other hand, we find a very complex system of adjudication. In America, the courts all serve the needs of the Chief Executive and are his agents in the field under military law. For example, the American Bar Association, incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1873 is the body that regulates the agents in the field. Further, the Department of Justice, created in 1870, regulates U.S. attorneys in the field. Anyone who expects justice from such a system truly is non compos mentis.

The system is complex because there are so many laws extant, the rules of evidence and process are usually determined by the judge during the trial. This makes for long, involved, and expensive adjudication that is fraught with errors that call for appeals, again and again. The jury has no real power to determine anything beyond the facts as they are instructed by the judge. If the jury violates the judge's instructions or makes a ruling on the law, the entire trial can be voided on the spot, or appealed on the grounds that the jury violated its instructions.

In Humanistic courts, the only real law in the court is that which comes out of the judges mouth. Attorneys are agents of the court and may only use the law of the court in which they practice. The client is normally non compos mentis, i.e., declared not mentally competent to defend himself.

In other words, the current court system does not exist to defend anyone's rights except those of the Humanistic state.

Last, the reason why Humanist states declare that no man can take the law into his own hands is because the people they are talking to, being Humanists as well, have no law. When one takes the law into his own hands he is determining the civil relationship between himself and another by usurping the Civil Rights Act for himself. Such is an impossibility under God's Law, because God has already determined the relationship between one man and another by writing His Law on the heart of Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women.

Eight. States have relations with other states, foreign and domestic.

Among Christian states, the Law by which all have relations with one another is, of course, the Scripture. The foreign policy of Christian states is thus predictable and certain, which makes for a very stable and long lasting foreign policy.

In terms of domestic policy between the states of the union, there is no need for a commerce clause, nor a comity clause, or good faith clause, since, between Christian states the Law between them is again, identical to the foreign policy Law between nations.

We note with interest that the Byzantine Empire lasted for nearly 1100 years as a strong and independent state, until it began to engage in commerce. It fell within 100 years.

In Humanist States, the situation is very different, usually chaotic and confused, which often leads to war unnecessarily.

In part this is because the language of treaties is virtually impossible to understand between Humanists because of the relativistic nature of meaning in Humanism.

In part it is also because all Humanist States are militarily and commercially based and, in theory, are supposed to harken to international law, which is constantly changing in its meaning and scope of authority.

In short, there is no good reason between Humanist States for anyone to get along unless its in their best interest to do so.

In the U.S., the Federal law used to control what were once individual states, is municipal law, a limited version of international law.

For an example of how international law is converted to use in municipal situations, see the article "That Knock on the Door" in this Issue on 'Searches and Seizures.'

('Let This Mind Be In You' continued in Issue the Fifteenth)

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

Part One

A Sermon Preached At Princeton, On the 17th of May, 1776. Being The General Fast appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies. To which is added, An Address to the Natives of Scotland residing in America.

John Witherspoon, D.D.

President of the College of New Jersey.

Philadelphia:

Printed and sold by R. Aitken, Printer and

Bookseller, opposite The London Coffee-

House, Front-Street. MDCCLXXVL.

To the Honourable John Hancock, Esq., President of the Congress of the United States of America; in Testimony of the highest esteem for his personal character and public conduct, the following Sermon is humbly inscribed by his most obedient humble servant, The Author.

Editor's Note: No changes have been made in the original manuscript except for conversion of ligature to their current English language style. Page numbers in the original are in brackets [ ]. Footnotes { } have been moved to the end of the text. This is Part One of Three, to follow.

Part One:

A Sermon &c.

Psal. lxxvi, 10.

Surely the Wrath of Man shall praise thee;

the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.

There is not a greater evidence either of the reality or the power of religion, than a firm belief of God's universal presence, and a constant mention to the influence and operation of his providence. It is by this means that the Christian may be said, in the emphatical scripture language, to walk with God, and to endure in seeing him who is invisible. [2]

The doctrine of divine providence is very full and complete in the sacred oracles. It extends not only to things which we may think of great moment, and therefore worthy of notice, but to things the most indifferent and inconsiderable: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, says our Lord, and one of them falleth not on the ground without your heavenly Father; nay, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. It extends not only to things beneficial and salutary, or to the direction and assistance of those who are the servants of the living God; but to things seemingly most hurtful and destructive, and to persons the most refractory and disobedient. He over-rules all his creatures, and all their actions. Thus we are told, that fire, hail, snow, vapour, and stormy wind, fulfil his Word, in the course of nature; and even so the most impetuous and disorderly passions of men, that are under no restraint from themselves, are yet perfectly subject to the dominion of Jehovah. They carry his commission, they obey his orders, they are limited and restrained by his authority, and they conspire with every thing else in promoting his [3] glory. There is the greater need to take notice of this, that men are not generally sufficiently aware of the distinction between the Law of God and his purpose; they are apt to suppose, that as the temper of the sinner is contrary to the one, so the outrages of the sinner are able to defeat the other; than which nothing can be more false. The truth is plainly asserted, and nobly expressed by the Psalmist in the text, Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.

This psalm was evidently composed as a song of praise for some signal victory obtained, which was at the same time a remarkable deliverance from threatening danger. The author was one or other of the later prophets, and the occasion probably the unsuccessful assault of Jerusalem, by the army of Senacherib, king of Assyria, in the days of Hezekiah. Great was the insolence and boasting of his generals and servants against the city of the living God, as may be seen in the thirty-sixth chapter of Isaiah. Yet it pleased God to destroy their enemies and, by his own [4] immediate interposition, to grant them deliverance. Therefore the Psalmist says in the fifth and sixth verses of this psalm, The stout-hearted are spoiled, they have kept their sleep. None of the men of might have found their hands. At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob! both the chariot and the horse are cast into a deep sleep. After a few more remarks to the same purpose, he draws the inference, or makes the reflection in the text, Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain; which may be paraphrased thus, The fury and injustice of oppressors, shall bring in a tribute of praise to thee; the influence of thy righteous providence shall be clearly discerned; the countenance and support thou wilt give to thine own people shall be gloriously illustrated; thou shalt set the bounds which the boldest cannot pass.

I am sensible, my brethren, that the time and occasion of this psalm, may seem to be in one respect ill suited to the interesting circumstances of this country at present. It was composed after the victory was obtained; whereas we are now [5] but putting on the harness, and entering upon an important contest, the length of which it is impossible to foresee, and the issue of which it will perhaps be thought presumption to foretell. But as the truth, with respect to God's moral government, is the same and unchangeable; as the issue, in the case of Senacherib's invasion, did but lead the prophet to acknowledge it; our duty and interest conspire in calling upon us to improve it. And I have chosen to insist upon it on this day of solemn humiliation as it will probably help us to a clear and explicit view of what should be the chief subject of our prayers and endeavours, as well as the great object of our hope and trust, in our present situation.

The truth, then, asserted in this text, which I propose to illustrate and improve is, - That all the dreaded passions of' men, whether exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are the armies of divine judgment in public calamity, shall, in the end, be to the praise of God: Or, to apply it more particularly to the present state of the American Colonies, and the plague of war, - The ambition [6] of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppressive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity of brutal soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the meantime, while the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury.

In discoursing of this subject, it is my intention, through the assistance of divine grace,

I. To point out to you in some particulars, how the wrath of man praises God.

II. To apply there principles to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in the important crisis.

In the first place, I am to point out to you in some particulars how the wrath of man praises God. I say in some instances, because it is far from being in my power, either to mention or explain the whole. There is an unsearchable depth in [7] the divine counsels, which it is impossible for us to penetrate. It is the duty of every good man to place the most unlimited confidence in divine wisdom, and to believe that those measures of providence that are most unintelligible to him, are yet planned with the same skill, and directed to the same great purposes as others, the reason and tendency of which he can explain in the clearest manner. But where revelation and experience enables us to discover the wisdom, equity, or mercy of divine providence, nothing can be more delightful or profitable to a serious mind, and therefore I beg your attention to the following remarks.

In the first place, the wrath of man praises God, as it is an example and illustration of divine truth, and clearly points out the corruption of our nature, which is the foundation stone of the doctrine of redemption. Nothing can be more absolutely necessary to true religion, than a clear and full conviction of the sinfulness of our nature and state. Without this there can be neither repentance in the [8] sinner, nor humility in the believer. Without this, all that is said in scripture of the wisdom and mercy of God, in providing a Saviour, is without force and without meaning. Justly does our Saviour say, The whole have no need of a physician, but those that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Those who are not sensible that they are sinners, will treat ever exhortation to repentance, and every offer of mercy, with disdain or defiance.

But where can we have a more affecting-view of the corruption of our nature, than in the wrath of man, when exerting itself in oppression, cruelty, and blood. It must be owned, indeed, that this truth is abundantly manifest in terms of the greatest tranquillity. Others may, if they please, treat the corruption of our nature as a chimera; for my part, I see it everywhere, and I feel it every day. All the disorders in human society, and the greatest part even of the unhappiness we are exposed to, arises from the envy, malice, covetousness, and other lusts of man. If we [9] and all about us were just what we ought to be in all respects, we should not need to go any further for heaven, for it should be upon earth. But war and violence present a spectacle, still more awful. How affecting is it to think, that the lust of domination should be so violent and universal? That men should so rarely be satisfied with their own possessions and acquisitions, or even with the benefit that would arise from mutual service, but should look upon the happiness and tranquillity of others, as an obstruction to their own. That, as if the great law of nature were not enough. Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return, they should be so curiously set for the destruction of each other. It is shocking to think, since the first murder of Abel by his brother Cain, what havoc has been made of man by man in every age. What is it that fills the pages of history, but the wars and contentions of princes and empires? What vast numbers has lawless ambition brought into the field, and deliver as a prey to the destructive sword? [10]

If we dwell a little upon the circumstances, they become deeply affecting. The mother bears a child with pain, rears him by the laborious attendance of many years; yet in the prime of life, in the vigour of health, and bloom of beauty, in a moment he is cut down by the dreadful instruments of death. Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and the garments rolled in blood; but the horror of the scene is not confined to the field of slaughter. Few go there unrelated, or fall unlamented; in every hostile encounter, what must be the impression upon the relations of the deceased? The bodies of the dead can only be seen, or the cries of the dying heard for a single day, but many days shall not put an end to the mourning of a parent for a beloved son, the joy and support of his age, or of the widow and helpless offspring for a father, taken away in the fullness of health and vigour.

But if this may be justly said of all wars between man and man, what shall we be able to say that is suitable to the [11] abhorred scene of civil war between citizen and citizen? How deeply affecting is it, that those who are the same in complexion, the same in blood, in language, and in religion, should, notwithstanding, butcher one another with unrelenting rage, and glory in the deed? That men should lay waste the fields of their fellow subjects, with whose provision they themselves had be often fed, and consume with devouring fire those houses, in which they had often found a hospitable shelter.

These things are apt to overcome a weak mind with fear, or overwhelm it with sorrow, and in the greatest number are apt to excite the highest indignation, and kindle up a spirit of revenge. If this last has no other tendency than to direct and invigorate the measures of self-defence, I do not take upon me to blame it, on the contrary, I call it necessary and laudable.

But what I mean at this time to prove by the preceding reflections, and wish [12] to impress on your minds, is the depravity of our nature. From whence come wars and fightings among you, says the apostle James, come they not hence even from your lusts that war in your members. Men of lax and corrupt principles, take great delight in speaking to the praise of human nature, and extoling its dignity, without distinguishing what it was, at its first creation, from what it is in its present fallen state. These fine speculations are very grateful to a worldly mind. They are also much more pernicious to uncautious and unthinking youth, than even the temptations to a dissolute and sensual life, against which they are fortified by the dictates of natural conscience, and a sense of public shame. But I appeal from these visionary reasonings to the history of all ages, and the inflexible testimony of daily experience. These will tell us what men have been in their practice, and from thence you may judge what they are by nature, while unrenewed. If I am not mistaken, a cool and candid attention, [13] either to the past history, or present state of the world, but above all, to the ravages of lawless power, ought to humble us in the dust. It should at once lead us to acknowledge the just view given us in scripture, of our lost state; to desire the happy influence of renewing grace each for ourselves; and to long for the dominion of righteousness and peace, when Men shall beat their swords into plowshares, and the spears into pruning hooks; when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more {1}, {2}.

2. The wrath of man praiseth God as the instrument in his hand for bringing sinners to repentance and for the correction and improvement of his own children. Whatever be the nature of the affliction with which he visits either persons, families, or nations; whatever be the disposition or intention of those whose malice he employs as a scourge, the design on his part is, to rebuke men for iniquity, to bring them to repentance, and to promote their holiness and peace. The salutory nature, and sanctifying influence of affliction in general, is often taken notice of in scripture, both as making a part of the purpose of God, and the experience of his saints. {3} Now no affliction, says the apostle, for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: Nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them, which are exercised thereby. But what we are particularly led to observe by the subject of this discourse is, that the wrath of man, or the violence of the oppressor praiseth God in this respect, for it has a peculiar tendency to alarm the secure conscience, to convince and humble the obstinate sinner. This is plain from the nature of the thing, and from the testimony of experience. Public calamities particularly the destroying sword, is so awful that it cannot but have a powerful influence in leading men, to consider the presence and the power of God. It threatens them not only in themselves but touches them in all that is dear to them, whether relations or possessions. The prophet Isaiah says, Yea in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have we waited for thee, -- for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. He considers [17] it as the most powerful mean of alarming the secure, and subduing the obstinate. {4} Lord when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see, but they shall see and be ashamed for their envy at the people, yea the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. It is also sometimes represented as a symptom of a hopeless and irrecoverable state, when public judgments have no effect. Thus says the prophet Jeremiah, {5} O Lord are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: They have made their faces harder than a rock, they have refused to return. We can easily see in the history of the children of Israel, how severe strokes brought them to submission and penitence. When he slew them then they fought him, and they returned and enquired early after God, and they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer {6}. Both nations in general, and private person are [18] apt to grow remiss and lax in a time of prosperity and seeming security, but when their earthly comforts are endangered or withdrawn, it lays them under a kind of necessity to seek for something better in their place. Men must have comfort from one quarter or another. When earthly things are in a pleasing and promising condition, too many are apt to find their rest, and be satisfied with them as their only portion. But when the vanity and passing nature of all created comfort is discovered, they are compelled to look for something more durable as well as valuable. What therefore can be more to the praise of God, than that when a whole people have forgotten their resting place, when they have abused the privileges, and despised the mercies, they should by distress and suffering be made to hearken to the rod, and return to their duty.

There is an inexpressible depth and variety in the judgments of God, as in all his other works, but we may lay down this as a certain principle, that if there were no sin, there could be no suffering. Therefore they are certainly for [19] the correction of sin, or for the trial, illustration, and perfecting of the grace and virtue of his own people. We are not to suppose, that those who suffer most, or who suffer soonest, are therefore more criminal than others. Our Saviour himself though it necessary to give a caution against this rash conclusion, as we are informed by the evangelist Luke, There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things, I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. {7} I suppose we may say with sufficient warrant, that it often happens, that those for whom God hath designs of the greatest mercy, are first brought to the trial, that they may enjoy in due time, the salutary effect of the unpalatable medicine.

I must also take leave to observe, and I hope no pious humble sufferer [20] will be the unwilling to make the application, that there is often a discernible mixture of sovereignty and righteousness in providential dispensations. It is the prerogative of God to do what he will with his own, but he often displays his justice itself, by throwing into the furnace those, who, though they may not be visible worse than others, may yet have more to answer for, as having been favoured with more distinguished privileges, both civil and sacred. It is impossible for us to make a just and full comparison of the character either of persons or nations, and it would be extremely foolish for any to attempt it, either for increasing their own security, or impeaching the justice of the Supreme Ruler. Let us therefore neither forget the truth, nor go beyond it. His mercy fills the earth. He is also known by the judgment which he executeth. The wrath of man in its most tempestuous rage, fulfills his will, and finally promotes the good of his chosen.

3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his providence, and sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory...

(continued in Issue the Fifteenth)

Endnotes

{1} Micah iv. 5.

(Editor's Note. The Author here is chastising the work "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine, an atheist of the day and not well liked.)

{2} I cannot help embracing this opportunity of making a remark or two upon a virulent reflexion thrown not against this doctrine in a well known pamphlet, Common Sense. The author of that work expresses himself thus, "if the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as are innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile. Without the shadow of reasoning, he is pleased to represent the doctrine of original sin as an object of contempt or abhorrence. I beg leave to demur a little to the candor, the prudence, and the justice of this proceeding.

1. Was it modest or candid for a person without name or character, to talk in this supercilious manner of a doctrine that has been espoused and defended by many of the greatest and best men that the world has ever seen and made an essential part of the established Creeds and Confessions of all the Protestant churches without exception? I thought the grand modern plea had been freedom of sentiment, and charitable thoughts of one another. Are so many of us, then, beyond the reach of this gentleman's charity. I do assure him that such presumption and self-confidence are no recommendation to me either of his character or sentiments.

2. Was it prudent, when he was pleading a public cause, to speak in such approbrious terms of a doctrine which he knew or ought to have known was believed and professed, by, a great majority of very different denominations. Is this gentleman ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy of the Christian faith? Are men so little tenacious of their religious sentiments, whether true or false? The prophet thought otherwise, who said, Hath a nation changed their gods who are yet no gods? Was it the way to obtain the favor of the public to despise what they hold sacred. Or shall we suppose this author so astonishing ignorant, as to think that all men now, whose favour is worth asking, have given up the doctrine of the New Testament. If he does, he is greatly mistaken.

3. In fine, I ask, where was the justice of this proceeding? Is there so little to be said for the doctrine of original sin, that it is not to be refuted, but despised? Is the state of the world such, as to render this doctrine not only false, but incredible? Has the fruit been of such a quality as to exclude all doubts of the goodness of the tree? On the contrary, I cannot help being of opinion, that such has been the visible state of the world in every age, as cannot be accounted for on any other principles, that what we learn from the word of God, that the imagination of the heart of man is only evil from his youth, and that continually. Genesis vi, 5-8, 21.

{3} Habakkuk, vii, 11.

{4} Isaiah xxvi, 11.

{5} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{6} Jeremiah v. 5.

{7} Luke xiii, 1.

That Knock on The Door

by Randy Lee

For those who believe, or have been trained to believe, that you must open your door when someone knocks on it, consider the following:

"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Or, if you believe that the police need a warrant to enter your house, consider the following, which is from "Federal Searches and Seizures," by Rex D. Davis, 1964, available in from the Christ's assembly at California.

Note: "Refused admittance," and "no permission being given," is when there is some kind of response from within.

3.26 Forceful Entry to Arrest.

Officers may use force in breaking into a premises in order to arrest with or without a warrant provided they have been refused admittance after making the necessary notification.
18 U.S.C. 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit.
The officer may break open any inner or outer door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

At least one jurisdiction appears to distinguish an officer's authority to break in without a warrant from the same authority when he is armed with a warrant.

Unless the necessities of the moment require that the officer break down a door, he cannot do so without a warrant; and if in reasonable contemplation there is opportunity to get a warrant, or the arrest could as well be made by some other method, the outer door to a dwelling cannot be broken to make an arrest without a warrant. The right to break open a door to make an arrest requires something more than the mere right to arrest. (Accruing v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.DC 394, 179 F.2d. 456.)
We think that under the authorities, officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present. (Morrison v. United States, CA DC 1958, 262 F.2d 449.)

3.261 What Constitutes "Breaking"?

"In the absence of any allegation of coercion, the action of the officers who bore a valid warrant of arrest and did not force their way into her apartment but entered after the door had been opened by the defendant, in 'pushing' their way into the apartment was not of a character that it constituted such unreasonable force that would invalidate an otherwise valid search." United States v. Lord, DC NY 1960, 184 F. Supp. 923.

3.262 Entry by Subterfuge without Force.

There is considerable authority to the effect that use of subterfuge to gain entrance to arrest or search is not improper. Of course, if "breaking" is involved, it is necessary for the officers to announce their authority and purpose in demanding entrance. Where a Federal agent, armed with a valid arrest warrant, gained entrance to the defendant's apartment by stating he was an agent from the County Assessor's Office, the Court held the entrance lawful, stating:

There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of a deception in executing a valid arrest warrant. The case of Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, relied on by appellant, holds that a search warrant is invalid even though entry is procured by stealth rather than force. The instant case is different in that the search was incident to an arrest under a valid arrest warrant. "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 820, 2 L.Ed.2d 848.

And, whether the postman is an agent in the field, consider the following:

9.15 Mail Watch

Ordinarily, a mail watch does not constitute a search.

A "mail watch" or "mail cover" occurs where postal employees scrutinize the mail addressed to an individual and note the information contained on the outside of the envelope. It is distinguishable from the opening and searching of first class mail which is unconstitutional unless legally authorized.

"Defendant further suggests that the use of a "mail cover" tainted the Governments evidence. That is, a clerk was assigned in the Post Office to scrutinize all mail addressed to defendant at the Rittenhouse Hotel and to note the names and addresses of the senders. The motion to suppress cannot be granted for that reason, however, since it was not shown that the fruits of the mail watch were used (directly or indirectly) in the preparation of the Government's charges. Furthermore, it has been held in this district that even where results of a "mail watch" are communicated to the Justice Department in violation of Postal Regulations, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed." United States v. Schwartz, DC Pa. 1959, 176 F.Supp.613.

"There was no "taking" of the Costello's mail with intent to deprive them of it. It was not prying into their business or secrets to note what the senders had made public on the face of the letters. And the mere fact of detention without proof that it was for unlawful purpose is insufficient to constitute a violation of the statute. Any delay here was merely incidental to a lawful watch authorized by the Postal Regulations." United States v. Costello, DC N.Y. 1957 F.Supp. 461.

Don't open that door for anyone!!!

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Numbers

11.19. Numbers mentioned in connection with serious and dignified subjects and in formal writing are spelled out. Style Manual, United States Government Printing Office, 1959.

Tyrant

The word tyrant, from the Greek tyranos, means a secular ruler, one who rules without the sanction of religious law, "with an authority that was not derived from the worship, a power that religion had not established." Its new principal of law was democracy, "the obedience of man to man." The Nature of the American System, page 45, by Rousas John Rushdoony, 1978.

In despotic governments, the tyrannical proceedings of the subordinate officers are often more intolerable than those of the prince. Crabb's English Synonymes, page 19, by George Crabb, A.M., 1890.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

On Chastising Children

A move twenty years ago, being in the habits of intimacy and connexion in civil life with a respectable gentleman, he one day, in conversation on family affairs, related, with tears, a transaction between himself and one of his sons, a fine boy, about ten or eleven years of age. The son was by no means the lowest in the esteem of his father, but had a full share of his affection.

It happened one day that the boy told an untruth knowingly, which afterwards came to the knowledge of his father, who determined to chastise him severely for it. He took the boy and an instrument of correction into a chamber, and there reprimanded him, by setting forth the exceeding heinousness of the sin against God, and the danger thereby of his own soul. He then proceeded to the distressing work of correction, (I have no doubt that every stroke was as afflictive to the parent as to the child;) after which, on leaving the room, the father began to fear that he had exceeded a due measure, (which I conceived was an excess of parental affection,) he made as though he was going down the stairs after shutting the door; but pausing a little, he returned softly to the door, where he waited some time, hearing the sobbing and crying of the boy. After a while the father heard a movement and began to think of retreating, but after descending a step or two, he heard his son speak, on which he softly resumed his former station, and looking through the key-hole of the door, perceived his son on his knees, acknowledging his guilt and shame before God, and praying for forgiveness; thanking God for favoring him with such a father as would not suffer sin upon him: also praying for his brothers and family.

To parents, it is unnecessary to dwell on the feelings of an affectionate father under such circumstances, the language of whom corresponds with that of his heavenly Father: --- "As many as I love I rebuke and chasten" -- "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Psalm ciii. 13.

A Scottish Legend

A married couple of the Scottish highlanders had thrice lost their only child, each dying at an early age. Upon the death of the last, the father became boisterous, and uttered his complaints in the loudest tones.

The death of the child happened late in the spring when, in the more inhabited straths, sheep were abroad; but from the blasts in that high and stormy region, they were still confined in the cot. In a dismal, stormy evening, the man, unable to stifle his anguish, went out, lamenting aloud, for a lamb to treat his friends with at the wake (or funeral feast). At the door of the cot he found a stranger standing before the entrance. He was astonished, in such a night, so far from any frequented place! The stranger was plainly attired, but he had a countenance expressive of singular mildness and benevolence; and, addressing the father in a sweet impressive voice, asked what he did there, amidst the tempest.

He was filled with awe, which he could not account for, and said he came for a lamb.

"What kind of a lamb do you mean to take?" Said the stranger.

"The very best that I can find," he replied; "as it is to entertain my friends; and I hope you will share of it."

"Do your sheep make any resistance when you take away the lambs?"

"Never," was the answer.

"How differently am I treated," said the traveler, "when I come to visit my sheepfold, I take, as I am well entitled to do, the best lamb to myself, and my ears are filled with the clamor of discontent by these ungrateful sheep, whom I have fed, watched, and protected."

He looked up in amazement, but ---- the vision had fled.

Issue the Fifteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Law of Identification...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Three...

Common Right vs. Franchise...

Let This Mind Be In You, Part Four ...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part Two...

Miscellaneous Notes...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

The Law of Identification

by Randy Lee

The purpose of printing the following documentation is to show that you, being a Christian, have the ability to become separate from and remain separate from the secular world of law (codes, rules and regulations) by asserting God's Law and your Christian character in everything you do, thereby avoiding the esoteric pitfalls of Metaphysical Humanism. Identifying with any other law other than God's Law is to bring yourself down into the mud with self-reasoning natural persons, human beings and other God-less entities of like kind, as the following evidences. These are excerpts from the book, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), by John Henry Wigmore, who was a professor of law at Northwestern University, around the turn of this century, and is regarded as the best modern authority on evidence.

"In trying to arrive at the nature of Identity we are forced to a certain extent to discuss Metaphysics: this is unavoidable, and it is the neglect of what Metaphysics teaches which has in our opinion led to the confusion and contradictions on the subject which exists in the law.

"The physiological explanation, when one state of consciousness is said to revive a similar state, doubtless is that the two similar states have a numerically single nerve element as their basis; the two images omit a common cell element in vibration and this is called an identity of seat. [Binet, op. cit. pp. 125, 126.] This appears to us to point to identity being the ultimate state. But for the purpose of discussion it seems clear that what is really the important matter is the amount of difference which is perceived; and we think that in most cases when a witness is able to swear to great likeness, in the absence of any specified points of difference it should be accepted as an identification even though the witness shrinks from using that term. If an advocate persists in asking, 'Will you swear that they are the same?' many witnesses will answer, 'No,' and on paper and to the unreflecting mind this will considerably weaken the effect of the evidence. Such an advocate should be asked in his turn to define what he means by 'same,' and if he attempts to do this, it will soon become apparent that his question as so addressed is not one that can be fairly given the direct answer, Yes or No. If the [*68] witness attempts to give any other response, he is often charged with prevarication, whereas it is not his fault that he does so, but the form of his interrogator's question compels him to do it.

'Two objects are similar,' says Wundt, 'when certain of their characteristics correspond, while others are different;' and perfect likeness--to indicate which the term 'identity' is sometimes used-- whether of quality or of intensity, must be estimated for practical purposes by indistinguishableness when attention is closely directed to the two objects.

"We shall begin by insisting on a few propositions: viz. (1) that you cannot be aware of identity unless you have also diversity; (2) that you cannot ask whether a thing is generally the same, but you must confine your questions to a certain aspect of it; (3) that we select that aspect to suit our interests, and such interests are usually practical; (4) that identity or the relation of sameness is ideal, it lies in the view we take of things, and not in the nature of things themselves; (5) that the word 'same' is used ambiguously and that it is a different problem when we ask whether an individual remains the same, and when we ask whether two things are the same.

"(1) the first proposition applies whether we are speaking of the resemblance of two things or of the continuous identity of one. 'In order that the mind may perceive the resemblance of two images,' says Binet, 'they must differ a little; if they do not, they become added together and form a single image.' [Binet, Psychology of Reasoning, p. 120.]Professor Sully writes: 'The visual recognition of a thing as identical with something previously perceived takes place by help of the idea of persistence. (It involves) the comparison of successive impressions and the detection of similarity and diversity of change. [Sully, Outlines of Psychology, p. 155.]

"(2) If the persistence is in the object itself, this implies a sameness of character attaching to the thing itself, i.e. a qualitative sameness, and further the avoidance of any absolute break in its existence. When, however, it is asked in what the sameness of quality consists, it will be found that no reply can be given, unless the point or particular aspect of which you were thinking is specified. A general reply cannot be given because we do not know the general character which is taken to make the thing's essence; it is not always material substance, nor shape, nor size, nor color. The identity lies [*66] really in the view we take of it, and that view is often a mere chance idea; the character therefore lies outside of and beyond the fact taken.

"(3) How then do we determine in what respect we shall ask of a thing whether it is the same or not? Professor Stout seems to have answered this question in his remarks on what he calls 'thinghood.' It depends on interest: we take what answer for practical purposes as real, identical, etc.: on the perceptual level this interest is purely practical. It is the interest of the moment which determines how we look at a thing, and we look at it differently, according to the fluctuation of interest. [Stout, Manual of Psychology, pp. 327 et seq.] And this is why we say that the rule of convenience is the one to be followed in deciding whether events belong to the same transaction or not. Our interest here is solely as to how we shall dispose judicially of the charges brought against the accused in the most convenient manner, and the considerations which chiefly influence us are whether the same witnesses can speak to all the charges and whether those charges can be kept separate before the mind without risk of confusion or prejudice, if they are taken together. The fact that the events happened at different times and places and such like reasons are irrelevant in themselves save in so far as they hinder or promote our convenience.To seek to convert such reasons into an objective general test of identity and difference seems to us to be both meaningless and irrational.

(4) The relation of Similarity to Identity will now be described. 'Similarity,' says Bradley, 'is nothing in the world but more or less unspecified sameness.' 'The feeling that two things are similar need not imply the perception of the identical point, but none the less this feeling is based always on partial sameness,' [Bradley, op. cit., p. 348, and note 1.] and elsewhere he says that Resemblance is the perception of the more or less unspecified identity of two distinct things. It differs from Identity in its lowest form, i.e. where things are taken as the same without specific awareness of the point or sameness and distinction or that from the diversity, because it implies the distinct consciousness that the two things are two and different.

It differs again from Identity in a more explicit form because it is of the essence of Resemblance that the point or points of sameness should remain at least partly undistinguished and unspecified. And, further, the feeling which belongs to the experience of similarity is different from that which belongs to the experience of sameness proper. But resemblance is based always on partial sameness, though the specific feeling of resemblance is not itself the partial identity which it involves, and partial identity need not imply likeness proper at all. The writer is aware that this view is disputed by more than one philosopher: they hold that Resemblance is not based on Identity, but is an ultimate idea, or even that Identity is based on Resemblance.

This Binet writes, 'to explain the resemblance between two states or by a partial identity of their elements simplifies nothing at all. For it replaces the idea of resemblance by the ideas of Identity and unity which are merely its derivatives. Resemblance is a single, ultimate, and irreducible idea.' [Binet, op. cit., p. 129.] Similarly Professor James says, 'So here any theory that would base likeness on identity, and not rather identity on likeness must fail;' again, 'likeness must be conceived as a [*67] special complication of identity, but rather that identity must be conceived as a special degree of likeness,likeness and difference are ultimate relations perceived. As a matter of fact, no two sensations, no two objects of all those we know, are in scientific rigor identical. We call those of them identical whose difference is unperceived. Over and above this we have a conception of absolute sameness, it is true, but this, like so many of our conceptions, is an ideal construction got by following a certain direction of serial increase to its maximum supposable extreme. It plays an important part among other permanent meanings possessed by us in our ideal intellectual constructions. But it plays no part whatever in explaining psychologically how we perceive likenesses between simple things.' [W. James, Principles of Psychology, vol. I, pp. 532-533.]

We remember to have read in a judgment of one of the Indian High Courts (unfortunately we cannot now give the reference) that the judges considered the case was not proved because the evidence only established likeness and not identity, and it is no uncommon thing to hear evidence given that a witness can swear that two things or two persons are very like, but he will not swear that they are the same: such testimony is usually considered to fall short of an identification. Now if identity is based on resemblance, what more is required than the assertion that two things are very like? It is the fact that such questions arise in law that is our excuse for pursuing this controversy concerning Resemblance and Identity a little further. The position of the one side is that Identity is nothing more than a special degree of resemblance with the difference between the two objects unperceived; the content of the other is that all resemblance is partial identity, but the points of sameness are not fully specified, and that terms such as 'exact likeness' 'precise similarity' are misleading. For as soon as you have removed all internal difference, and resemblance is carried to such a point that perceptible difference ceases, then you have identity. As soon as you begin to analyze resemblance you get something else than it, and when you argue from resemblance, what you use is not resemblance, but the point of resemblance, and a point of resemblance is clearly identity.

"(5) At the same time it must be remarked that difference is not always fatal to identity. But here we are using 'identity' in another sense. A quotation will explain this: 'Real identity,' says Dr. Ward, 'no more involves exact similarity than exact similarity involves sameness of things; on the contrary, we are wont to find the same thing alter with time so that exact similarity after an interval, so far from suggesting one thing, is often the surest proof that there are two concerned. Of such real identity, then, it would seem we must have direct experience; and we have it in the continuous presentation of the bodily self;The same writer points out the ambiguity in the word 'same' whereby it means either individual identity or indistinguishable resemblance: in the former we have mere relation, for two individuals partially coincide. Resemblance itself may be fatal to identification, when the law of being is changed." Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), pp. 65-68.

When similarity exists in the eyes of the law, a 'rebuttable presumption' also exists. To rebut that presumption is to become not the object of sameness or not identified.

Since Lincoln's War and the Reconstruction Acts that followed, all 'citizens' are presumed by the U.S., State, County and City governments to be under and subject to The Civil Rights Acts. But these presumptions are rebuttable by all Good and Lawful Christians who do not look to these governments for their benefits, privileges and opportunities; and who do not deal in the realm of the law merchant.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Three:

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

Voter Registration and Idolatry

Last month we covered the change in the elections process brought on by Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. We displayed that voter registration is a war-time measure for those under the usurpations of the eversor Abraham Lincoln; and, its use today is evidence of the continuation of the War. The evidence presented previously points to an elections process unknown and foreign to the process which existed antebellum. This is highly important, because we can see some disturbing parallels with the fall of Rome, from a book by Woodrow Wilson:

"Civil war opened the doors to Caesar and the several triumvirates, and finally Rome [the United States of America] had her first emperor in Octavian [Lincoln]." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 124 [Insertion added.] and on page 121:
"209. An Emperor the Remedy. It turned out, in the slow process of revolution which the rule of the oligarchy brought upon the city, that the only means of accomplishing the administrative changes which yearly became more and more necessary was to concentrate power in the hands of one man, at first under the forms of the old constitution, at length in open disregard of those forms,--and this was the establishment of the Empire. By making all men subjects, it practically made all men citizens. It brought Rome, very soon to the level of the provinces; but it also brought the provinces to the level of Rome by giving her and them a common master who could unify administration and oversee it with an equal interest in the prosperity of all parts of a consolidated domain. That is what Caesar attempted, and that the overthrow of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire accomplished.....The Senate stood still, and many provincial officers were still formally elected by the people of the city; but the city became, scarcely less than the provinces, bound to perfect obedience to the emperor; provincial officers, and even city officers, were recognized as only his deputies; the Empire was unified and provincials brought to an equality with their former masters by a servitude common to all. Caracalla's act of universal enfranchisement whatever its immediate purpose (A.D. 212), was a logical outcome of the imperial system. All were citizens where all were subjects." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 121. [Emphasis added.]

Note the wording in the Presidential Proclamations, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment and you will see that they address precisely the same subject-matter. From the days of Lincoln's War, and continuing through Reconstruction, then, the aim has been to concentrate the power in the states in one head located in Washington, and subject them to the fickle nature of natural man in the not so White House: Again, Woodrow Wilson:

"Of course there was and could be no concealment of the fact that predominance in the state had been given to one man [by military necessity]; by the traditions of the Republic furnished abundant sanction for the temporary investiture of one man with supreme authority: the dictatorship had been a quite normal office in the days of the Republic's best vigor. What was possible and prudent to conceal was, that one man had become permanent master and that republican institutions had been finally overthrown.All that was desired was accomplished by the use of regular republican forms. The framework of the old constitution was left standing; but new forces [never contemplated by the founders] were made to work within it." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, pp. 124-125. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Woodrow Wilson, we all know, was the notorious woodhead who carried forward the design of his predecessors when he signed the Income Tax Act of 1913 and Federal Reserve Act into "law."

When you look at the top of a "voter registration" form it specifically states who is the subject of the voting registration "laws"--those made subject under Lincoln's Proclamations of Emancipation of September 22, 1862 and January 1, 1863. This is the same subject matter of the "Civil Rights Acts," Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and the "Voting Rights Acts." It is the "duty" of every good "citizen" to "vote" to give "sanction" to a "government" never contemplated by the Founders. And this is the rule in international law derived from recognition:

"States not yet admitted to the family of nations may have all the attributes of states, in the sense of public law and from the point of view of political science, and yet lack international statehood. [Wilson Int. Law, 12.] Sovereignty becomes internationally effective only when recognized by other [*394] states. [The Maria Joseph, 16 F.Cas. No. 9,078, Brunn Coll. Cas. 500, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 600; U.S. v. Hutchings, 26 F.Cas.No. 15,429, Brunn Coll. Cas. 489, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 543.
"[a] It is optional on the part of any nation to grant or withhold recognition. 'Except in consequence of particular conventions, no state is obliged to accord it. But the refusal may give rise to measures of retorsion.' Per Marshall, C.J., in Rose v. Himely, 2 Cranch(U.S.) 241, 272, 2 L.Ed. 608; Clark v. U.S., 5 F.Cas.No. 2,838, 3 Wash.C.C. 101.] Recognition is the act which gives to a de facto state international status." 33 C.J. 393-394. The state we are referring to is your state.

Christian states are not required to give recognition to secular states. But if it does give recognition, this recognition is a mirror: One, it is recognition of the individuals who established a secular government completely disconnected and removed from its Christian foundation, by resurrecting the old Roman Imperial system of "law"; Two, it is you recognizing that you are subject to the group of men in the District of Columbia; Three, it is recognition that God, through His Son Jesus Christ, is not your Sovereign Lord and Saviour. Can you now see, that if you participate in such a scheme, you are a part of the problem? You are your own worst enemy! This is stated by the courts:

"The second section of the [13th] amendment was added out of abundant caution. It authorizes Congress to select, from time to time, the means that might be deemed appropriate to the end. It employs a phrase which had been enlightened by well-considered judicial application. Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative, and not a judicial question." United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. (Case No. 16,151) 785, 793.
"Amendments 13, 14, and 15 restrict the State, while a member of the federal Union, from changing her Constitutions so as to create or establish slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been convicted, from denying to a citizen [subject] of the United States or depriving him of those national rights, privileges, and immunities, which belong to him as such citizen [subject]; require the state to recognize as its citizen [subject] any citizen [subject] of the United States who is or becomes a bona fide resident therein; and requires the state to give to each citizen [subject] therein the same rights, privileges, and immunities secured by her Constitution and laws to her white citizens." Cory v. Carter (1874), 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am.Rep. 738, 3 Am.LawRec. 669. [Insertions added.]

The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment has the same wording used in the last section of all the postbellum amendments. By the admission above given, this is a political question, because legislation itself is political, not judicial. This is the concept of "separation of powers." The court then is telling you the issue to raise--a political issue, and not a judicial issue. The issue must be the Religion of the King, because this is always a political question.

"A gross exception, however, to the principle of the division between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions was contained in the law applicable to heretics. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, heresy, which previously had been only a spiritual offense, punishable by anathema, became also a legal offense, punishable as treason. The inquisitional procedure was used for the first time to expose it, and the death penalty was for the first time made applicable to it. The gist of the offense was dissent [disobedience] from the dogmas [Law] of the church [state, sacra publica]." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 185-186. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"Treason in levying war, by this definition, consists of two sorts. First, marching expressly, or directly against the king's forces: secondly, interpretatively, or obstructively; doing a thing of a general nature. If to pull down a particular inclosure, it is only a riot; but if to pull down all inclosures, it is levying war against the king, because it is generally against the king's laws. Insurrections, in order to throw down all inclosures, to alter the established law or change religion, to enhance the price of all labour or to open all prisons--all risings, in order to effect these innovations, of a public and general concern by an armed force, are, in construction of law, high treason, within the clause of levying war; for though they are not levelled at the person of the king, they are against his royal majesty, [*877] and besides, they have a direct tendency to dissolve all the bands of society, and so destroy all property and all government too, by numbers and an armed force." Case of Fries (1799), 9 Fed. Cas. 826, 877. [Emphasis added. Religion is a political issue.]

And this political question cannot be raised at the instance of one who avails himself of the benefit of using the ballot box of the conquering earthly power:

"The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation [Secular humanists can never claim injury by the law which is a part of their religion and they themselves adore]. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 625.
Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right [Secular humanists have no property right in common with Good and Lawful Christians in any public property, i.e., Christian civil government]. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99-100.

In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens [subjects].

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469." Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

But isn't it possible to reform the system from within? The court in Ashwander is telling you that it is an impossibility!

And so did Christ:

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house." Mt 12:25-29.

And because the law doesn't compel impossibilities, it is not their responsibility to "reform the system" from within. It is yours--using the Power and Authority of God's Word written in Scripture, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1. The Scripture never said, "The rulers or persons that be are ordained of God." Thus, we may safely assert the following:

"And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to such an one, as concludes not in favour of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil ruler whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society. Such they are described to be, throughout this passage. Thus it is said, that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. It is manifest that this character and the description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon the supposition of the contrary." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, 1750. [Emphasis added.]

I wish to note here that "the secret ballot" is the tool of all military governments to maintain control and management of "civil affairs." It follows, as a consequence, that the traditional relationship between the civil power and the military power is reversed. See 12 Op.Atty.Gen. 182 (1867). It is an import from Australia and did not arrive in California until circa 1890's. I don't know if or when the federal government adopted it.

"AUSTRALIAN BALLOT. A system of secret voting, whereby the voter indicates his choice of the candidates who have been nominated by a mark alongside the name of the candidate thus chosen. The system originated in Australia, whence its name." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 27. [Emphasis added.]

If you are tired of being your own worst enemy and short term "solutions," get out of the political stupor and teach your infants to do the same:

"Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and of science be, and remain, the soul of this constitution, and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance, will be the only enemies able to destroy it. Against these provide, and, of these, be forever jealous. Every member of the state, ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free [under God]. [Ed note: This is why we promote you bringing your infants to seminars!] By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive them when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." John Jay, on the inauguration of the New York Constitution of 1777, quoted in the Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), edited by H. Niles. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

But, please read the constitutions with the proper Christian perspective:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [Scripture], rights [jus ex non scripto], habits [customs and usages], and modes of thought [See Philippians 2:2]. There is nothing primitive [mysterious] in it: it is all derived from a known source [Scripture]. It presupposes an organized [Christian] society, [Scriptural] law, order, property [stewardship], personal freedom [Christian Liberty], a love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny [which we have lost in this present age]. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13. [Insertions added.]

In other words, do not look to the constitution as a source of supply for any thing; for Christians, God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is our sole Source and Supplier. The other perspective is idolatry, which is what the current "political" system lives, feeds and is dependent upon. Christ is our example:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Mt 4:8-10. [Emphasis added.]

Idolatry is an injury not only to God, but is loss to the idolater, for he must relinquish his relationship with God, and go beneath the status he enjoys with God, through Our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ:

"BAAL. (Heb.)--lord; master; possessor; owner; guardian; a husband; Jove; Jupiter; the sun.a generic term for god in may of the Syro-Arabian languages.
"Chief male deity of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Ashtoreth was their principal female deity (Judg. 2:13). The worship of Baal was directed to Jovis, Jupiter, or the Sun as the guardian and giver of good fortune, prosperity, and abundance.
"Meta. Baal means lord, and it was the besetting sin of the ancient Hebrews to apply this title to things formed instead of the formless. This tendency is still prevalent, and not merely among the Hebrews.
"All concepts of God as less than universal mind are Baal. Those who believe in a personal god are Baal worshippers, because they make an image of that which is 'without body, parts, or passions.' They should learn to go back of the realm of things, that they may come in touch with God, who is Spirit, mind, cause, omnipresence.
"Baal worship was a form of nature worship. All people who study materiality and seek to find in it the source of existence are sacrificing to Baal. This is strictly intellectual. But there are those on the soul plane who think that they are spiritual because they feel the throb of nature and join in all her moods. They are closely allied to the whirling dervish, and dissipate their soul substance in the various forces of nature with which they are in love. Such persons must do away with this Baal worship and call upon the life-fire of the Spirit to consume every material phase of sacrifice.
"Baalim and Asheroth represent nature in its various sensuous aspects. 'All the host of heaven (see Deut. 4:19 and 17:3) are the sun, moon, and stars and the twelve signs of the zodiac. When we fall into the evils of Manasseh (II Chron. 33:1-13) we think that the planets and stars rule over us and that it is necessary to pay them a certain degree of homage or worship because of their influence. Some people in this day have great faith in their 'ruling planets,' and think that they are bound to certain traits of character because they were born when those sidereal bodies were in the ascendancy. They are forgetful of the God power within them, and so are brought into condemnation.
"The Manasseh mentality usually goes from one step of Baalim worship to another, until it exhausts them all. Luck, chance, sorcery, familiar spirits, and wizardry are some of the avenues through which the Manasseh mind attempts to regulate its life. Astrology, palmistry, the guidance of spirits, mesmerism, hypnotism, are some of the many modern forms of denial of God. Indulged in for a time they lead the negative mind into deeper and deeper bondage, until the transgressed law reacts upon the transgressor and he is put 'in chains' and bound 'with fetters' and carried away to Babylon, or utter confusion. The way of escape is through prayer to God and return to His 'city of peace' within the soul, Jerusalem." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.
"BAALAH. (Heb.)--lady; mistress; possessor; guardian; sorceress; citizenship; a citizen.
"A border town of Judah. Kiriath-jearim is another name for this city (Josh. 15:9).
"Meta. An innate consciousness of authority and ownership in man, a consciousness that pertains to the feminine or affectional nature, the soul (mistress, possessor), and is expressed in the psychic and material to the point of idolatry." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

Currently, then, it is established that if you participate in any current "elections," you are engaged in the practice of idolatry, which marks the end of this age, and the beginning of the next.

And this is the reason We tell you to cancel your current "voter registration." If you want a Christian Jural Society, it is impossible to walk with Christ and the foe of Christ at the same time. As David says, "Do not I hate them that hate thee? and am I not grieved with those that rise against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Ps 139:21-22. The "voter registration" is an idea from natural theology: secular man's faulty reason dictating that he, in and of himself can save all, "if you just give him enough power, more money, more..., more..., and still more....Never mind Christ's fully finished work." A source on this may suffice:

"So far as the latter (natural theology) is concerned, in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, it is reduce to a doctrine of paganism, that is, a doctrine of the permanent perversion of the truth given to man in the revelation in Creation. But both Luther and Calvin regard this idolatry as a proof of the fact of the revelation in the Creation. 'Idolatris praecipue manifesta (fuit) notitia Dei.'...the very fact of idolatry...shows that the heathen received a knowledge of God." Brunner, Revelation and Reason (1946), p. 60.

May God Bless You. 'Til next month.

Common Right vs. Franchise

by John Joseph

This article is written for those who have been refused publication of their public notices by a newspaper or have been denied general delivery mail, and for other purposes. This is to help you understand the differences between state franchise and the common Rights vested by God in all Good and Lawful Christians.

A common Right vests only in Good and Lawful Christians because: One, they alone discern the Revealed Law in Scripture and are vested in Genesis 1:27-29, 2:15-17; Two, they have the "mind of Christ," which no corporation, trust, company, natural person, or human being possesses; Three, they are Sealed by and with the Authority of the Holy Spirit because they are made in the image and likeness of God, which has never been vested in any strangers of God's Law; Four, they live within the Kingdom of their Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose Law is recognized Supreme the world over. There is no right vested by Almighty God in and for a newspaper or The Postal Service to exist, so it exists only by franchise (license or permission) from the Power vested in Good and Lawful Christians by Almighty God through Jesus Christ. All franchises are privileges under the control of the grantor; and, impose duties and obligations upon the grantee, the newspaper:

"Any definition of the word 'franchise' must include the word 'privileges.'" Willamette Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Bank of British Columbia, Or., 119 U. S. 191. (Italics added.)
"A franchise is bi-lateral in nature and imposes obligations [duties] while conferring rights [privileges], so that acceptance is necessary to prove that grantee has undertaken those obligations." Greenberg v. City of New York, 274 N.Y.S. 4. (Insertions added.)
"A franchise is a privilege in which the public have an interest, and which cannot be exercised without the authority of the sovereign." People v. Utica Insurance Co. (1818), 15 Johns. 358.

The vesting by license is independent of the common Right held by Good and Lawful Christians, however; and is therefore of a different and inferior status:

"What is a franchise? Under English law, Blackstone defines it as 'a royal privilege or a branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.'" State of California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. (1888), 8 S. C. 1073, 1080. [Emphasis added.]

The Law recognizes a "vested right" being fixed for present or future enjoyment through its Lawful exercise, based upon the discretion of Almighty God directing the affairs of Good and Lawful Christians:

"A vested right is an immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment." Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. (2 Cushm.) 85.

No statute can constitutionally impair the Lawful exercise of a right vested by Almighty God in Good and Lawful Christians, who alone compose the Body of Christ, His church:

"No statute can constitutionally derogate a vested right." Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 Cal. 1.

Therefore, All Good and Lawful Christians have a vested right in all res communis, of which all franchises granted by or under their Authority exercising the Prerogative vested in Them, and are a species thereof:

"The power to grant a franchise is political in its nature. In England, these grants emanate from the crown; in this country, the [Good and Lawful Christian] people are the source of power, and represent, in that respect, the crown. The power belongs to the Legislature, [as their agent]" Chard v. Harrison (1857) 7 Cal. 113, 116.
"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.
"PREROGATIVE. In Civil Law. The privilege, pre-eminence, or advantage which one person has over another: thus, a person vested with an office is entitled to all the rights, privileges, prerogatives, etc., which belong to it.
"In English Law. The word simply means a power or will which is discretionary, and above and uncontrolled by any other will. It is frequently used to express the uncontrolled will of a sovereign power in the state and is applied not only to the king [the People], but also to the legislative and judicial branches of the government.
'The prerogative is the name for the remaining portion of the crown's [the People'] original authority, and is therefore the name for the discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the crown [the Good and Lawful Christian people], whether such power be, in fact, exercised by the king himself [the People themselves] or by his ministers. Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an act of parliament is done by virtue of this prerogative.' Dicey, Constitution 369; when a franchise is attached to the crown, it is a prerogative; when granted to a subject, it is a franchise; [1903] 2 Ch. 598.
"It is sometimes applied by law writers to the thing over which the power or will is exercised, as fiscal prerogatives, meaning the king's revenues; 1 Halleck, Int. L. 147." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2670.

All franchises then, are political in nature, and for the newspaper or The Postal Service to violate the Sovereign's Prerogative by its failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of its license to exist, is criminal because it violates the jus publicum in this state, by its nonfeasance:

"Nonfeasance
"Although it was once said that 'a corporation is not indictable, but the particular members of it are,' [Anon., 12 Mod. 559.] it is now well settled that a corporation may be indicted for omission [*83] to perform a public duty imposed upon it by law. [Reg. v. Birmingham & G. Ry. Co., 3 Q.B. 223; New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, 50 N.J.Law 303, 13 Atl. 1, affirmed in 53 N.J.Law, 244, 23 Atl. 168. Contra, in New York, People v. Equitable Gas-Light Co., (Gen. Sess.) 5 N.Y.Supp. 19.] While it cannot be imprisoned, it may, if punishment is provided for, be fined, and deprived of its charter and franchises. Thus a railway company may be indicted for neglect to keep in repair a bridge across a cut made by it, when its road crosses a public highway, so that travel is obstructed. [New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, supra.]" Clark' Criminal Law (1915), pp. 82-83.

The sole purpose of The Post Office Department in the hands of The Postal Service is the preservation of general delivery for the church and the sole purpose of a newspaper is to publish all matters affecting the church, because "Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur --The cause of the Church is a public cause." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

The privilege of the newspaper to exist is without standing in the court:

"Privilegium non valet contra rempublicam --A privilege avails not against the commonwealth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2155.

And this applies to the "attorney" of the newspaper, because he needs license from you to practice in your court under God! This is all the more important, because the agent cannot exercise a greater authority than his principal has. Therefore, if his principal is under license from the Good and Lawful Christian people, the attorney himself is under the same disabilities, whatever those disabilities may be.

Let This Mind Be In You

Part Four

by John Quade

Conclusion

We now come to the last part of this series on the application of presuppositional analysis to the problem of defining the nature, attributes, and characteristics of civil government. We began with an overview that looked at several areas of life, generally, then narrowed the focus to the ideas of civil government and Law, and we saw that only on Christian presuppositions is true and Lawful civil government possible.

Conversely, all attempts at civil government on Humanistic presuppositions are doomed to failure, and that such systems rely totally on commerce and a massive military machine, which has been true of ancient kingdoms, of Rome, and of modern America and the Western world.

Humanistic systems of civil government are predestined to self-contradiction, self-refutation, and self-destruction. When Mercury and Mars are the gods of civil government and such a government is given enough time, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This has been the course of history for over four thousand years.

Ironically, Humanism recognizes its own short-comings and the superiority of God's Law, which is why Christian Law today, is still the only real, supreme Law of the Land.

Thus, we find in "Corpus Juris," 59 C.J. 20, under 'States,' sub-heading [g] Extent of sovereign characteristics of state, where it speaks of the American system - "The state is a sovereign having no derivative powers, exercising its sovereignty by divine right. It has bound itself by compact with the other sovereign states not to exercise certain of its sovereign rights, and has conceded these to the Union, but in every other respect it retains all its sovereignty." Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 F. 908, 911. 59 C.J. 20.

The 'state' here is distinguished from the State, and STATE, or State of, etc., or, as in the above example, 'the Union.' All of which are organized, specific forms of civil government. The state (lower case spelling) is entirely general and refers to a large group of people within the total population, but not all the people.

"By the word State (capitalized) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv [insert added], which is consistent with the rules of English usage, as well.
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government;" and, "The [Good and Lawful Christian] people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), State, p. 3124. [the State, and state are not the same, insertions added.] "It may mean an organized political community." Silver Bow County v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306, 12 P. 688, 690, aff d. 139 U.S. 438, 11 S.Ct. 594, 35 L.Ed. 210. 59 C.J 18.

Since Christianity is the presumed basis of real Law in this country by the Supreme Court of the United States, by the Federal, State, and County governments, both before and since Lincoln's War Against Christian States, its recognition also applies to the law and international relations of the current governments, and "until such recognition it has been said that the courts must assume that the former government continues without change." 33 Corpus Juris, 394, under the heading "International Law."

In other words, the existence of Christianity and the Christian state (a body of people distinct from the State) is recognized by international and municipal law. This explains why Non-statutory Abatements work if properly written and served by Good and Lawful Christian People.

Further, the Christian people (state) are cloaked with sovereignty as in a divine right from God by virtue of the fact that God has written His Law on their hearts. Where ever the Christian goes, he carries all his rights, privileges, and immunities, from God and always retains the Perfect Law of Liberty to exercise them at every moment he is called upon to do so, as the Holy Spirit and Scripture leads.

It is this fact that gives the Christian authority to re-establish Christian civil government, i.e., Christian Jural Societies, in order that we can begin again to execute the testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who gave us such authority in the Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and in the Great Commission, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption and the Lord has returned for His Bride.

In other words, a Christian already has all the power and authority needed to do the job he has been called to do in a de jure sense. It is time for the de jure state to become the de facto Christian State.

There are, however, many nay-sayers in the Christian camp. Some say there are not enough Christians who obey God's Law to restore and reconstruct the Christian State, i.e., turn the state into a State. But, in law, numbers and resources mean nothing. "The equality of states is an incident of sovereignty; for, if one is in right subject to another, the former is not sovereign. But equality in this sense means "equality before the law," and not in strength, resources, and influence." "Nor does it require equal voting power in world affairs, for differences of international value are obvious." See Corpus Juris, 33 C.J. 397, Section 18, 2. 'Equality.'

This point is made forcibly in Scripture. Gideon did not need numbers for his great battle?

Others argue that we do not have the recognition of existing governments, but the above cites say that 'recognition' is not important. Does this mean that because Humanists recognize us that we must also recognize them? Of course not!

Recall that in the earlier parts we stated that the ultimate presuppositions behind Christianity and Humanism are 'mutually exclusive ultimates,' and that as such, each must deny the other's validity. To recognize the opponent's right, is to give legitimacy to the opponent that he has no right to. This we must not do or else we will suffer the judgments of God for compromising His Law.

This is also why we do not acknowledge the knock on the door by a stranger who may be from the opposition. To answer the door is to recognize the opposition, and concede jurisdiction to them to try us in their courts.

You can argue all day that you are a sovereign, and it will do you no good, because your actions betray your words. By your fruits are you known, even by the enemy. Remember how often Scripture tells us that Christ knows His sheep. To open the door is to say that the enemy is Our shepherd, not Christ.

To have a driver's license or social security card or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition contradicts and nullifies the Christian witness. The reason is, the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Christian name or appellation. You may profess to be a Christian all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you're not a Christian, but a Humanist looking to the State for approval.

The same is true of the number on your house, your Post Office Box number, the VIN and Registration numbers on your car, the parcel number on your house and land, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The use of such numbers and fictitious designations has destroyed the power of the Christian church in America.

Look at any church on any block in your home town. Perhaps, even on your own church you will see the name of the church in all capital letters, which designates a 501(c)3 commercial corporation, that is advertising for business.

But, you say, "I still haven't accepted the mark of the beast on my wrist or forehead!" Hogwash!!! Can you buy or sell without the numbers and fictitious names, add or remove anything from 'your home' without a permit number, conduct any transaction without an account number, send your child to a public school without a Social Security number, get your plumbing, electrical wiring, or TV fixed, or do even the most mundane thing, without it all being numbered and tracked commercially? The answer is obviously, No!!!

What is worse, most Christians don't know there is another way to do things.

Some of you may panic because you've been told by your commercial church leaders not to accept the mark or you won't go to heaven. Think for moment! You've already accepted a mark without which you cannot buy or sell anything! Do you really need a mark on your wrist or forehead when you have already volunteered to carry one in your own pocket??? No one forced you to take it. You volunteered for it, because the same commercial church leaders you've always listened to told you to obey all authorities and both you and they thought that meant obeying even ungodly laws, codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

Is this the attitude of Christ who did His Father's will even when it contradicted the laws of the Jews and Romans and sent Him to the Cross? Does this idea fit with the Scripture when it tells us to 'seek first the Kingdom of Heaven?'

Yes, there will be many nay-sayers who don't want to rock the boat. So be it: let the dead bury the dead.

But, there are some, including those in The King's Men, who believe that we are on the verge of a new advance of the Christian church, that we are on the verge of a new reformation and reconstruction.

Thus, as a fitting end to this series, we will close with a short dissertation on the general nature and characteristics of the new era of Christian dominion that is to come. After all, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

From the theoretical standpoint, the course of history is interpreted by Humanists as cyclical. But, from the Christian standpoint, history may appear to be cyclical if Our understanding cannot get beyond the mere form of history and see the deeper and more subtle meaning that is available only to the mind and heart of one guided by the Holy Spirit.

The form may appear to repeat itself because Humanist thinking is itself repetitive, in the sense that it vacillates from one apparently polar opposite to another and then swings back again. We say apparently polar opposite because in fact, the pendulum swing in Humanist thought is not really from one pole to its opposite. There can be no polarization in Humanist thought because the Humanist leaves out of his view of reality the Christian idea and interpretation. Again, the mutually exclusive ultimate arises.

At any rate, if we begin with the Garden of Eden, we can see how we began with a perfect world, then fell into total depravity, which gradually became more and more extreme until God destroyed the world by the Great Flood of Genesis. Since the Flood, we have seen a major reformation or reconstruction in the work of Moses, Ezra, Christ, and the Great Reformation that began with Wycliffe and eventually gave birth to this nation.

Each of these reformations brought with them eras in which more men and women came to a knowledge of God and Christ. Each was marked by advancements in all areas of life. Thus, from the crude systems of commercial dictatorship before Christ (except for the Hebrew Republic) we now have the simple and profound forms of local self-government by the Christian Man, such as The Hundreds of England. In art, we have progressed from stone carvings to film and television. In communications we have gone from clay tablets to the personal computer. From cutting holes in a man's head to relieve headaches or demons we have come to the aspirin.

And, man is beginning to live longer as he once did before the Flood. Fewer women and babies die in childbirth. The ability to cover vast distances in a short period of time is staggering. Man's inventions are becoming more sophisticated by day. And, his potential for good or evil has grown by leaps and bounds.

The point is, each reformation has brought with it incredible advances in man's knowledge and understanding but, the reformation is not self-sustaining, and usually within three or four generations, the reformation dies. What was once inspired and led by advances in Christian thought begins to wane when the Christian does not keep pace with the developments of ideas and their consequences that the Christian himself gave to man as he tried to bring more and more of the Word of God to bear on the world about him.

Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher described this phenomena as a kind of convergence and divergence of ideas.

What he meant was, man may start in the Garden of Eden, but after a while, his ideas begin to diverge into implications or consequences that he never saw in his original vision. This period of divergence we would call the declining phase of Christian thought. As ideas become more diversified the original Christian motive behind them is lost and the advances spawned in Christianity, are soon taken over, or co-opted by the Humanist, who promptly begins to re-interpret them according to the god of Humanism, autonomous reason.

Eventually, the decline reaches a point at which, even to Christians, the situation is so bad that something must be done. This factor drives the Christian back to Scripture and his knees. The Humanist has now become the rod that drives the lazy Christian forward and compels him to re-think his position. In the plan of God, the Humanist has always been God's rod to wake the sleeping Christian and get him back on course.

In very simple terms, when the pain level gets high enough, the Spirit of God begins to move in the hearts and minds of Christians, the process of convergence begins, and a new reformation is born.

Convergence is a process in which man does a complete re-thinking of his ideas either generally, or specifically. It begins in the heart and then becomes conscious in the mind, sometimes slowly, and sometimes quickly. The process does not usually come upon all the people at once, but gradually. It begins with a few people, called of God and gifted by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they can read the real implications of an idea and not the pretended ones. That is, they see through the smoke and mirrors.

Gradually, a new understanding of things begins to come upon the Christian, at first in only a few areas of life, then later, more and more of a man's ideas are re-thought in terms of the new vision of things that is emerging in his heart and mind.

At some point in the process, the Christian Man must put his new found truth in Scripture to work. He cannot help himself for he is the tool or agent of God. He may become one of the new shock troops in God's plan, or a general of the army, a behind-the-scenes strategist and planner, or fill a whole range of other needs in God's plan.

Over time, an army of these reformed men and women is formed. At first, they may be unaware that there are others who think the same way they do. Eventually, however, the Spirit of God brings them together and an organization is formed and the task of bringing together new minds and hearts to the fight, begins. What was once fragmented and disjointed, now becomes an organized movement on the march, at first in an almost underground sense and later, it becomes a phenomena which catches the attention of the powers that be.

If the Humanist powers detect this new movement, they may attempt a variety of tactics to deal with it, that range from outright persecution, to subversion. No matter, because what God has started, no power on earth can stop. Eventually, as more and more Christians join the struggle, the balance of power begins to shift. Like a rain storm that begins with only a few drops in the dry dust, it becomes a raging flood that washes away all that stands in its way. And when the flood subsides, the new top soil brings forth sweet fruit and the land becomes green with righteousness and prosperity.

Before you know it, a new power is in control and Christians are once again advancing on every front until at last, the Humanist realizes that its time to retreat and go underground.

The reformation will then solidify its power and re-chart a new course for the nation that will bring many new advances and developments just as in previous reformations and just at the point where the Christian gets comfortable with the way things are, the process of divergence sets in again.

For those who wonder why we must go through the process of reformation and decline, or convergence and divergence of ideas, the only answer we can give is; "... so that no man should boast..."

As to where we are now in the next reformation, it is Our belief that we are somewhere in that period where the army is being formed. Networking and organization is taking place in more and more areas every day. We are not yet an army, for we are still in training, in basic training or boot camp, if you will. As the pain level rises, more and more Christian men and women are volunteering to join what is by now, a nation-wide movement.

The Humanists know we are out here and that Our numbers are growing. They also know that their own system is in major trouble. It doesn't take a genius to see that when the I.R.S. begins to offer discounts for advance payment of income taxes that there is a problem. It does not take a Harvard Business School graduate to see that when foreclosures and bankruptcies begin to accelerate across the nation the entire economy is undermined. Foreclosures and bankruptcies in Los Angeles County alone, in 1996, reached nearly 5,000 a month (up 64% from 1995) and this number is climbing at an unbelievable rate. Nationwide, this means more than 600,00 bankruptcies and foreclosures a year!!!

In the last five years, the Federal budget has been cut more than in any previous period in history, not because of the genius of the President, but because he and the Congress have no choice in the matter. It is safe to say that such cuts will become more drastic in size at an accelerated pace over the next decade.

Scandal is running rampant in the Federal and State governments because the politicians and their cronies are being forced to more and more drastic means to raise campaign funds, while at the same time, key members of the President's Cabinet and members of the House and Senate, are abandoning ship.

Anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear knows about the hand-writing on the wall. The problem is, those in power are not gifted with the ability to translate it.

All this is merely the prelude, the birth pangs, of a new era and these events are typical of all previous reformations. Yes, for those in the Christian law reform movement things are still very tough and there are many questions we have yet to answer, but each and every day we are making progress as we bring more and more of Our thought captive to the mind of Christ.

We may not live to see the fruit of what we do here and what you, Our readers are doing every hour of their lives, but Our posterity will. When things get tough, its time to toughen up the knees and burn the midnight oil and this is happening now, even as this is written at 4:12 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Our reward may not come in Our lifetimes, but, no matter; for We have a greater reward coming in Heaven, when at last, we may sit down and take Our rest in the enjoyment of the Lord and His Presence forever.

And, let us hope, that the generations after Us will be able to speak of Us even as We have spoken of the Founding Fathers.

"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of the paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:12.

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon by John Witherspoon

(continued from Issue the Fourteenth)

Part Two of Three

3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his [21] providence, and sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory.

There is no part of divine providence in which a greater beauty and majesty appears, than when the Almighty Ruler turns the councils of wicked men into confusion, and makes them militate against themselves. If the psalmist may be thought to have had a view in this text to the truths illustrated in the two former observations, there is no doubt at all that he had a particular view to this, as he says in the latter part of the verse, the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. The scripture abounds with instances in which the designs of oppressors were either wholly disappointed, or in execution fell far short of the malice of their intention, and in some they turned out to the honour and happiness of the persons or the people, whom they were intended to destroy. We have an instance of the first of these in the history to which my text relates{10}. We have also an instance [22] in Esther, in which most mischievous designs of Haman, the son of Hamedatha the Agagite against Mordecai the Jew, and the nation from which he sprung, turned out at last to his own destruction, the honour of Mordecai and the salvation and peace of his people.

From the New Testament I will make choice of that memorable event on which the salvation of believers in every age rests as its foundation, the death and sufferings of the Son of God. This the great adversary and all his agents and instruments prosecuted with unrelenting rage. When they had blackened him with slander, when they scourged him with shame, when they had condemned him in judgment, and nailed him to the cross, how could they help esteeming the victory complete? But, of the unsearchable wisdom of God! they were but perfecting the great design laid for the salvation of sinners. Our blessed Redeemer by his death finished his work, overcame principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly, triumphing [23] over them in the cross. With how much justice do the apostles and their company offer this doxology to God. They lift up their voice with one accord, and said, Lord thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth, against thy hold Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. {11}

In all after ages in conformity to this, the deepest laid contrivances of the prince of darkness, have turned out to the confusion of their author; and I know not, but considering his malice and pride, his perpetual disappointment, and the superiority of divine wisdom, may be one great source of suffering and torment. The cross hath still been the banner of truth, under which it hath been carried throughout the world. Persecution has been but as the furnace to the gold to purge it of its dross, to manifest its purity, and increase its lustre. It was taken notice of very early, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of Christianity; the more abundantly it was shed, the more plentifully did the harvest grow.

So certain has this appeared, that the most violent infidels, both of early and later ages, have endeavoured to account for it, and have observed that there is a spirit of obstinacy in man which inclines him to resist violence, and that severity doth but increase opposition, be the cause what it will. They suppose that persecution is equally proper to propagate truth and error. This tho in part true will by no means generally hold. Such an apprehension however gave occasion to a glorious triumph of divine providence of an opposite kind, which I must shortly relate to you. One of the Roman emperors, Julian, surnamed the [24] apostate, perceiving how impossible it was to suppress the gospel by violence, endeavoured to extinguish it by neglect and scorn. He left the Christians unmolested for sometime, but gave all manner of encouragement to those of opposite principles, and particularly to the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians; and that he might bring public disgrace upon the Galileans, as he affected to stile them, he encouraged the Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and visibly refute the prophecy of Christ, that it should lye under perpetual desolation. But this profane attempt was so signally frustrated, that it served as much as any one circumstance to spread the glory of our redeemer, and establish the faith of his saints. It is affirmed by some ancient authors, particularly by Ammianus Marcellinus a Heathen historian, that fire came out of the earth and consumed the workmen when laying the foundation. But in whatever way it was prevented, it is beyond all controversy, from the concurring testimony of Heathens and Christians, that little or no progress was ever made in it, and that in a short time, it was entirely defeated. [26]

It is proper here to observe that at the time of the reformation, when religion began to revive, nothing contributed more to facilitate its reception, and increase its progress than the violence of its persecutors. Their cruelty and the patience of the sufferers, naturally disposed men to examine and weigh the cause to which they adhered with so much constancy and resolution. At the same time also, when they were persecuted in one city they fled to another, and carried the discoveries of the popish fraud to every part of the world. It was by fame of those who were persecuted in Germany, that the light of this reformation was brought so early into Britain.

The power of divine providence appears with the most distinguished lustre, when small and inconsiderable circumstances and sometimes, the weather and seasons have defeated the most formidable armaments, and frustrated the best concerted expeditions. Near two hundred years ago, the monarchy of Spain was in the height of its power and glory, and determined to crush the interest of the [27] reformation. They sent out a powerful armament against Britain, giving it ostentatiously, and in my opinion profanely, the name of the Invincible Armada. But it pleased God so entirely to discomfit it by tempests, that a small part of it returned home, though no British force had been opposed to it at all.

We have a remarkable instance of the influence of small circumstances in providence in the English history. The two most remarkable persons in the civil wars, had earnestly desired to withdraw themselves from the contentions of the times, Mr. Hampden and Oliver Cromwell. They had actually taken their passage in a ship for New-England, when by an arbitrary order of council they were compelled to remain at home. The consequence of this was, that one of them was the soul of the republican opposition to monarchical usurpation during the civil wars, and the other in the course of that contest, was the great instrument in bringing the tyrant to the block.[28]

The only other historical remark I am to make is, that the violent persecution which many eminent Christians met with in England from their brethren, who called themselves Protestants, drove them in great numbers to a distant part of the world, where the light of the gospel and true religion were unknown. Some of the American settlements, particularly those in New-England, were chiefly made by them; and as they carried the knowledge of Christ to the dark places of the earth, so they continue themselves in as great a degree of purity of faith, and strictness of practice, or rather a greater than is to be found in any protestant church now in the world. Does not the wrath of man in this instance praise God? Was not the accuser of the brethren, who stirs up their enemies, thus taken in his own craftiness, and his kingdom shaken by the very means which he employed to establish it.{12} [29]

II. I proceed now to the second general head, which was to apply the principles illustrated above to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in this important crisis.

And,

In the first place, I would take the opportunity on this occasion and from this subject to press every hearer to a sincere concern for his own soul's salvation. There are times when the mind may be expected to be more awake to divine truth, and the conscience more open to the arrows of conviction than at others. A season of public judgment is of this kind, as appears from what has been already said. That curiosity and attention at least are raised in some degree is plain from the unusual throng of this assembly. Can you have a clearer view of the sinfulness of your nature, than when the rod of the oppressor is lifted up, and when [30] you see men putting on the habit of the warrior, and collecting on every hand the weapons of hostility and instruments of death? I do not blame your ardour in preparing for the resolute defence of your temporal rights. But consider I beseech you, the truly infinite importance of the salvation of your souls. Is it of much moment whether you and your children shall be rich or poor, at liberty or in bonds? Is it of much moment whether this beautiful country shall increase in fruitfulness from year to year being cultivated by active industry, and possessed by independent free men, or the scanty produce of neglected fields shall be eaten up by hungry publicans, while the timid owner trembles at the tax gatherers approach? And is it of less moment my brethren, whether you shall be the heirs of glory, or the heirs of hell? Is your state on earth for a few fleeting years of so much moment? And is it of less moment, what shall be your state through endless ages? Have you assembled together willingly to hear what shall be said on public affairs, and to join in imploring [31] the blessing of God on the councils and arms of the united colonies, and can you be unconcerned, what shall become of you for ever, when all the monuments of human greatness shall be laid in ashes, for the earth itself and all the works that are therein shall be burnt up.

Wherefore my beloved hearers, as the ministry of reconciliation is committed to me, I beseech you in the most earnest manner, to attend to the things that belong to your peace, before they are hid from your eyes. How soon and in what manner a seal shall be set upon the character and state of every person here present, it is impossible to know, for he who only can know does not think proper to reveal it. But you may rest assured that there is no time more suitable, and there is none so safe as that which is present, since it is wholly uncertain whether any other shall be yours. Those who shall first fall in battle, have not many more warnings to receive. There are some few daring and hardened sinners who despise eternity itself, and set their maker at defiance, [32] but the far greater number by staving off their convictions to a more convenient season, have been taken unprepared and thus eternally lost. I would therefore earnestly press the apostles exhortation, We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain: For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. {13}

Suffer me to beseech you, or rather to give you warning not to rest satisfied with a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross! believe it, there is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved. Unless you are united to him by a lively faith, not [33] the resentment of a haughty monarch, but the sword of divine justice hangs over you, and the fulness of divine vengeance shall speedily overtake you. I do not speak this only to the heathen daring profligate, or grovelling sensualist, but to every insensible secure sinner; to all those however decent and orderly in their civil deportment, who live to themselves and have their part and portion in this life; in fine to all who are yet in a state of nature, for except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The fear of man may make you hide your profanity; prudence and experience may make you abhor intemperance and riot; as you advance in life, one vice may supplant another and hold its place; but nothing less than the sovereign grace of God can produce a saving change of heart and temper, or fit you for his immediate presence.

2. From what has been said upon this subject, you may see what ground there is to give praise to God for his favours already bestowed on us, respecting the [34] public cause. It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies. It is however impossible for me in a single discourse, as well as improper at this time to go thro' every step of our past transactions, I must therefore content myself with a few remarks. How many discoveries have been made of the designs of enemies in Britain and among ourselves, in a manner as unexpected to us as to them, and in such season as to prevent their effect? What surprising success has attended our encounters in almost every instance? Has not the boasted discipline of regular and veteran soldiers been turned into confusion and dismay before the new and maiden courage of free men in defense of their property and right? In what great mercy has blood been spared on the side of this injured country? Some important victories in the south have been gained with so little loss, that enemies will probably think it has been dissembled; as many, even of ourselves thought, till time rendered it undeniable. But these [35] were comparatively of small moment. The signal advantage we have gained by the evacuation of Boston, and the shameful flight of the army and navy of Britain, was brought about without the loss of a man. To all this we may add, that the counsels of our enemies have been visibly confounded, so that I believe I may say with truth, that there is hardly any step which they have taken, but it has operated strongly against themselves, and been more in our favour than if they had followed a contrary course.

While we give praise to God the supreme disposer of all events, for his interposition in our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of an arm of flesh. I could earnestly wish, that while our arms are crowned with success, we might content ourselves with a modest ascription of it to the power of the highest. It has given me great uneasiness to read some ostentatious, vaunting expressions in our newspapers, though happily I think, much restrained of late. Let us not return to [36] them again. If I am not mistaken, not only the Holy Scriptures in general, and the truths of the glorious gospel in particular, but the whole course of providence seems intended to abase the pride of man, and lay the vain-glorious in the dust. How many instances does history furnish us with those who after exulting over, and despising their enemies, were signally and shamefully defeated {14}. The truth is, I believe, the remark may be applied universally, and we may say, that thro' the whole frame of nature, and the whole system of human life, that which promises most, performs the least. The flowers of finest colour seldom have the sweetest fragrance. The trees of quickest growth or fairest form, are seldom of the greatest value or duration. Deep waters move with least noise. Men who think most are seldom talkative. And I think it holds as much in war as in any thing, that every boaster is a coward.[37]

Pardon me my brethren for insisting so much upon this which may seem but an immaterial circumstance. It is in my opinion of very great moment. I look upon ostentation and confidence to be a sort of outrage upon providence, and when it becomes general, and infuses itself into the spirit of destruction. How does Goliath the champion, armed in a most formidable manner express his disdain of David the stripling with his sling and his stone. And when the Philistine looked about and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods, and the Philistine said to David come to to me and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. But how just and modest the reply? Then said David to the Philistine, thou comest to me with a sword and with a spear, and with a shield, but I come unto thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, who thou hast defied. {15} I was well pleased with a remark of this kind thirty years ago in a pamphlet,{16} in which it was observed, that there was a great deal of profane ostentation in the names given to ships of war, as the Victory, the Valiant, the Thunderer, the Dreadnought, the Terrible, the Firebrand, the Furnace, the Lightening, the Infernal, and many more of the same kind. This the author considered as a symptom of the national character and manners very unfavorable, and not likely to obtain the blessing of the God of Heaven.{17}

3. From what has been said you may learn what encouragement you have to put your trust in God, and hope for his assistance in the resent important conflict. He is the Lord of hosts, great in might, and strong in battle. Whoever hath his countenance and approbation, shall have the best at last. I do not mean to speak prophetically, but agreeably to the analogy of faith, and the principles of God's moral government. Some have observed that true religion and in her train dominion, riches, literature, and arts, have taken their course in a slow and gradual manner, from east to west since the earth has settled after the flood, and from hence forbode the future glory of America. I leave this as a matter rather of conjecture than certainty, but observe, that if your cause is just,--if your principles are pure,--and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

If your cause is just--you may look with confidence to the Lord and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my [39] witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of Justice, of liberty, and of human nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satsfied that the confederacy of the colonies, has not been the effect of pride, resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction, that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in a great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to these parts of the earth, where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authority. There is not a single instance in history [41] in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

You shall not, my brethren, hear from me in the pulpit, what you have never heard from me in conversation, I mean railing at the king personally, or even his ministers and the parliament, and people of Britain, as so many barbarous savages. Many of their actions have probably been worse than their intentions. That they should desire unlimited dominion if they can obtain or preserve it, is neither new nor wonderful. I do not refuse submission to their unjust claims, because they are corrupt or profligate, although probably many of them are so, but because they are men, and therefore liable to all the selfish bias inseparable from human nature. I call this claim unjust of making laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever, because they are separated from us, independent of us, and have an interest in opposing us. Would [42] any man who could prevent it, give up his estate, person, and family, to the disposal of his neighbor, although he had liberty to chuse the wisest and the best matter? Surely not. This is the true and proper hinge of the controversy between Great Britain and America. It is however to be added, that such is their distance from us, that a wise and prudent administration of our affairs is as impossible as the claim of authority is unjust. Such is and must be their ignorance of the state of things here, so much time must elapse before an error can be seen and remedied, and so much injustice and partiality must be expected from the arts and misrepresentation of interested person, that for these colonies to depend wholly upon the legislature of Great Britain, would be like many other oppressive connexions, injury to the master, and ruin to the slave.

Endnotes

{8} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{9} Luke xiii, 1.

{10} The matter is fully stated and reasoned upon by the prophet Isaiah ch. x. from the 5th to the 19th verse.

{11} Act. iv. 24--28.

{12} Lest this should be thought a temporising compliment to the people of New-England, who have been the first sufferers in the present contest, and have set so noble an example of invincible fortitude in withstanding the violence of oppression, I think it proper to observe that the whole paragraph is copied from a sermon on Psalms lxxiv, 22, prepared and attached in Scotland, in the month of August, 1758.

{13} 2 Cor. vi. 1,2.

{14} There is no story better known in British history than that of the officers of the French army the night preceding the battle of Agincourt, played at dice for English prisoners before they took them, and the next day were taken by them.

{15} I Sam. xvii, 42, 43, 44 ,45.

{16} Britains Remembrances.

{17} I am sensible that one or two of these were ships taken from the French, which brought their names with them. But the greatest number had their names imposed in England, and I cannot help observing that the Victory when celebrated as the finest ship ever built in Britain, was lost in the night without a storm, by some unknown accident, and about twelve hundred persons, many of them the first families in the nation were buried with it in the deep. I do not mean to infer any thing from this, but, that we ought to live under the practical persuasion of what no man will doctrinally deny, that there is no warring with the elements, or Him who directs their force, that He is able to write disappointment on the wisest human schemes, and by the word of his power to frustrate the efforts of the greatest monarch upon earth.

(The conclusion, Part Three, will appear in Issue the Seventeenth)

Miscellaneous Notes

by Randy Lee

Postal Money Orders

"Post Office money orders are not negotiable instruments subject to the defenses permitted to bona fide holders for value by the law merchant. The reason is that in the establishment and operation of the postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercial transactions, but exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. Furthermore, the restrictions and limitations which the postal laws and regulations place upon money orders are inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. First, by the postal regulations, the cashing of a money order cannot under ordinary circumstances be made in advance of the receipt of the corresponding advice; second, more than one endorsement of a money order invalidates it; third, after an order has once been paid by whomsoever presented, the department will not be further liable; fourth, payment of orders will be withheld under a variety of circumstances." Bolognesi v. U.S., 189 Fed. 335, 111 CCA 67, 36 LRANS 143.

Numbered Addresses

On page A9 of the March 11, 1997 issue of 'The Eastside Journal,' a Bellevue, Washington daily newspaper, Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward featured an article titled, 'What's in a number? Modern digital confusion.' His chart therein, titled, 'March of numbers: how the digit revolution began,' begins with the year 1863, wherein he states, "1863: Advent of numbered addresses. Before, people went to post offices for mail addressed only by name and city."

He didn't bother mentioning that general delivery is still in place with no numbers attached, 134 years latter, and the devastating implications of having that numbered home and mailbox. The news media strikes again!!

Capitalization

From the State of Washington 'Bill Drafting Guide for the Legislature,': "The following capitalization should be observed in drafting bills. Note that resolutions, memorials, and amendment headings require more liberal capitalization."

Why is it that these headings 'require' more liberal capitalization, i.e., all caps? Is it because the legislature has no standing in law, and cannot therefore legally capitalize resolutions and amendments according to the rules of the English language.

Further, it states that they do not, when drafting a bill, capitalize 'county' or 'state.' These are the original at-law subdivisions, which cannot be tampered with by a de facto legislature.

Abraham's seed

Those 'Christians' who believe that, due to the color of their white skin, they hold some special place with God, obviously overlooked the following verses from Scripture, at Galatians, chapter 3:

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." verse 7.
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, their is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." verses 26-29.

Christian Deviations

The following is from the close of Chapter One of 'Christian Deviations,' a book written in 1957 by the author of 'The English Free Churchs,' Horton Davies:

"There is the supreme danger of failing to acknowledge the fullness, the uniqueness and the finality of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. All the sects suffer from this defect, otherwise they would not have come into being. Where Jesus is thought of as a first-century teacher and inspired prophet, as was often the case in Communions which accepted what was known as a 'reduced Christology', the way was already open for the displacement of Jesus by later and self-appointed prophets like Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith or Annie Besant. Where He is accepted as the Eternal and only-begotten Son of God, and worshipped as the Lord of lords and King of kings, and obeyed as Master, Christian humility makes it impossible for a mere human to pretend to a better insight into the mind of God than Jesus had.
Finally, Christianity will be victorious over all its rivals when it is most true to its own inheritance. If it cares for the bodies, the souls, and the organization of a just order of society, it will have nothing to fear from Communism. If the fellowship of Christians is a genuine community and family springing from the communion with the God and Father of us all, if Christian members confess their sins in sincerity and with a desire to make reparation to those whom they have wronged, and if they provide a way of life with opportunities of thrilling service for its younger members, Christianity need have nothing to fear from the Oxford Group Movement or Open-air Religion. If it places the doctrines of the resurrection and of the Communion of Saints in the centre of its worship, the spurious attractions of Spiritism will be unavailing because dispelled by faith in the Risen Christ. If Christianity takes seriously the miraculous powers of faith in a wonder-working God, Christian Science will lose its hold on its followers. If Christians really believe that their Lord has won a triple victory over sin, suffering and death, and that 'all things work together for good to them that love God', they will not relapse into the superstition of Astrology. If the Churches proclaim of Christ by life and by lip that 'there is none other Name whereby we must be saved', Theosophy and indeed all other religions will lose their attractions. If the Church by its abounding charity manifests in its international and interracial fellowship that there is neither 'Jew nor Greek, bond nor free', and that God is no respecter of persons, all racialistic distortions of the faith such as British-Israel and the German-Christian Movement will earn the unceasing antagonism of Christians. If Christians accept the general promises of Christ, and do not try to implement His reverent silences with details drawn from their own materialistic imaginations, and show a comparable zeal for transmitting their holy faith, then the unscriptural predictions of the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses will deceive no Christian.
In brief, the best defense of the Christian faith is to know and to obey the 'mind of Christ', who is alone the Way, the Truth and the Life."

Beware of anyone getting hold of you by a means of a theosophy which is specious make-believe, on the lines of human tradition, corresponding to the elemental spirits of the world and not to Christ. Col. 2:8.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

From Crabb's English Synonyms

To Abide, Sojourn, Dwell, Live, Reside, Inhabit, and Transient

ABIDE, in Saxon abitan, old German beitea, comes from the Arabic or Persian but or bit, to pass the night, that is, to make a partial stay. SOJOURN, in French, sejourner, from sub and diurnus, in the daytime, signifies to pass the day, that is, a certain portion of one's time, in a place. DWELL, from the Danish dwelger, to abide, and the Saxon dwelian, Dutch dwalen, to wander, conveys the idea of a movable habitation, such as was the practice of living formerly in tents. At present it implies a stay in a place by way of residence, which is expressed in common discourse by the word LIVE, for passing one's life. RESIDE, from the Latin re and sideo, to sit down, conveys the full idea of settlement. INHABIT, from the Latin habito, a frequentative of habeo, signifies to have or occupy for a permanency.

Abide and sojourn relate more properly to the wandering habits of men in a primitive state of society. Live, reside, and inhabit, are confined to a civilized state of society.

The Easterns abode with each other, sojourned in a country, and dwelt in tents. The angels abode with Lot that night; Abram sojourned in the land of Cannan; the Israelites dwelt in the land of Goshen. Savages either dwell in the cavities which nature has formed for them, or in some rude structure erected for a temporary purpose; but as men increase in cultivation they build places for themselves which they can inhabit: the poor have their cottages in which they can live; the wealthy provide themselves with supurb buildings in which they reside.

TRANSIENT, that is, passing, or in the act of passing, characterizes what in its nature exists only for the moment: a glance is transient. pp. 10 & 793.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Danger of Keeping Bad Company

The danger of keeping bad company arises principally from our aptness to imitate and catch the manners and sentiments of others. In our earliest youth, contagion of manner is observable; in the boy, yet incapable of having any learning instilled into him, we easily discover from his last actions, and rude attempt at language, the kind of persons with whom he has associated; we see the early spring of education or the first wild shots of rusticity. As he enters farther into life, his behavior and conversation take their cast from the company he keeps.

Manners and behavior are not more easily caught than opinions and principles. In the childhood and the youth, we naturally adopt the sentiments of those about us. As we advance in life, how few think for ourselves; how many of us are satisfied with taking our opinions at second hand!

The great power of custom forms another argument against keeping bad company. However shocked we may be at the approach of vice, the shocking appearance vanishes upon an intimacy therewith; custom renders the most disgusting objects familiar to our view. Indeed, this is a kind of provision of nature, to render labor and danger, which are the lot of man, more easy to him. The raw soldier, who trembles at the first encounter, becomes fearless in a few campaigns. Habit renders danger familiar.

But habit, which is intended for our good, may, like other kinds of appointments of nature, be converted into mischief. The well-disposed youth, entering first into bad company, is shocked at what he sees, and what he hears. The principles which he had imbibed, ring in his ears an alarming lesson against the wickedness of his companions; but, alas! this sensibility is of short continuance; the next jovial meeting makes the horrid picture of yesterday more easily endured; virtue is soon thought a severe rule, and restraint inconvenient. A few pangs of conscience now, and soon it is seared, and in a short time he is ruined. Let the young beware of bad company.

The Blacksmith

A CONSCIENTIOUS blacksmith, soon after becoming savingly acquainted with Jesus Christ, was tried by the customary applications to do little necessary jobs, as they called, on Sunday; and at length came to a determination to do no work on that holy day, except such as, from inquiry into the case, should appear in his own opinion to be necessary. He was soon after called upon by a traveler on Sunday morning, to replace a shoe for his horse. "Friend," said the blacksmith, "this you know is the Lord's day; and I do not feel at liberty to do any work on this day, except of necessity or mercy. You will excuse me therefore, for inquiring whether your journeying on this day is necessary?" "Why as to that," answered the traveler, "I don't know that it is absolutely necessary; but if I keep on, I shall get home to-night, and put an end to those tavern bills and expenses." "So, my friend, you think to save a few shillings is a sufficient excuse for you to break the Lord's day; and of course to earn a few shillings, would be sufficient reason for my doing the same! Such an excuse, I assure you, will not quiet conscience in the sight of God, and therefore I cannot shoe your horse."

Immediately after this, a carriage stopped at his door, and a gentleman accosted him with a request to repair a bolt, which had just broken. "Sir," said the blacksmith, "I am just preparing with my family, to go to the house of God; and I do not feel at liberty to break off from the proper employments of this holy day, for the accommodation of travelers, without urgent and real necessity." "Such," replied the gentleman, "is my case. I am as reluctant as you very justly are, to violate this day of sacred rest. But I am conveying a dying friend from the country, where she has in vain sought the recovery of her health, to her own home, where she wishes to die. We cannot proceed unless the carriage be repaired; and if retained on the road to-day, there is a probability of her expiring before she reaches home." "In this case," answered the blacksmith, "I cannot hesitate." He accordingly exchanged his dress, went to his shop, kindled his fire, and performed the necessary repair. The gentleman, with thanks, gave him a compensation; which, it is needless to add, he put upon the contribution plate, as belonging to Him, whose time he had consumed in earning it.

Issue the Sixteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

What is the Law Merchant...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Four...

The Book of the Hundreds, Third Edition ...

To Be or Not to Be: Home-less...

Where is the Authority? you ask, Part One...

Civil Rights: the Road to Serfdom...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

What is the Law Merchant?

A Law Review

The following are excerpts from a law review article on 'The Law Merchant,' written by noted jurist John S. Ewart which appeared in The Columbia Law Review, Volume III 135, March 1903. It is a rebuttal to an earlier law review by Professor Francis M. Burdick [Columbia Law Review, Volume II 470, March, 1902], in which Professor Burdick criticized Mr. Ewart's writings on The Law Merchant. We hope you find this information of value for knowing the enemy--as we do. In Issue the Seventeenth next month we will feature noted jurist Frederick Pollock's law review on 'The History of the Law of Nature' and its ties to the Law Merchant.

Let me transcribe the two principal sentences impeached, adding two others from the context, and then make such defence as I can:

"As a matter of fact, and not merely of phrase, may we not even ask whether there is a law of merchants, in any other sense than there is a law of financiers, or a law of tailors? Frequent use of the word has almost produced the impression that as there was a civil law and a canon law, so also there was somewhere a 'law merchant' of very peculiar authority and sanctity; about which, however, it is now quite futile to inquire and presumptuous to argue. If the custom of merchants as to bills of exchange was recognized by the courts, so also has the custom of financiers as to the negotiability of bonds and scrips been recognized; but no one would think of referring to the 'law financier' in speaking of that negotiability. The rules respecting bills and notes are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of law." [Ewart on Estoppel, 373.4.]

Now, I cannot deny that Professor Burdick's authorities are of the most overwhelming and convincing sort. And I admit they establish the following propositions:

1. There were special courts for the administration of what was called the law merchant - courts pepoudrous, staple courts, courts of merchants, etc.
2. That these courts proceeded according to a practice quite different from, and much more expeditious than, the common law courts.
3. That in such courts decisions were regulated by what was called the law merchant-the Statute of the Staple, [27 Ed. 3,2. ] providing "that all merchants coming to the Staple shall be ruled by the law merchant and not by the common law of the land."
4. That many authorities declare that this law merchant was so well known that it was practically the same in all European countries.
5. That many authorities point to the law merchant as being the source of many of our present legal ideas.

It is apparent that for several centuries there was a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant. It was as distinct from the law administered by the common law courts as was the civil or the canon law.

1. That there was in the Roman law a special court for the administration of the "Law of Nations." [The court of the Praetor Perregrinus.]
2. That the practice in such court differed from that in other courts. (I am not sure that it did, but the point is immaterial.)
3. That in such court decisions were regulated by what was called "the Law of Nations."
4. That Justinian's Institutes declare that private law "is composed of three elements, and consists of precepts belonging to Natural Law, to the Law of Nations, and to the Civil Law;" [Tit. I. S. 4.] and that "the Law of Nations is common to all mankind." [Tit. II. ss. 1,2.]
5. And that Justinian also declared that "by the Law of Nations almost all contracts were at first introduced, as, for instance, buying and selling, letting and hiring, partnership, deposits, loans returnable in kind, and very many others." [Tit. s. 2.]

I would admit all this; and yet Professor Burdick would agree with me that when the first praetor (the Lord Mansfield, in some sense, of his day) took up his first case, or issued his first edict, there was no "true body of law" in Rome or elsewhere "that was known" as the Law of Nations.

Changing again, let us ask: "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrase, whether there was ever a body of law known as the Law of Nature"? We must admit, of course, that our law books are full of references to it; that Justinian declares that the laws of nature "which all nations observe alike, being established by a providence, remain ever fixed and immutable ;" [Tit. III, s. 11.] that the Stoics thought that they knew all about these laws of nature; that Rousseau discoursed about them in fashion that moved the world; and that everybody thinks he has some special insight into them. And yet, Professor Burdick will agree that, save in so far as such laws have been done into statutes and decisions, there is no "true body of law" in England or elsewhere that was known as the Law of Nature.

Changing once more, "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrases, may we not even ask whether there is a Common Law or an Equity"? Of course, there are, or were, courts for the administration of what goes by these names; and their practices are different, and so on; but when these courts were first established was there, or was there not, "a true body of law in England which was known as" Common Law or Equity? We have now statutes, and decisions, and responsa prudentium (as we may call our text books - or some of them); but these are not the common law. These are tangible, legible, concrete things - at best ascertainments of what is called the Common Law. [They are not even that. Nor as has been said, are they evidence of what the Common Law was; for no one imagines that they are results of actual inquiry into what law was common to all Englishmen.] The Common Law is, and always was, in the air. Put it into authoritative, legible shape, and it has changed its character. It has become Judiciary Law. Bentham made that all clear to us, long enough ago. ["Common Law, as it styles itself in England, judiciary law as it might be styled everywhere." Principles of Morals and Legislation, Preface, p. 8. And see Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 39.] In the same way the Law of Nations became Praetorian law as soon as it appeared in the Praetor's edict. ["Praetorian obligations are those which the praetor has established by his own authority." Justinian's Inst. Lib. III, tit. XIII, s. 1.] If you are in doubt about it ask yourself the meaning of the phrase "derived from the common law." Does it mean, derived from some statute, or decision, or code, or other portable document? Not at all. Or does it mean derived from some investigation into what was the law common to all persons, or to all English persons? No, not in the slightest.

And may we not fairly ask, if there was "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant," that we may have a look at it; or if it has been lost, that we may be furnished with a statement from somebody who at some time did see it, or knew somebody who had heard that any body had ever seen it? It "is easier longed for than found," said the great Judge Willes. [Lloyd. Buibert (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 125.]

Professor Burdick claims that the "ancient law merchant was a body of substantive law;" that it existed "for several centuries" prior to the time of Coke; that between the time of Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756) the term 'law merchant' "loses much of the definiteness which characterized it" prior to that period; and that since Mansfield's date "these two bodies of rules (Law Merchant and Common Law) no longer stand apart as they did three centuries ago." As against this I contend that there was no body of Law Merchant before Mansfield; that prior to that time there was nothing but a heterogeneous lot of loose un-digested customs, which it is impossible to dignify with the name of a body of law; that Mansfield (principally) formulated, developed and declared what is called the Law Merchant, and that its "rules are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of laws." For settlement of the question I am now going to appeal to Professor Burdick's article.

He divides the English history of the subject into three periods: [Following here and elsewhere the Introduction to Smith's Mercantile Law.]

(1) Prior to Coke (1606), when the old pepoudrous and staple courts were in full activity, and the "body" was no doubt in robustest condition.
(2) Between Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756), when the jurisdiction was passing from the old courts to the regular tribunals, during which, "the term law merchant loses much of its definiteness."
(3) Lord Mansfield and subsequently.

Remembering that we are in search of 'a true body of law," and not a mere set of customs, at the time when Coke's court was acquiring jurisdiction in merchants' cases, let us see how Coke and the other judges proceeded. Did they get a look at the "true body of law," or even know anything of its existence? Professor Burdick supplies the only possible answer. He says that evidence was called in each case, and:

"The law merchant was proved as foreign law now is. It was a question of fact. [Italics here and elsewhere are those of the present writer.] Merchants spoke to the existence of their customs as foreign lawyers speak to the existence of laws abroad. When so proved, a custom was part of the law of the land. This condition of things existed for about a century and a half." (1606-1756).

This procedure is very familiar to all of us. We have, for example, a grain case: The grain men have certain customs applicable to the point in dispute; we give evidence of that custom; and the court decides with reference to it. But we should never make the mistake of saying that prior to such evidence there was "a true body of law" upon the subject known as the law-grain-dealer, a law never theretofore heard of by the judges.

I do not wish unduly to press for a rigid or technical meaning of the words "a body of law," and get myself into dispute with the advocates and opponents of Austin's definition. But attaching almost any significance to the term, may I not fairly say that there never was "a true body of law" in England, the existence of which had to be proved as a fact? And yet that was what had to be done before Coke would recognize the "law merchant."

And it will be observed that what was proved was not law at all, but, as Professor Burdick says, customs. "Merchants testified to the existence of their customs." Just as financiers or tailors would testify as to theirs. When so proved (not before) "a custom was part of the law of the land."

We may say then that there was not much that looks like "a body of Law" when Coke commenced his duties; that is, when there was a law merchant if ever there was one. Let Professor Burdick (quoting from Scrutton) now tell us to what extent it materialized during the succeeding 150 years:

"As the law merchant was considered as custom, it was the habit to leave the custom and the facts to the jury without any directions in the point of law, with a result that cases were rarely reported as laying down any particular rule, because it was almost impossible to separate the customs from the facts; as a result little was done towards building up any system of mercantile law in England."

And Scrutton was right, for Buller, J. (Mansfield's colleague) tells us that:

"Before Lord Mansfield's time we find that in the courts of law all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they were left generally to the jury and they produced no established principle." [Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.]

But we are now a full century and a half after the time when "a true body of law" had existed; when it had been administered by special courts, and with special practices; when it was so well known that it had come to be practically the same in all European countries (so it is said); when it had commenced shedding offspring in the way of peculiar laws as to partnership, jus accrescendi, stoppage in transitu, etc. (so we are told). And we have thus the very peculiar situation of "a true body of law" in robustest condition in 1606, but so unknown to the judges from that time on, that its existence had to be proven to them; and a law always so jumbled up with the facts that after the regular courts had been at it for a century and a half all we can say is that little had been done "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England;" that "no established principle had been produced."

Professor Burdick tells us, what indeed we might have expected, that "Lord Mansfield was dissatisfied with this condition of the law and devoted his great abilities to its improvement." And watching for a little the methods of that great judge, [Observe what he himself said in Luke v. Lyde (1750) 2 Burr. 887, about his methods.] we shall be able to see whether he thought that he had in hand "a true body of law" which he was endeavoring to administer, or whether he was really formulating, developing, and declaring something of his own, or nearly so. Professor Burdick shall again help us:

"We are told that he reared a special body of jurymen at Guildhall, who were generally retained in all commercial cases to be tried there. He was on terms of familiar intercourse with them, not only conversing freely with them, but inviting them to dine with him. From them he learned the usages of trade, and in return he took great pains in explaining to them the principal's of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided. When a mercantile case came before him, he sought to discover not only the mercantile usage which was involved, but the legal principle underlying it The great study has been to find some general principle, not only to rule the particular case under consideration, but serve as a guide for the future. It was from such sources, [The rhodian laws; the Consolate del Mare; the laws of Oleron and Wisly; the Ordinances of Louis XIV, etc., of which most probably Lord Mansfield's guests had never heard.] and from the current usages of merchants, that he undertook to develop a body of legal rules which should be free from the technicality of the common law, and whose principles shall be so broad, and sound, and just as to commend themselves to all courts in all countries."

But why all this bother if 150 years before there was in existence "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant;" if during those 150 years Coke and others had been administering that law; and if, as Professor Burdick tells us, Lord Mansfield had theretofore "discovered that the usages and customs of merchants were in the main the same throughout Europe"?

Here my defense might end. But I should be misunderstood if I did not explain myself more fully. I must vindicate my view, of the phrases, The Law of Nature, The Law of Nations, Equity, The Law Merchant. Here, too, I may take the liberty of diverging from current methods of thought and expression; but I shall not be without some solid support for my notions. I have not space for many citations. Let the student refer to the books mentioned below. [Sir Henry Maine's works, principally his Ancient Law; Sir Frederick Pollock's Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, Cap. 2 & 12; and his articles in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11, and 2 Columbia Law Review, 131; James Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. Essays XI and XuIV; Holmes' The common Law; Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law; Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages.]

The human mind craves generalizations and unifications, and it will play many dishonest tricks with itself in order that it may enjoy the gratification of these seeming requisites of intellectual satisfaction. See what it has done with our legal history:

"The Law of Nature:! What a fine, mouth filing soul-satisfying nonentity. Follow it through Greeks, Stoics, Roman Lawyers, Medieval Ecclesiastics, Grotius, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham, and make an entity "a true body" of it, if you can. In metaphorical and figurative sense we may speak of the laws of nature, meaning some observed physical sequences. But this "Law of Nature," was it ever anything but an empty abstraction or even hallucination? A sort of a shadow of some "lost code" that never existed? An underlying principle [See Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] which, could we but find it (fire, air, water, etc., have all been advocated and rejected), would, we may fancy, correlate and explain everything; but which still unfortunately for us underlies and is for the present at least plainly not capable of being got out of that? It is said that it is that "Ultimate principle of fitness, in regard to the nature of man as a rational and social being, which is, or ought be, the justification of every form of law." [Sir Frederick in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11.]

But that sort of a principle is, of course, a little difficult to look at quite steadily. In truth we only call it a principle, as we call God a spirit because we don't know what a spirit is, and must say something. If, too, we are told that it is "The rules of conduct deducible by reason from the general conditions of human society" [Ibid., 14.] may we not humbly ask that some able reasoner will deduce them, and once for all and forthwith print them?

We are more inclined to the suggestion that the Law of Nature is "The ideal to which actual law and custom could only approximate." [Ibid., 14. And see Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] but we must add that it is an ideal of very vague, fluctuating, and uncertain character, swinging according to times and persons from the heroisms of savagery to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount; and that no clearheaded man will undertake to put it in type. It no doubt has its uses if left as "A mental vision of a type of perfect law." [Maine's Ancient Law, 77ff.] but, on the whole, it will do better if left there than if photographed by some spiritualistic or other occult apparatus. Austin rejects altogether "the appellation 'Law of Nature,' as ambiguous and misleading." He calls it "the Divine Law or the Law of God," which, he says, makes everything clear in this fashion:

"There are human actions which all mankind approve; human actions which all men disapprove. Being common to all mankind and inseparable from the thoughts of those actions, these sentiments are marks or signs of the Divine pleasure. The rectitude or pravity of human conduct is instantly inferred from these sentiments without the possibility of mistake."[Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, 105 f.]

This Common Law of England is the most impudent pretender of all these phantom laws. For unquestionably a very large part of it was not law of England at all (common or special) but simply Roman law, smuggled in by Bracton [Maine's Ancient Law, 82], openly introduced by Holt, [Law of Bailments in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), Ld. Raymond, 909.] consciously and unconsciously adopted by many others. And perhaps the idea that the Common Law of England was "the law of the royal court," as opposed to the local laws of the old seigniorial courts - a sort of jus gentium imposed by a Praetor Peregrinus - is the real meaning of the term. [Jenks' Law 3 & Pol. Of the Middle Ages, 35-6.] Maine thinks that by its earliest expositors "it was regarded as existing somewhere in the form of a symmetrical body of express rules, adjusted to definite principles. The knowledge of the system however in its full amplitude and proportions was supposed to be confined to the breasts of the judges; and the lay public and the mass of the legal profession were only permitted to discern its canons intertwined with the facts of the adjudged cases. Many traces of this ancient theory remain in the language of our judgments and forensic arguments." [Village Communities, 335.]

Equity has never had such a concrete look as this Common Law (the adjective of which might have kept us right if we had not forgotten its significance). Equity, we admit, is an unwritten and inexpressible aspiration. But have you observed (as hinted at above) that as the Roman Civil law, built of common sense, became caked and afterwards yielded to a new infusion of more common sense (insidiously introduced under the name of the Law of Nations); so the Common Law of England, builded of reason and caked by custom (precedents and forms)[ Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. 697.], succumbed to more reason through the fiction of the King's conscience ["It is the special business of Equity to reintroduce those considerations which have been dropped in arriving at the rules of law," Lightwood's The Nature of Positive law, 40; and see p. 300.]?

Æquitas (the meeting point of Law of Nature and Law of Nations) played in the Roman Reformation of law very much the same part as Equity in the English.[See Maine's Ancient Law, cap. 3.] Mr. Bryce's description of it would answer for both Systems. He says "Equity means, to the Romans, fairness, right feeling, the regard for substantial, as opposed to formal, and technical, justice, the kind of conduct which would approve itself to a man of honor and conscience." We are now a little better prepared for a true understanding of the Law Merchant. So far we have had various titles and we have found them to be perfectly empty of meaning - mere names and nothing there to name. How is it with the Law Merchant?

In the present writer's opinion the amelioration and improvement of English law is attributable (apart from legislation and acknowledged fictions) to Equity, Common Counts, Public Policy and Law Merchant. Equity was a renaissance-a return to the Law of Nature, or the Law of Nations, or the Common Law (reflect on that for a moment), or Common Sense as you may choose to call it. Mansfield's tricks with the Common Counts [Lord Mansfield was quite frank in what he did. Weaker men would have pretended some precedent. Mansfield avowed that "the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant upon the circumstances of the case is obliged by ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money." Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), 2 Burr. 1005. And weaker men ever since have been attributing Mansfield's decisions to the Common Law and the Law Merchant. Blackstone knew better and ascribes Mansfield's work to "Natural reason and the just construct of the law" (Commentaries, Bk. III, c. 9).] and the Law Merchant were in reality but new and ingenious and masterful methods by which human reason of years gone by (obsolescent indeed, but caked and riveted there) was made to yield to human reason of later time. The cakes were called the Common Law, but they had ceased to represent common sense. The new human reason might also (just as properly) have been called the Common Law, but they named it Law Merchant, and people ever since have been looking for the thing, not knowing that it was nothing. Find the Law of Nature, the Law of God, the Law of Nations, the Law of Reason, the Law Universal, the Common Law, Equity-find Common Sense, and I shall have much pleasure in accepting at your hands an introduction to the Law Merchant.

Am I wrong in thus identifying the Law Merchant with these other empty names-these aliases, given by ourselves for the further fooling of ourselves? Let me at least shield myself behind Professor Burdick who says that Gondolphin quotes with approval the statement of Sir John Davies, that the Law Merchant, as a branch of the Law of Nations, has ever been admitted," &c. [2 Columbia Law Review, 477.]

Who quotes from Sir John Davies:

"Which Law Merchant, as it is part of the Law of Nature and Nations universal, and one and the same in all countries of the world." [Ibid., 477.]
"The Law Merchant which is a branch of the Law of Nations." [Ibid., 478.]

who quotes also from Dr, Zouch:

"It is manifest that the causes concerning merchants are not now to be decided by the peculiar and ordinary laws of every country, but by the general laws of Nature and Nations." [Ibid., 477-8.]

and who himself writes:

"As early as 1473 the Chancellor had declared that alien merchants could come before him for relief, and there have their suits determined by the Law of Nature in chancery. . . . which is called by some the Law Merchant, which is the Law Universal of the world." [Ibid., 485]. In 1473 it was said by Stillington, Edward the Fourth's Chancellor, in the great case of larceny by a carrier breaking bulk, that the cause of merchant strangers "shall be determined by the Law of Nature in the Chancery." Foreign merchants put themselves within the king's jurisdiction by coming into the realm, but the jurisdiction is exercisable "secundum legem naturae que est appelle par ascuns ley marchant, que est ley universal par tout le monde." [V.B. 13 Ed. 4th 9, p1. 5. Quoted from Sir F. Pollock, 2 Columbia Law Review, 28.]

But for all prose purposes we might as well speak of the Law Universal of the Universe; for this ubiquity which people are accustomed to attribute to their own ideas is asserted for the same evidential purposes as the avatar claims of all religion--founders, and with as much verity as (we shall say) all but one of these. "The Law of Nature is binding over all the globe in all countries," said Blackstone, [Commentaries, Introduction. s. 2.] without meaning anything in particular. "The Law of Nations is Common to all mankind," said Justinian, [Institutes, Lib. 1, tit. 2, s. 2.] meaning nothing at all. There is "a Common Law of all mankind," said Aristotle and Demosthenes and Justinian, meaning as much. There is a "Law of God," said Austin, a veritable legal touchstone meaning, if possible, still less. And now Professor Burdick quotes for us that there is a "Law Merchant which is the Law Universal of the world." Would that some swift lineotype could catch this thing, and reduce its irritating omnipresence (much too big to look at) to some one geographical spot, for sixty seconds, or even less.

This Law Merchant "one and the same in all countries in the world." And Coke and his successors after one hundred and fifty years' work at it, had done little "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England." "The same in all countries"! And poor Mansfield in his day dining his specially qualified merchant jurymen and taking "great pains in explaining to them the principles of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided." "The same in all countries."! Listen to Lord Campbell's account of Mansfield's time:

"Hence when questions necessarily arose respecting the buying and selling of goods, respecting the affreightment of ships, respecting marine insurances, and respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. Not a treatise had been published upon any of these subjects, and no cases respecting them were to be found in our books of reports. ... If an action turning upon a mercantile question was brought into a court of law, the Judge submitted it to the jury, who determined it according to their notions of what was fair, and no general rule was laid down." [Lives of the Chief Justices, III. 274.]

"The same in all countries!" [It may be well to set over against this statement the following extract from an address delivered to the American Bar Association last summer, by M.D. Chalmers, C. S. I., and printed in The Law Quarterly Review for January, 1903: "Lord Mansfield and Mr. Justice Story, in judgments which are too well known to need citation, have emphasized the essential unity of the law merchant throughout the world; and in more recent times, Lord Blackburn has again enunciated the rule. "There are, he says, in some cases differences and peculiarities which by the municipal law of each country are grafted upon it, and which do not effect other countries; but the general rules of the law merchant are the same in all countries."] And Mansfield, endeavoring "to develop a body of legal rules," which he hoped would "commend themselves to all courts in all countries," so Professor Burdick tells us but they didn't.

If there is any one point of mercantile law more than another that would have been agreed about in Europe, it would have been the question of title (as against the true owner) to goods purchased at the fairs to which the merchants were accustomed to travel for trade purposes. But it is impossible to say that European law concurred with the English law of market overt upon the subject.

If there is any one point in the law of "negotiable securities" about which we might have expected unanimity, it would be as to title to them when passed by a thief or a finder. What the French law upon the subject was I have endeavored elsewhere to show. [35 Am. Law Review, 722, ff.] It had no resemblance whatever to that of England.

If there is any other point, in the law of bills about which agreement would be expected, it would be that which (with us) declares that a transferee after maturity takes subject to existing equities. But in France that never was the law. ["L' endorsement entraine les momes consequences qu'il soit anterieur ou posterieur a l'echeance." Lyon-Caen and renault, s. 1094.] The Germans do not agree with either of us. [See Law of 5 June, 1869, sec. 16.]

And for coup de grace let me quote from the Lex Mercatoria, in which it is said that the customs as to bills:

"In their formation, times of running, and falling due, days of grace, & c., are almost as various as each European nation from one another." [p. 561.]

What else could they be? With lay judges: no records, no law books (or next to none); facts, customs and laws, all jumbled together; little communication; no consultation--customs as various as the nations? Yes, as various as the county towns, or as one prepondrous judge's notions from those of the other unskilled temporary adjudicators, with not even a Coke to help them.

Had I more space I would proceed to treat of several points still requiring explanation, but I must content myself with suggestion:

1. My notions seem to necessitate an inversion of generally assumed order; for have I not put courts first and the law that they are to administer as something subsequent? Yes, I have done so; and that is perfectly right. The other theory: that there was a common law, and equity, a law merchant first, and then courts established to apply them, is not only unhistoric, but, save in the very simplest social relations, quite impossible.

"It must be remembered that although we are naturally inclined to think of law as coming first, and courts being afterwards created to administer the law, it is really courts that come first, and that by their actions build up law, partly out of customs observed by the people, and partly out of their own notions of justice." [Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. , 79]

2. Read Maine's Ancient Law (31-33) as to the "in nubibus" law, which courts are supposed in some mysterious way to precipitate out of the clouds into library receptacles. And reflect a little on the sentence:

"We do not admit that our tribunals legislate; we imply that they have never legislated; and yet we maintain that the rules of the English Common Law, with some assistance from the Court of Chancery and from Parliament, are coextensive with the complicated interests of modern society."

A most prudent pretender, that Common Law, I think.

3. And observe this paragraph extracted from a very good book. [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law.]

"The proper idea of a rule of law is that it is an attempt to sum up current opinion upon a class of cases. The possibility of constructing rules, however, depends on two distinct faculties: the faculty of observation and the faculty of expression."

To which faculties the courts preposterous--I mean pepouderous--had not the slightest claim. Coke and his century and a half of successors may have had them, but, did not use them. Lord Mansfield, and not any pepoudrous predecessor "may be said to be the father of the commercial law," [Per Buller, J. In Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.] the father par excellence; but of course the family has been much extended since his day. "Market law has long exercised and still exercises a dissolving and transforming influence....the wish to establish as law that which is commercially expedient is plainly visible in the recent decisions of English courts of Justice." Maine's Will. Com. 194.]:

Legal rules must ever be adjusting themselves to the requirements of human relations.' [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law, 360.]

4. The Law Merchant, it is suggested, is still in existence. May we not yet have hope in the lineotype? Or, happy thought, that Marconi may some day, unsuspectingly, catch the thing? If emanations can reach him from anywhere, why not from everywhere? Why not from the home of Teufelsdroch Weissnichtwo? [Carlyle's "Don't know where.."] -- John S. Ewart

Admissions and Confessions

Part Four:

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

For those of you new to the News, welcome. Be sure you are sitting down, before you begin reading this article. The following remarks are a matter of record for any one to see. This part of the series is not intended to describe in detail the whole picture, but to get your heads in the legal sand and dig up some more of the evidence yourselves. The intent is to give you a broad overview in understanding Lincoln's World and give you the reasons why We constantly tell you to get out of the trap of commerce. It is not the place for you to be. All is not lost, however, as you will see at the end of this article.

The Statutes-at-Large used in this article are available at your local law library; or, request them by calling Randy Lee. The Dictionary of Military Terms used in this article is currently available from the publisher. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968) is still available from used book stores. Corpus Juris (C.J.) is a set of about 75 volumes from the 1920's and is getting harder and harder to find. It is an excellent resource and I highly recommend that your Christian Jural Society obtain a set.

The Congressional Record

March 17, 1993 --- H1303

(Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFFICANT. "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. [Re-Organization.] Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.
"We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."

To what bankruptcy was Mr. Trafficant referring? Like most of you in the law reform movement I first thought he was referring to the bankruptcy of 1933. But on further examination of that bankruptcy, I found it to be nothing more than a re-organization, and not a true bankruptcy. What happened in 1933 was that the gold had been taken from the states to prop up the United States in its re-organization after the Civil War and a disclosure that the State banks were part and parcel of the international arena. But by 1944, at Bretton Woods, the states, mostly the northern states, were bankrupt with the United States. The southern states were bankrupt- ed by the carpetbaggers and scalawags that invaded them at the close of Lincoln's hostitlities. The initial bankruptcy is not in this century. We must look further back in history because:

"Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est --The principal part of everything is the beginning." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

The initial bankruptcy begins in and during Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. The following, which is from one of the best historical records of this century, Barker and Commager's Our Nation, spells it out quite explicitly:

"Few people imagined in the beginning what the economic burden of the war would be. When, at the end of 1861, the customary national income of 80 million dollars a year was measured against an expense of 2 million dollars a day, men began to see what was involved. Against this unexpected burden President Lincoln had been authorized to issue 1 billion [that's billion with a "b"] dollars in securities [10-40 bonds--ring a bell, any one?] for sale upon the market. These promises to pay at once fell below par. Bankers raised the rate of interest on loans to the United States government 2 per cent higher than the usual commercial rate. [Making money the old fashioned way--gouging the government in a funds transfer scheme--became common practice.]" Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [Insertions added.]

Looking at the above disclosure, the federal government at the time Lincoln warred on the South, had revenues of 80 million dollars a year. Balance this with a cost of 2 million dollars a day, or 730 million dollars for a year gives a net loss of 650 million dollars for just one year! There was not enough specie to go around. Now notice what the accounting books, from that time, state:

"Bank notes, certificates of deposit, checks, bills of exchange, etc., are in business [commerce] used as money, but are not money. They are representatives of money when an equivalent amount of gold and silver is lying idle, and the paper takes its place in the circulation. Otherwise, they are representatives of indebtedness merely, and the man who receives them in payment of any debt has only given up one claim for another which may perhaps be more available." Bryan and Stratton, Commercial Arithmetic (1868), p. 155. [Emphasis in original.]

So now what does Mr. "Honest" Abe do to make this war happen? After all, we are talking huge sums of money to buy supplies, feed soldiers, logistic support, etc., to "save the Union" using military power to protect and preserve a national commercial union. He violates Christian Law, by substituting commercial paper, fiction, for Biblical silver, substance, and sets the stage for a new religion:

"Money is an instrument to facilitate exchanges, and, strictly speaking, should possess an intrinsic value equivalent to that for which it is exchanged." Bryan and Stratton, Commercial Arithmetic (1868), p. 152. [Emphasis added. Commercial paper has no intrinsic value--but is based on the person's faith receiving it that he can get full value for it in specie, goods, or other valuable consideration. Notice the change in presuppositions.]
"In this dilemma President Lincoln asked Congress to issue paper money, known thereafter as greenbacks, in order to meet promptly the wages of soldiers as well as the enormous, and sometimes padded, bills for ammunition and other supplies. Congress agreed, but at once the greenbacks declined even more than the government's bonds. During a part of 1864 they were worth only 39 cents on the dollar. At the end of the war 433 million dollars of the greenbacks were in circulation.
"Throughout the year 1862 the credit of the federal government was in serious doubt, although Jay Cooke, the Philadelphia banker, induced other financiers all over the country to join him in clever devices [deception] to sell government securities [backed by all the property of the United States]." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"But the government may issue its own notes or promises to pay and have them circulate as substitutes for coin, and may even make them a legal tender for the payment of debts, as has been done in the United States; but to maintain their value they must be redeemable on demand and a reserve in coin must be kept for their redemption. If they are not so redeemable, their purchasing power will depend upon [Godless, secular, earthly, and irreligious] faith in the government's final payment of what it has promised, [the new religion] and they will depreciate and fluctuate in value, having no solid basis to rest upon. No legal tender law or forced circulation will keep them stable or on the level with coin. The United States notes are pertinent to our subject because they have been for forty years a part of the currency of the country, have been declared a legal tender for all debts, and are treated as 'lawful money,' or the equivalent of coin, in banking reserves. Their volume has been unchanged at $346,681,016 for a quarter of a century on demand as pledged by the Government, and a fund of $150,000,000 in gold is held in the United States Treasury for the purpose. Nevertheless, they are not money, but notes that are reissued whenever paid, and our monetary system would be sounder without them, but for banking purposes they are now money." Fiske, The Modern Bank (1910), p. 23. [Insertion added.]
"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Pr 22:7. [Emphasis added.]

See also 12 Stat. 259 & 12 Stat. 313 (1861), the "National Loan Acts," the first financial scam of record. Essentially Lincoln's government was a parasite feeding off the host of Christian government, to eventually kill the host, so that the foundation of the government would have to shift from Christianity to some other, less secure, foundation. Note also Mr. Fiske still admits that the goverment's notes are evidence of debt of a bankrupt--a difference of $194,681,016 is still unredeemable. And, he further admits that in commerce, today's banks are the temple of the god Mercurius--notice where faith is placed:

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Mt 6:19-21. [Emphasis added.] The child's poem of "Humpty Dumpty" is a truism.

Now multiply the above product by the length of his War against Christianity and you will just about have the total cost of the war, minus the 10 percent interest on those 10-40 bonds. In fact Lincoln's War ended with the "Federal" government 2.682 billion dollars in debt, exclusive of interest. Now what does this mean? It set up the means by which Christians, having no pastors grounded well in sound doctrine, wandered aimlessly and allowed the policy of debt to continue through Reconstruction.

"Historians have long been agreed that the evil consequences of congressional reconstruction far outweighed the good that it was intended to do." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 419. [Care to guess why?]

It also set up a system of slavery which the Founders of the federal government flatly rejected:

"FUNDING SYSTEM, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides that [*552] on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be formed, and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking fund." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, pp. 551-552.
"FUNDING SYSTEM. The practice of borrowing money to defray the expenses of government.
"In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the loan. The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the easter coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning, took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed. To carry on the war, the new doge, Sebiastian Giani, ordered a forced loan. Every citizen was obliged to contribute one-hundredth of his property, and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practised the system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to provide large sums of money for the immediate [*1324] exigencies of the state, which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.
"In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St. George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to raise a loan, for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside, and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods; and these loans were called terminable annuities. Of late years, however, the practice is different,-- loans being payable only at the option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.
"Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest materially. The national debt of England consists of many different loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest in amount and importance are the 'three per cent consolidated annuities,' or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in 1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which are payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England. [Any one recall what happened July 4, 1776?] The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on most of the funds, and also keeps the transfer-books. When stock is sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser, and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange geneally through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor of the stock, are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable on certain fixed days, called accounting-days; and such transactions are called 'for account,' to distinguish them from the ordinary sales and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at which they will sell and buy, so that sellers and purchasers can always find a market for stock, or can purchase it in such quantities as they may desire, without delay or inconvenience.
"In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.
"The funding system enables the government to raise money in exigencies [war on drugs, poverty, homeless, etc.], and to spread over many years the taxation which would press too severely on one [see Const. U.S.A., Article I, section 8, clauses 1 & 2]. It affords a ready method of investing money on good security, and it tends to identify the interest of the state and the people. But it is open to many objections, the principal of which is that it induces statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced to provide the means from direct taxation. McCulloch, Dict. of Comm.; Sewell, Banking." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1323-1324. [Emphasis and insertion added.] [In other words, unless and until the loan is repaid, the property or works created by use of the loan are property of the lender.]

Many in this day and age thought Social Security was the original scam, by stealing from the young and giving to the old. Social Security is a means of dividing the Christian community, when the Christian community fails to fulfill its mandate from God. From the above testimony, the breakdown of Christianity had taken place before A. Lincoln came on the scene. The war would have wound down quicker had Christians spoken out more, and refused to participate in the carnage. But such was not the case. Pastors in the northern states were encouraging their poorer classes to enlist their sons as young as thirteen in the army for a paltry one hundred dollars in paper! What is the price of a young soul? What price should our Posterity pay for Our ignorance, and refusal to set things right in the eyes of God? Could any one assume to estimate such a price?

Notice the name Jay Cooke. This man was the wealthiest banker of his day, who saw Lincoln's War as an opportunity to make money from the misery of 8 million people in the south, and countless others in the north. Through this man, Salmon P. Chase made the following statement to the public:

"Salmon P. Chase did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, [Jay] Cooke, that the debt was a 'first mortgage' upon all the property of the United States.
"This affects the title of the lands and leaves every man but a tenant upon his own property, who may be ousted by the mortgagee upon the first failure to meet the appointed instal[l]ment assessed in taxes. The mortgagee is pursuing the same oppressive and delusive course that is always pursued by every other mortgagee, with the intent to absorb the mortgagor." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), p. 328. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Ever wonder why internal revenue stamps appeared on property deeds and the like? Because the idea behind the war was not to keep the consociated union together, but to remove the Christian from his Lawful inheritance under God, and give it to the banker who now held the bonds issued by Lincoln, Lieber and Co., by bankrupting the Good and Lawful Christians and their general institutions. This brought in the Roman practice of emphyteusis [Ed. Note: See Issue the Seventh of The News]:

"In March 1865, the Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, commonly called the Freedmen's Bureau. Set up under the War Department, the bureau was headed by General Oliver O. Howard, and it had as its primary mission the care and welfare of the thousands of Southerners, white and black, whose lives had been uprooted by [*26] the war. Being without precedent, the bureau was one of the most important agencies of the Civil War era. With branches in every southern state, it established free schools and hospitals, relocated refugees under the provisions of the Homestead Act, distributed millions of food rations, provided legal assistance [forerunner of the Civil Rights Commission], operated as an employment agency [forerunner of the Employment Development Department], negotiated contracts for workers (making it the first national arbitration agency between labor and capital), and otherwise worked to facilitate the former slave's adjustment to his new status. The bureau was originally established to last just one year after the end of the war, but it was obvious that its services would be needed much longer." Wood, The Era of Reconstruction (1975), pp. 26. [Insertions added.]

Just what did this do to the "law of the land?" Who needs it! They said, "We have a better plan," under what later became known as "the federal law merchant," for the sake of "uniformity." This is clearly enunciated in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), 304 U.S. 64, which overruled Swift v. Tyson (1842), 16 Pet. 1. Essentially, in 1842 the court upheld the law merchant concerning two types of bills of exchange: inland and foreign. Inland are those which never cross state lines; foreign are those from another state or nation. By an amendment to the National Banking Act of 1864 at 13 Stat. 484, a switch had been done. Lincoln's Congress now desired to impose a 10 percent tax on the issue of commercial paper from State banks paid out by national banks. In other words, once the State banks' notes had crossed venues into the national system, it was feasible for Congress to tax their issues. This was clearly upheld in Veazie Bank v. Venno (1869), 8 Wall.(75 U.S.) 533, 19 L.Ed.2d 482. Essentially, this tax ended the issuance of State banks' commercial paper and by 1869 there were only 247 State banks existing. Many others had decided to join the national system, where "money" could be made. Did Frankie Dee Roosevelt do a mean and nasty thing in '33? Certainly not! He did what the law required him to do--he made enemies of all citizens of the United States in the "Trading With the Enemy Act" of 1917, and confiscated their gold. If you were Christian, you would not have put your faith in secular man, evidenced by having an account at "your" bank:

"Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned." Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

On February 25, 1863, Lincoln's Congress created the Comptroller of the Currency, by the Sherman Act (12 Stat. 665), which provided also for the third time, national banks. This act was repealed and replaced by the National Banking Act of June 3, 1864, (13 Stat. 99) which is still on the books. These acts placed a new weapon of war in the field--the national bank. These banks, were and are under the supervision of the "comptroller of the currency" an office in the treasury department. The word "comptroller" has some very interesting definitions:

"COMPTROLLER. A public officer of a state or municipal corporation, charged with certain duties in relation to the fiscal affairs of the same, principally to examine and audit the accounts of collectors of the public money, to keep records, and report the financial situation from time to time. There are also officers bearing this name in the treasury department of the United States [See 13 Stat. 99 (1864).] Beneficial Loan Soc. of New Orleans v. Straus, La.App., 148 So. 85, 87.
"COMPTROLLER IN BANKRUPTCY. An officer in England, whose duty it is to receive from the trustee in each bankruptcy his accounts and periodical statements showing the proceedings in the bankruptcy, and also to call the trustee to account for any misfeasance, neglect, or omission in the discharge of his duties. Robs.Bankr. 13; Bankr.Act 1869, 55." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 359.

Thus far, we have established the main reason for the War. It was not slavery, but commerce with a strange form of worship.

Mr. Lincoln, so far, has committed treason. Until next month, may God Bless you Richly in Christ Jesus, Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour.

New 'Third Edition' of 'The Book of the Hundreds' now available

Effective May 1st, The Christian Jural Society Press has available to fellow-Christians, the new Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds.'

The new Third Edition has been rewritten and expanded from the earlier Second Edition. It is now 251 pages with 515 footnotes, an increase of 74 pages and 339 footnotes.

Part One of The Book of the Hundreds, formerly titled, "Background Studies" is now titled, "Prolegomena to the Current Martial Rule" and has been expanded by 57 pages and 219 footnotes. The documentation for Part One now reaches 391 footnotes from official sources such as; court cases, Commentaries on the Law, The Congressional Record, Senate Reports, Attorney General Opinions, reputable historical works, and many others.

The basic thrust of Part One, which has not changed from earlier editions, is that the current state of 'law' in America, at all levels of government, is that pertaining to military governments, known as 'civil affairs,' and that the Constitution is no longer the binding Law of the Land on such governments.

Indeed, the evidence in this new edition is now so overwhelming, that no man of sound mind can deny that we live under military style governments and martial rule, from the Federal to the local level. It can be stated with safety that no other book in the law reform movement has so heavily documented its premise. This factor is important since few, if any, of the other law reform groups across the land have paid any attention to it, and many have criticized 'The King's Men' for presenting such an idea. Very well, let them answer the evidence presented herein!

Part One not only establishes clearly the original premise of The Book of the Hundreds, but has shown that the effort to 'militarize' America is far more comprehensive than at first believed.

The evidence shows that, beginning as early as the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the New England states began to realize that the power of the Presidency was, in principle, virtually uncontrolled because of the Constitution's failure to fence in his power as it had that of Congress. It was Jefferson's abuse of the President's power that alarmed the New England commercial interests and sparked the Secessionist movement in the North, long before it ever gained a foothold in the South.

From the War of 1812, it becomes clear that the Northern states, principally in New England, financed and managed the subversion of the South and pressured Southern Congressmen and Senators into abandoning the Federal government, solely to end the control of the Constitution on commerce in the North.

Further, the evidence is presented to show that the North actively financed, recruited, and supported a number of underground efforts to subvert the South, in order to 'encourage' the Southern states to secede. From John Brown's raid on the Armory at Harper's Ferry to the creation of the Knights of the Golden Circle, all were financed and supported by Northern banking and commercial interests dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution for the united States of America.

Last, the evidence is presented to prove that martial law, military government and the military courts created thereby, were deliberately continued after Lincoln's War vs. All Christian States, through 'The Reconstruction Acts' and 'Civil Rights Acts,' solely because it benefited the power of the Federal government and the commercial interests which funded Lincoln's War in the first place.

The record is clear that Lincoln created the debt funding system to expand the Federal power, which is still in use in this country today. Among his more ingenious forms of funding the War was the issuance of '10-40 Bonds' from which the infamous 1040 Income Tax Form gets its name. We can now establish the bankruptcy of the Federal government as beginning in 1864 with Lincoln's creation of 'The National Banking Act.'

The need for Christians to band together in a common cause to establish and maintain Christian Jural Societies is now greater than ever.

Part Two of this new Third Edition has included several changes in the philosophy of Christian Jural Societies. Gone, for example, are the oligarchic distinctions between Fellows and Members.

And, a new part has been added that provides the documentation of the authority of Christians to form Lawful Christian Jural Societies. This addition has been long needed in Part Two and forms the basis of a new publication to be offered soon, on 'The Right of Christians to be Self-governing Men." This work will be available in late Summer of 1997.

This edition of Part Two seeks a return to the form of government more closely adapted to Scripture in general and the Book of Judges, in particular. The idea is, to reduce the likelihood of one man, over the process of time, from accumulating power unto himself and re-imposing a system of military government on Christians.

Thus, Part Two of The Book of the Hundreds on the formation of the Christian Jural Society and its maintenance, represents a step forward. With the rapid formation of new Christian Jural Societies across the continental United States, and in Alaska, The Republic of Hawai'i and Canada, it has been anticipated by many for quite some time. However, it is by no means, the last step in this on-going process.

Part Three of The Book of the Hundreds has traditionally been reserved for the highly successful Non-statutory Abatement process, and in this respect, this new Third Edition is no exception.

However, as Parts One and Two of this new edition, the Non-Statutory Abatement process has also been improved by a substantial margin, both in its applicability and in the level of legal and political arguments brought to the abatement process.

Thus, the abatements now raise the 'political question' and 'conflict of law' to the effect that; does a bankrupt entity have any law? The answer is, of course, no. The bankruptcy argument cannot be raised in any existing military or statutory court because such an argument is forbidden. This does not prevent anyone from raising the argument in at-law process, because, in Christian common law there is no privilege that allows one to avoid an argument that may be embarrassing or conclusively detrimental to either a demandant or defendant. In other words, there are no ultra vires rights in the Christian common law and no one is immune to the force of Law.

New information has been discovered, at least in the constitutional law of California, that the 'county clerk' is the ex officio clerk of the superior court, that is, courts of record, i.e., courts that sit at common law. If such is the case and the procedure for utilizing the county clerk can be resurrected, the majority of the problems associated with serving and executing common law process, including Writs of Entry to Land, Writs of Trespass, Habeas Corpus, Prohibition, Mandamus, etc., is greatly simplified. In addition, the county clerk's office is empowered to execute the process through the county sheriff's office.

All in all, the new Third Edition of The Book of the Hundreds is well worth adding to the lawful arsenal of all Good and Lawful Christians as they seek to advance the Crown Rights of King Jesus.

One last note. In previous editions of The Book of the Hundreds, a discount was offered to those who had acquired an earlier edition. Due to the extended length and added pages of this new Third Edition, and the added cost for publication created thereby, the discount will no longer be available, except in lots above ten.

For further information on this new Third Edition call 818-347-7080 or FAX to 818-313-8814.

Civil Rights:

The Road to Serfdom

by John Quade

Today's typical American believes that the Civil Rights Acts are special legislation that apply only to non-whites. With this level of ignorance we are lost without a hope. In fact, the civil right acts apply to everyone, regardless of color, race, etc., and exclude only those Christians who act in the mode and character of a Christian.

How has this happened?

Previous to Lincoln's War an infamous case came before the United States Supreme Court which is known as the Dred Scott case. Depending upon which 'expert' one talks to, the case has various meanings.

Those on the left beat their breasts at the mere mention of the case and cry out against the idea of a Negro as a slave and 'mere piece of chattel property.' This is how they interpret the case in the light of their own presupposition and socio-political agenda. In fact, the case did not define slaves as mere pieces of chattel property because slaves had always been considered as chattel.

Those on the right, especially those with an elitists mind set, interpret the same case as saying that black people have no rights, or at least, if they have any rights, such rights are not equal to those of a white man.

Again, this is mere rhetoric that bears little relationship to the facts.

The real flaw in the case, however, is that is lumps together two separate classes of people under one heading, namely black slaves and 'people of color' and then asserts that such Negroes cannot bring a case before the Supreme Court, because they have no standing in the Constitution. If, however, one reads the case with just a modicum of objectivity, one will see that the case was never decided on its merits, nor was there ever an actual majority decision made in the case.

Subsequent hearings on the same case have raked it over red hot coals and dismantled it, because the argument used by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in writing his opinion, though lengthy, are so shallow and specious. How can a United States Supreme Court Chief Justice do such a thing? Answer: if Mr. Taney had done anything else he would have suffered a great personal loss of his own slaves.

The subsequent hearings mentioned above, make the clear and accepted distinction in law between a slave and a free person of color. In both the North and South, there were 'free persons of color' who were not slaves, who owned land, and voted in elections as soon as they reached the proper age in the State's voting laws. In short, they exercised all the rights of Good and Lawful Christians in common with white people:

"In 1810 New Orleans had 8,001 white persons, 5,727 free persons of color, and 10, 824 slaves. Aggregate Amount of Persons Within the United States in 1810. (Wash. D.C. 1811) p. 82. A battalion of gens de couleur fought at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Rousseve, The Negro in Louisiana 24-29 (1937). In 1830 there were 16,710 free persons of color and 109,588 slaves in Louisiana. In 1860 free men of color owned real property and slaves valued at 50,000,000. Carter 25. A person of color was presumed to be free." Adelle v. Beauregard, 1810, 1 Mar.(O.S.) 183.
" Historically, therefore, color and not education or any thing else has always been determinative of a voter's qualifications in Louisiana." United States v. Louisiana (1963), 225 F.Supp. 353, 363

But, in spite of contrary opinions on the Dred Scott case and its non-Christian presuppositions, the history of America is written as if the case were the last word on the topic when it comes to the Civil Rights issue. In other words, everyone acts as if the case were real Law.

The alleged 14th Amendment was the direct result of the Dred Scott decision and all subsequent Civil Rights legislation has been built on the assumption that Dred Scott stated the law in the matter. This opened the door to Lincoln and his crony abolitionists to 'create a benefit,' i.e., in granting to the black man the same rights like or as those of a white man, but emanating from a source other than God. This was of vital importance to Lincoln's plan because:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character [whether Christian or lawless] of the right claimed [or exercised], whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477.

In simple terms, the source of the right claimed determines the character of the person exercising it as well as who can hear a controversy based on that right.

One may claim to be a Christian, but, if he is involved in a controversy based on a right given or created by the State (Civil Rights), the State alone decides the controversy based on that right according to the law or whim of the State:

"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711.7

If the source of the Right is from God, the State has no venue, jurisdiction, or any other access to the Good and Lawful Christian in a controversy based on the God-given right and the case is then decided on the basis of God's Law, usually within the forms provided by the common law. Thus:

"The party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon." Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Inc. (1957), 147 F.Supp. 223, aff'd 254 F.2d 55, cert. denied 358 U.S. 818, 79 S.Ct. 28, 3 L.Ed.2d 59.

If one brings a Title 42 suit to the court, since Title 42 embodies rights given by the Federal power, the Federal power alone has the right to decide the case on the basis of its own laws and rules. But, if one brings an action at common law concerning a case over the vested Rights of a Good and Lawful Christian, then the Law of God and the precedents in Christian common law will decide the case.

In effect, we are back to the religious argument again. The god or God of the system determines the character of both the right and the person claiming the right. Further, one cannot mix rights from one source with those of another source. One cannot assert a common law Right from God in the State's courts, or in a Title 42 suit.

"there can be no tolerance in a law system for another religion. Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide. Institutes of Biblical Law, by Rousas John Rushdoony, Published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. (1973), pp. 5-6.

Or, as the Scripture puts it:

"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13.

But, the key to the Civil Rights question is, what do they cost The source of the right determines its cost and what is required of the man. Will he be taxed, or what?:

"Civil rightsare not connected with the organization and administration of government." Winnet v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N. W. 681.

"As otherwise defined, civil rights are appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof." State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C. C. Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.

Ipso facto, a citizen of the U.S. automatically has Civil Rights whether he wants them or not:

"Where the power of taxation exercise by Congress, is warranted by the Constitution, as to mode and subject [citizenship], it is necessarily, unlimited in its nature. Congress may prescribe the basis [citizenship], fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government." Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule , 7 Wall 433, 19 L.Ed. 95, 98.

And, such rights are taxable without limitation:

"In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment; it is Article I, 8 of the Constitution." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1959), 32 T.C. 653, 659.

"American citizenship implies not only rights but also duties, not the least of which is the payment of taxes." U.S. v. Lucienne D'Hotelle de Benitez Rexach (1977), 558 F.2d 37. [See also Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 & United States of America v. Slater (1982), 545 F.Supp. 179, 182.]

'The Road to Serfdom' will be continued next month.

To Be or Not To Be: Home-less

by Randy Lee

Since the time of Lincoln's war against all Christian states, which brought about the commercial incorporation of a bank- rupt 'United States' and the 'permanent state of national emergency' created thereby, the meaning and implication of many words in the English language have been changed to suit the purpose of those who write and enforce the foreign commercial codes of the lex mercatoria, better known as Uniform Commercial Codes, The Code of Military Justice, Internal Revenue Codes, Revised Statutes, Restatements of the Law, Code of Federal Regulations, Motor Vehicle Codes, ad nauseam--just to name a few.

One of those words is 'home.'

(Note: In the following, all underlining and bolding is done by me for emphasis).

"As relating to deductions of expenses for carrying on a trade or business while living away from home, 'home' within I.R.C. 162(a)(2) is defined as taxpayer's principal place of business." Ellwein v. U.S., C.A.N.D., 778 F.2d. 506, 509.
"Since travel expenses of an employee are deductible only if the taxpayer is away from home, the deductibility of such expenses rests upon the definition of 'tax home.' The IRS position is that 'tax home' is the business location, post or station (military terms) of the taxpayer." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1461.
Home: "That place in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains residence or to which he intends to return. Place where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social and civil life." Restatement of Conflicts, Second, 12.
Home: "That place or country in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains either residence or the intention of residence." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 1449.
"'Home' and 'domicil' do not correspond, yet 'home' is the fundamental idea of 'domicil.' The law takes the conception of 'home,' and moulding it by means of certain fictions and technical rules to suit its own requirements, calls it 'domicil.' Or perhaps this may be best expressed, by slightly altering Westlake's statement, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception of residence,' etc., and saying, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception home.' 'Domicil' expresses the legal relation existing between a person and the place where he has, in contemplation of law, his permanent home.' Jac. Dom. c. 3, 72.
"A person having a dwelling house in each of two towns of the state may have his home in one town for the purposes of taxation, although he spends the greater portion of the year in the other, and is there on the first of May; In this case domicil for taxation and home are treated as synonymous. The principal place of abode of a man and his family, when it is only a temporary abode, is not his home in the sense here required; Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650.
"There are three concepts of especial importance in connection with the presence of a person within a state: residence, domicile, and citizenship. Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation. It involves a more or less fixed abode but ignores the intent of continuance or political affiliation. An alien may have residence without domicile or citizenship. One may have more than one residence at a time. Domicile implies civil status. Many civil rights depend upon it-e.g. the course of descent of personal property is governed by the law of the person's domicile at death. Every natural person has a domicile, but only one. His domicile of origin persists until a new one is acquired by choice. A domicile of choice is acquired by the concurrence of physical presence (usually residence) and an intent to make the place his more or less permanent home. No particular length of previous residence is essential, nor need one affirmatively intend always to remain there. But there must be no present intent of going to live elsewhere. Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage or any other particular incident but it does imply incorporation into the body politic (corporate citizen). The requirements vary from state to state. Often they involve much the same qualifications as does domicile. But the two should not be confused." THE NATIONAL LAW LIBRARY, published by Collier, Volume III p. 358 footnote.
"A hand from Washington, D.C. will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor." Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates (1910).
"Domicil as defined by the American Law Institute (copyright holders of the U.C.C.): 'Domicil is the place with which a person has a settled connection for legal purposes, either because his home is there or because the place is assigned to him by the law.' [Conflict of Laws, Restatement, 9.] The only discoverable explanation for the attribution of a domicil to a corporation is the desire for symmetry in the law. The law has ordained that every person must have a domicil; a corporation, it is said, is a legal person, and therefore, even though non-physical (a fiction), must have a domicil.
"The difficulties encountered in the extension of this concept to a corporation have been formalistically reconciled by Dicey as follows: 'The concept of a home or domicil, depending as it does on the combination of residence and intention to reside, is, in its primary sense, applicable only to human beings; but by a fiction of law, an artificial domicil may be attributed to legal beings (corporate citizens), or corporations. [Dicey, Conflict of Laws (5th Ed.) 136. In Conflict of Laws, Restatement (Am. Law Inst.), Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 42, comment C, it was said: 'The nature of a corporation makes it of course unable to acquire a home, and therefore a domicil of choice. It is however requisite for several purposes that a corporation should have a domicil; and it must therefore have a place assigned to it by law as a domicil (section 10), or in other words have a domicil by operation of law.' In Final Draft No. 4 (March, 1934), section 42, as to the domicil of a corporation was eliminated, and the following comment was added to section 10, defining domicil in general: 'f. Corporation. A corporation has no home in the sense in which the term is used in connection with a human being. The state of incorporation is, for fixing legal relations of a corporation, analogous to the state of domicil of an individual.' But in the Restatement as finally approved by the Institute in May, 1934, the section attributing a domicil to a corporation was included as section 41, and Comment C, above, was appended to this section.]"
"Under the urge of attaining symmetry in the law, a domicil has been assigned to an incorporated group because it is classified as a legal person, but it is said that an unincorporated association, not being a legal person, is incapable of having a domicil." [Conflict of Laws, Restatement, (Am. Law Inst.) 41.]

In the 14th Century, John Wycliffe, 'The Morning Star of the Reformation,' warned fellow-Christians of the un-Godly nature of the Roman Imperial Law, as reported by the Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, to wit:

"It is not an accident that the first reformer in English legal thought was also the first reformer in English religious thought. John Wycliffe is known for his resistance to authority in the church and his translation of the Scriptures to bring them home to the common man. But in his tract De Officio Regis he attacked authority in law and asserted the sufficiency of English case law--for such it fairly had become--against the venerable legislation of Justinian and the sacred decretals of the Popes [who represent the Roman Imperial law]. Let us remember what this meant according to the theories of that time. Whatever the fact, the theory of the king's judges was that they administered the common custom of England, the customary modes of action of Englishmen in their relations with other. The academic theory as to the Roman law was that the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as legislation of the Emperor Justinian, was binding upon people whose rulers were taken to be successors of Augustus. The theory as to the canon law was that all jurisdiction was divided between the spiritual and the temporal, that in matters spiritual, the temporal authority was totally incompetent, and that the church, whose mouthpiece was the Pope, had an absolute legislative power within this field. 'The Pope,' says Boniface VIII in the fourteenth century, 'holds all laws in his breast.' Wycliffe said boldly that men might well be saved 'though many laws of the Pope had never been spoken,' that Roman law was 'heathen men's law' and that [*40] there was no more reason and justice in the civil [misnomer, should be "imperial"] law of Rome than in the civil law of England. He appealed from authority to the local custom of England, from the rules imposed externally by Roman law and the Pope, to the rules which Englishmen made for themselves by their everyday conduct. But this was the same position which Wycliffe took with respect to religion. In law and in religion he appealed to the individual and for the individual against authority." Roscoe Pound (Dean of Harvard Law School), The Spirit of the Common Law (1921), page 39. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

This last statement above makes it quite clear that John Wycliffe knew that any thing connected with the Roman or English civil law (or any civil law) was strictly for human beings and natural persons (at that time, called 'heathen men') and should be avoided at all cost by all Christians.

The more modern statements above make it quite clear that anyone who says, "Yes, I have a home," "Yes, I'm a resident," "I demand my civil rights," etc., becomes a surety within that 'heathen man's law'; a surety known as a 'a person with a home for taxable purposes,' 'a resident with a permanent place of business,' 'a natural person with a domicile,' 'a corporate citizen,' 'a homeowner,' ' a consumer,' etc.

It is absolutely imperative for all Good and Lawful Christian Men and Woman to learn and understand the words, such as 'home,' that the 'heathen men' and human beings have 'incorporated' into their 'created' codes, rules and regulations.

We must begin to get our noses into the books created by the enemies of Christ and Christendom, in order to know and understand those enemies, but at the same time remembering that the Word of God is the Supreme Book for all Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom. ?

"Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

Where is the Authority? you ask.

Part One

by Robert

The following is reprinted from 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society Newsletter,' which is an excellent monthly newsletter published by 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society, First House of Delegates,' in New Jersey. We hope you find it most edifying-- as we do.

Remember that because you ask, "where is the Authority"?, or "Who is the Authority"? behind the Law that We should use to govern Our lives as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women is why We are plagued with the problems created for us by the ungodly. We deserve all the burdens We get for not knowing Who the Authority is.

Being Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, We live Our lives according to Scripture, and Scripture being translated for Us into The King James Version Bible, the only Bible that has standing in Law. And the first chapter of Genesis, verse one reads,

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

This first verse says from whom all Authority comes; Authority comes from God, for by His Authority heaven and earth were formed. And We read in Job 26:7,

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Think about that! the earth hangs on nothing, but by His Authority only. And We read as it is written in Isaiah 44:24-25,

"Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh there knowledge foolish."

The evolutionists and others have been trying to disprove the first verse of Genesis, chapter one, for many score of years without even coming close. Looking at those nine words, The first verse in the Bible, as easy as they are to read and understand, have the Authority to withstand time, the Scientists, the Evolutionists, the Atheists, the Darwinists, the New Agers, the Bible critics, the ungodly, etc., and just think, this is only the beginning first verse of Scripture. Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women know, by faith, their Heavenly Father is the Authority for the Lawful Christian lives they live through His Word. And His Word being in their hearts is obeyed above all other. So, when the question is asked, "where is the Authority"?, and for to read an answer to that question, We need only to read Scripture, and start by reading the very first verse, Genesis 1:1.

Genesis 1:1, "well, what does that have to do with me"?, you might be asking yourself. Or you might be asking yourself, "how does that help me"? You must understand the beginning, otherwise how can you possibly understand the end. You must first understand that God, the Creator, is Authority for everything, and without His Word we can do nothing by ourselves, and are left at the mercy of the ungodly. Psalm 24:1-5 reads,

"The Earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation."

Now ask yourself this question, "do I have clean hands and a pure heart? (In other words, do you live your life as a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman). If your answer is 'no' you do not, how can you expect to receive any blessing from the Lord? How can you expect to receive righteousness and salvation through His Word? How can you expect to be protected from the ungodly? How can you expect to rebuke the temptations put in front of you by them? Well, read His Word in Scripture. Remember and understand this about Scripture: Scripture is God's notice to all, and therefore, there is no excuse for not knowing how to have clean hands and a pure heart, or for asking, "Where is the Authority"?

Have you ever realized that even the ungodly are, at times, given authority from the Lord? They are allowed to create burdens for us (punishment) for not having clean hands. Isaiah 45:6-7 reads, "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside Me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create the darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." If you noticed, verse seven, in part, tells us that the Lord creates evil also. The many burdens we receive through the ungodly is one of His ways of letting us know we are not living as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women.

Now it has to be said simply and plainly at this point--God is the Authority, first, last, and forever!! He is the Authority over us, and for us, as to how we should live our lives through His Word. And Scripture tells us exactly that; Jeremiah 17:5 reads,

"Thus sayeth the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord."

And, Deuteronomy 10:17 reads,

"For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible God, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward."

And, Jeremiah 17:10 reads,

"I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruits of his doings."

And, Jeremiah 33:3 reads,

"Call unto Me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Scripture says it all for us, but we must have faith in the Lord's Word, in that, we live our lives according to it, for to receive His Blessings.

Scripture says He does not take any reward. But what He does want is for us to live as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women through His Word.... and His Word is the Authority to do so.

(Continued in Issue the Nineteenth)

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

'in the field'

IN THE FIELD. "Any place, on land or water, apart from permanent cantonments or fortifications where military operations are being conducted." Ex parte Gerlach (D.C.) 247 F. 616, 617; Ex Parte Jochen (D.C.) 257 F. 200, 205; Ex parte Mikell (D.C.) 253 F. 817, 819; Hines v. Mikell (C.C.A.) 259 F. 28,30.

"New administrative undertakings of the [Civil] war and post-war years introduced the National Government permanently into fresh areas of activity. Among these were the first Morrill Act of 1862, which made land grants for agricultural and mechanical colleges in each State; the establishment of a Commissioner (later Secretary) of Agriculture in the same year, and of a Commissioner of Education [which later under Carter, was made a cabinet post] in 1867; and in 1870 the creation, under the Attorney-General, of a Department of Justice to supervise from Washington the activities of the United States attorneys in the field. More important for the business world was the establishment of a National banking system [looking to do away with inland bills of exchange in the states] in 1863. This created for the first time a corps of National bank examiners. In a follow-up move, Congress used the taxing power to oust the States from the field of chartering banks of issue. Soon thereafter there was a uniform currency [under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913]." Report of the Commission of Intergovernmental Relations (1955), pp. 24-25.

"Every taxpayer is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction as a relator in proceedings to set sovereign authority in motion" In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.

"When a rebellion becomes organized, and attains such proportions as to be able to put a formidable military force in the field, it is usual for the established government to concede to it some belligerent rights. This concession is made in the interests of humanity, to prevent the cruelties which would inevitably follow mutual reprisals and retaliations. But belligerent rights, as the terms import, are rights which exist only during war; and to what extent they shall be accorded to insurgents depends upon the considerations of justice, humanity, and policy (dictated by the bondholders) controlling the government." Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176, 187

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

All for the Best

No man can have lived in the world, without having observed how frequently it happens, that events which, at the time they occurred, were the source of bitter disappointment, have proved very blessings to us; and that many of these things which have been most anxiously desired, but which it has pleased God to withhold from us, would have proved, if granted, the origin of endless evils. The recollection of such circumstances in our own individual case, while it renders us deeply grateful to divine providence for the past, should make us trust with perfect confidence to the same infinite wisdom for the future.

It would be difficult to find an anecdote, perhaps, bearing more strongly on what we have just observed, than one which is mentioned in the life of Bernard Gilpin, that great and good man; whose pious labors in the counties of Westmoreland, Cumberland, Northumberland, and York, at the period of the Reformation, procured for him the title by which he is still remembered in those parts, "the apostle of the north." It appears that it was a frequent saying of his, when exposed to losses or troubles, "Ah! Well; God's will be done; it is all for the best."

Towards the close of Queen Mary's reign, Bernard Gilpin was accused of heresy before the merciless Bishop Bonner; he was speedily apprehended, and he left his quiet home, "nothing doubting," as he said, "that it was all for the best," though he was well aware of what might await him; for we find him giving directions to his steward, "to provide him a long garment that he might go the more comely to the stake, at which he would be burnt."

While on his way to London, by some accident, he had a fall and broke his leg, which put a stop for some time to his journey. The persons in whose custody he was, took occasion thence maliciously to retort upon his habitual remark. "What," said they, "is this all for the best? You say, master, that nothing happens which is not for our good; think you your broken leg is so intended?"

"Sirs, I make no question but it is," was the meek reply, and so in truth it proved; for, before he was able to travel, Queen Mary died, the persecution ceased, and he was restored to his liberty and friends.

Reminiscences of Dr. Payson

The following illustration was used in familiar conversation with a friend: -- "God deals somewhat with us as we do with our children. When I am in my study, engaged in writing or meditation, if I hear one of my children cry, I do not go to it immediately. The occasion of its tears may be a mere momentary trouble, capable of being removed by others, or from which it may be diverted by some toy. But if its cry continue, and I find that nothing but my presence will pacify it, I leave every thing and go to it. So when the children of God begin to cry for His presence, He does not answer them immediately, but waits to see whether the cry is repeated; and if He finds that His child will be satisfied with nothing but his Father's presence, this Blessing will not be long withheld."

During his last illness, a friend coming into his room, remarked, familiarly, "Well, I am sorry to see you lying here on your back."

"Do you not know what God puts us on our backs for?" said Dr. Payson, smiling.

"No," was the answer.

"In order that we may look upward."

Issue the Seventeenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Scripture and The Law Merchant, Part One...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Five...

Minimum Contacts...

Winning in Court? The Pro Se Way, or How to Cook Your Goose --Their Way!!...

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, conclusion...

The History of The Law of Nature, A Law Review, Part One...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Scripture and the Law Merchant

Part One

by John Quade

Everyone who reads Our newsletter is familiar with Our stand against Christians involving themselves in commerce, or the law of the merchant, known in law as the lex mercatoria. With this article we begin a series on what Scripture has to say about the merchant and his practices.

Before we get into the study of words in the Scripture that deal with commerce, we must first understand that the nation of Israel occupied a very unique position, geographically speaking, in the plan of God.

Judea sat squarely in the middle of the land bridge that connected Asia, Africa, India, and Southern Europe and through it, passed all the trading caravans of the East. The City of Jerusalem was also uniquely located on a high plain in the center of Judea which, historically, could only be attacked by the military forces of other nations, in two ways, both of which are related to the plain that provided access to the City from the North.

There were two entrances to this plain from which an invading army could attack the City of Jerusalem. The first was relatively close to Jerusalem and was called, the north entrance. The second entrance to the plain was much further north and was called the uttermost northern entrance. From these two and only these two entrances to the plain north of Jerusalem all the armies in history have launched their attacks on Jerusalem.

Jerusalem has never been attacked from any other way than from these two northern entrances to the plain and this is why the City had, almost from the beginning of its occupation, three walls on the North side of Jerusalem, but only one wall on the East, West, and South. On the East, the City is protected by the deep gorge known as the Wadi Kidron. On the West and South are nearly impenetrable mountains. The only other way into the City from the Southwest is by a very narrow crack in the mountains which could be protected against any attack by a mere handful of men.

When the Scripture makes a prophecy against the City, it will use the well-known phrases such as; they shall come out of the North, and they shall come from the uttermost North, to denote which pass the invading armies will use to gain access to the plain. This is true, whether the army invades from a northern, eastern, southern, or western nation relative to Israel.

This extensive description of the strategic character of Jerusalem points out that whoever controls Jerusalem, controls all trade and commerce between the continents mentioned above and it also explains why the Hebrews, and later, the Jews, became so well known for their dealings in trade and commerce.

The word merchant and its related words are found in Scripture as; merchandise (22 times), merchant (12 times), merchantmen (2 times), merchants (28 times) and merchants' (1 time). In these 65 citations the words are translated from more than a dozen root words in both the Greek and Hebrew.

Merchandise

This word is translated from twelve root words, nine in Hebrew and three in Greek and is found in the following verses. Deut. 21:14, 24:7; Prov. 3:14, (twice), 31:18; Isaiah 23:18 (twice), 45:14; Ezek. 26:12, 27:9, 15, 24, 27 (twice), 33, 34, and 28:16; Matt. 22:5; John 2:16; 2 Peter 2:3; Revelations 8:11,12.

The first cite in Deuteronomy 21:14 occurs within the context of laws on how to deal with female prisoners of war. If the Israelite chose, he could take a female prisoner of war to wife after she has shaved her head, pared her nails, and dressed as a woman should (verses 10-13); and the man shall wait a period of thirty days before he marries her to give him time to cool off after she has been humbled by the shaved head, etc. The humbling changes her appearance from looking like a pagan to looking more like a Hebrew woman.

But, if he decides not to marry his female captive, he is to set her free.

"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou has humbled her."

To sell her would be to engage in a form of deceit because the former captive now looks like a Hebrew woman by virtue of the humbling process. Thus, in Deuteronomy 24:7, a Hebrew who attempts to sell another Hebrew is to suffer the death penalty, and apparently this is the reason why even a captive with the appearance of being a Hebrew is not to be made merchandise of.

The passages in Proverbs are in the context of the value of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. Here the merchandise is translated as a kind of profit derived from the receiving of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, which is more valuable than even silver and fine gold.

"For the merchandise of it (knowledge, wisdom, understanding) is better than the merchandise of silver; and the gain thereof than fine gold."

Similarly, Scripture describe the wonderful traits of a woman in Proverbs 31: 18.

"She perceiveth that her merchandise is good; her candle goeth not out by night."

Here, such a woman knows her own value and her light does not fade even in the night.

In Isaiah 23:18, the word merchandise is used twice within the context of prophecy on the city of Tyre in verses 15-17 where she is known for her merchant activities as a harlot. Later, after she has been judged and repented (Matthew Henry says this may have taken place during and after Christ) her merchandise is dedicated now to the Lord, or rather the profit from it. Such is the frugality of the Tyrians that they wear durable rather than expensive clothes and their food is less luxurious and merely abundant.

"And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord; it shall not be treasured nor laid up; for here merchandise shall be for them that dwell before the Lord, to eat sufficiently, and for durable clothing."

In the 45th chapter of Isaiah we see a prophecy concerning the people who knew not the Lord (the Gentiles, v. 5) and of their future prosperity as the Israel of God, wherein the lands of Egypt and Ethiopia bring their merchandise unto this people and pay homage to God. v. 14:

"Thus saith the Lord, The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God."

In Ezekial 26:12 is the prophecy of Tyre's destruction that precedes the prophecy in Isaiah 23.

"And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses; and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water."

In Ezekial 27:9, 15, 24, 27 (twice), 33, 34 the word merchandise is again used several times in a more detailed prophecy of the destruction of Tyre. In 28:16 violence is the fruit of much merchandise.

"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned; therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God; and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire."

In the New Testament, we find the first reference to merchandise in Matthew 22:5. Here the text occurs in the Lord's parable of the king who calls to the people to come join the marriage supper of his son,

"But they (the people) made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise;"

Later, in the same parable, these people are described as murderers because they took the servants of the king and killed them rather than hear of the coming marriage of the son. This parable is an obvious description of what the Jews would do to Christ and his disciples.

The next use of the word merchandise, is found in John 2:16. This is the famous series of verses in 2:13-17 in which Jesus drives the money changers, etc., from the Temple.

"And [He] said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence: make not My Father's house an house of merchandise."

In 2 Peter 2:3, we find Peter's sermon and prophecy on what the deceivers will do to the Christians.

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you; whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not."

Matthew Henry's Commentary on these verses is to the point when he says:

"Observe ... the method seducers take to draw disciples after them: they use feigned words; they flatter, and by good words and speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, inducing them to yield entirely to the opinions which these seducers endeavour to propagate, and sell and deliver themselves over to the instruction and government of these false teachers, who make a gain of those whom they make their proselytes, serving themselves and making some advantage of them; for all this is through covetousness, with a desire and a design to get more wealth, or credit, or recommendation, by increasing the number of their followers. The faithful ministers of Christ who show men the way of truth, desire the profit and advantage of their followers, that they may be saved, but these seducing teachers desire and design only their own temporal advantage and worldly grandeur."

Again, consistent with previous verses we have cited, we see the condemnation of the practice of making merchandise of men, but especially of Christians.

Then, in Revelations 18:11,12 we find that the word merchandise is used within the judgments pronounced on Babylon the great.

"And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her, for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble."

If, indeed, Babylon the great is the City of Jerusalem as many scholars believe, then we can well understand the reason for the merchants crying out, because with Jerusalem destroyed there is no longer a city to protect their commercial highways to all the world and such trade stops.

In closing Our exposition on the word merchandise in Scripture, the following points should be clear to all:

-First, Scripture forbids making merchandise of men and God especially forbids making merchandise of Christians, to the extent that, the penalty for making merchandise of Christians is death.

-Second, it is clear that trafficking in merchandise is not a practice that God looks upon with favor. Granted, in these verses we see that the merchandise of others, i.e., non-believers, does come into the possession of believers, but what is merchandise to the non-believer is an inheritance to God's people, since 'the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.' And since we are joint-heirs or co-inheritors with Christ, it is Our right to receive such goods, but not to engage in the practice of making merchandise of what God has given us.

In next month's part of this series, this last point will become much clearer!!

Admissions and Confessions

Part Five:

The Bankrupcy of A. Lincoln's United States

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

Mr. Trafficant was merely disclosing what had happened from the days of Lincoln, Lieber and Company. What this means is that whenever Congress, the trustee, appropriates some more of that bogus "money," the comptroller audits Congress' accounts to see if the bondholders are getting a "fair" shake from their investment in all the property of the United States. In Our Nation, notice what happened to profits during the war, and notice the advent of most of the national banking houses now existing in America:

"In 1863, Secretary Salmon P. Chase worked out with committees of Congress the third national banking system of the country.Under Chase's plan state banks could be taxed heavily upon any issue of notes they might put out [and that crossed state lines--thereby eliminating inland bills of exchange, ala Swift v. Tyson.]. While national banks were allowed to issue notes on the security of [federal] government bonds, which they might buy. The extraordinary profits of the new scheme were such that the financiers entered speedily into the national system. Most of the great banking houses of the North date their origin from the years 1863 and 1864.
At the same time the tariff was increased, and heavy internal taxes were laid in the form of excises and income taxes. The [*406] total from these sources during the war, however, was less than 700 million dollars." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 405-406.

Four years of war produced less than 700 million dollars. That's less than 170 million dollars a year against a 730 million dollar a year expense! Something had to be done to secure these bonds, and the answers are found in the word "property" and in Erie, supra.

What property was pledged to secure these bonds? What price was paid for the destruction of All Christian states in America. Well, that is very easy to see when taking into account what Judge Henry Clay Dean wrote in 1868:

"All wars of modern times have been under the control of capitalists. In Europe, the moneyed kings dictate terms to their political sovereigns, control wars and make peace. In America, the bankers contrived the late civil war. It was quite as much a scheme of money as of policy. War would not have been created if banks had refused to engage in it. It could not have been carried on, if the capital of the country had manfully opposed it.
"The liberty of the people, the peace of the world and material prosperity of the poor would have been undisturbed, and even the condition of the negro would have been better than now, but for these men.
"The capitalists and stock-gamblers of Europe, by their alliance with the political adventurers [who control the parties] of America, carefully planned this war, in the interest of despotism and the funding systems. They anticipated every argument and prepared the public mind for war in advance. During the war they prepared for the debt and continued the war, that the debt might reach its present enormous extent.
"These gamesters upon human life and public misfortune, have fattened upon the bloody conflicts of emperors and kings [the Good and Lawful Christian people in these united States], and inherit fortunes coined out of the most frightful battles of modern times. Austria, France, Prussia, and England have been fettered by the mortgages entailed by these brokers, upon their property and industry. [Land in allodium is a "has been" except by Repentance to Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Inheritance under God.]
"Such is the perfection of the conspiracy against the property of the world, entered into by these stock gamblers, that war is always precipitated upon a particular country, whenever it is believed to be ripe for revolution or fat enough to enrich the money trade. [Both of these happened to America in 1861. In fact, Lincoln's War was a revolution against Christianity in the states.]
"For the purpose of creating civil war, destroying the agriculture of the South, entailing a debt upon the People and, if possible, the utter destruction of Republican [res publica] institutions in the United States [of America], English emissaries were, by the monied interests of Europe, under religious guise, sent to America to stir up civil war. Pamphleteers added their wicked labors to the work. Sumner's celebrated visit to Europe was in the same general interest, and when Gen. James Shields of the United States army, had left the valley of the Shenandoah, Sumner assured him that he was glad that the rebels were not entirely defeated, because his great object would not be accomplished if they were. The destruction of our prosperity, the ultimatum of the stock gamblers, had not been reached. The raid of John Brown [at Harper's Ferry in Virginia] and the partizan conflicts, were but incidents in the grand purpose to create war and base a funding system upon it.
"Such has been the unbroken success of the professional mischief-makers of the world, that they have succeeded in Europe for a full half century, in fastening ruin and bankruptcy upon every sovereignty which was directed by their counsels or fell into their grasp.
"[Napoleon] Bonaparte eluded their machinations; this only provoked their wrath and drove them to the combinations which culminated at Waterloo, in the destruction of his empire and liberty.
"The Mexican War was the first game played by the American stockbrokers, upon which the general peace of the Western Hemisphere was staked and lost. The late civil war has been a success, and if the stakes are delivered up by the ruined people to the stockgamblers, permanent peace [domestic Tranquility] in the United States is gone forever.
"The successes have emboldened the stockbrokers, and given them possession of every avenue to popular favor and power. The pulpit, the press and the army, have been used as their instrument, to secure their prize in the blood market of the world. These instruments of popular favor speak of war as the only means of government to be used upon every occasion to gratify spites, to punish indignities, or secure plunder. Unless this spirit be arrested promptly, our peace [domestic Tranquility] is imperilled and will be destroyed.
"There is only one way to counteract this wicked spirit; and that, to give notice to the world that the debts contracted in such an enterprise, bind no one and cannot be collected [under the guise of "taxation"]. If it be wicked to engage in wars, it is also unjust to pay money to carry on wars; but if it be unjust to carry on wars by ready money, how much more atrocious to carry them on by anticipating the credit of generations. It is the duty of all sincere peace men to make a demonstration against this usurpation; and let it be understood that no debt made on the interest of a war of premeditated plunder, can be enforced upon a free people, or be sanctioned by the friends of peace.
"There is an Equity, which, in all public affairs, looks to the purposes, the mode and the application of monies in the creation of debts, when debts have been created in fraud, for purposes of corruption, and the parties issuing evidences of debt were particeps criminis and beneficiaries, then the question goes back to the legislatures, which must levy taxes before they can be collected. The new legislature must be elected by the people. The people of no country hasten to pay debts known to be fraudulent or unjust. Against the indiscriminate payment of no debt ever contracted, has there been so many conclusive arguments for utter repudiation as the debt now claimed by the foreign capitalists and domestic speculators, holding bonds and certificates of indebtedness against the United States, as the basis of a perpetual system of gambling upon the labor and commerce of the country.
"If it be wrong to engage in a war of unparalleled cruelty and horror, it cannot be right to compensate the worst participants in it; men whose business is to inflame wars, to fatten upon the blood of the innocent, and hoard up the treasure of hundreds of thousands of human beings, hurried into the presence of God without thought or preparation.
"What care these men--the brokers in immortal souls--for the burning of cities, barns, mills, and the desolation of whole regions of cultivated lands; with the food and raiment of decrepit old men, feeble women, and helpless children; the razing of churches and desecration of cemeteries?
"Experience for the last three centuries demonstrates that the capitalists of the world hold the peace and the destiny of nations in their hands; they create war and make peace. The superstitions of religion and the malignity of politics, are under the mercenary control of capital. The payment of this debt is a test question of civilization, which the gamblers in public stocks, watch with an intense interest, that Christians might well emulate in the propagation of the gospel.
"Wars in Europe have placed her mercenary bankers in princely opulence. They furnish the sinews of war, and command peace whenever they have sufficiently involved the imperial powers to secure an increase of annuities, and kings quiescently yield to their behests.
"These kingly brokers watch the probabilities of war with the same keen scent that vultures follow the camp of moving armies, to fatten on the offal. Such has been their success and sagacity, that whilst kings exercise arbitrary power over the lives and liberties of their subjects, by war and conscription, these bankers divide the regal power by subsidizing the labor of the subjects of kings in advance, absorbing it in taxations levied at their dictation; purchasing kings, bribing judges, suborning witnesses, entering into partnerships with legislatures, commissioning military officers, and hiring standing armies to stamp out the liberties of the people, who are forced to support all of these by taxation.
"The United States have laid the foundation for just such a comprehensive system of moneyed oligarchy. There is now thrust into our faces the frightful picture, by every newspaper under the control of capital, predictions of war, and clamoring for blood as the remedy for every trivial evil, that adventurers may reap a rich harvest from the vices of the wicked, the follies of the weak, and the general profligacy of society. Such is the spirit of fanaticism, and the maddened temper of bad men aspiring to power, that all argument is ridiculed, except that which [*236] opens up a new field of plunder, or draws new victims into the net of their insatiate lust of gain.
"If such men succeed in funding and consolidating the public debt made during the war [against Christianity], they have established a precedent which will assure them the power to incite a war at any time hereafter, when whim, interest or bad feeling may indicate either its profit or necessity. A strict and rigid settlement, according to the equities of eternal justice, is the only remedy for the great evil upon us. This is the clearest and most direct way to teach these gentlemen what they may not do, although they inflame the vilest passions of human nature into war; yet they must be taught that they cannot control the public conscience [through newspapers, television and other media] to enslave itself, and enforce perpetual bondage upon a people born free; that they cannot safely create and carry on wars, wicked and destructive in themselves, which might be averted, but for the persistent chicanery of capital, which uses all of the well known arts of diplomacy to involve the people in civil war; which, failing in every other means to precipitate their revolutionary ends upon the country, connive at war, eschew compromise, and mob and murder the friends of peace.
"The only hope of peace is in the destruction of the prosperity of mercenaries engaged in provoking civil wars [by failing to have, claim or exercise "civil rights" and paying for the "use" thereof]. He is neither an intelligent nor a true friend of peace, who will not boldly repudiate every illegal, fraudulent, and vicious claim against the labor of the people to satiate the venality of capital, fattened on blood.
"This style of mortgaging labor in anticipated taxation is a wicked device of modern times, to carry on wars of conquest, wars of subjugation, wars for plunder and wars to feed the malignity of bad men. It has never been successfully carried out to ensure more than annually accruing interest on the debt, and then only at reduced rates, and when it could be made the ministering servant of a system of aristocracy and overbearing power. Let it be an avowed article of American faith, that no war of money, no war for money can be successfully prosecuted and carried on under the auspices of a free people; henceforth capitalists will have neither the will or power to involve a peaceful people in uni- [*237] versal carnage. Such has been the work of war upon our social system, sought to be ratified by the sanction of the people in the submission to this debt, that it binds us hand and foot and adds to war slavery, to slavery in all of its concomitant degradation." Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), Crimes of the Civil War, pp. 232-237. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore:
"The obligation of the slave to work for his master was purely a legal one; an investment of money under the protection of the law. If it were a sinful one, it was the sin of the law, not of the slaveholder. This relation we have repudiated with the full sum of three thousand millions of dollars of money legally invested in this particular interest. It is true that it was argued that this system [of slavery] was oppressive; so do I argue that the debt is oppressive beyond all endurance. It is argued that slavery was unjust; so do I argue that this funding system is unjust. It is argued that the system of slavery was cruel; that it was used to enslave the [*265] poor and helpless black man. So do I argue that the present debt is used as means to enslave the poor white man with the black man, to make them both the servants of the capitalist and bondholder.
"It is emphatically presented, that the system of slavery was transmitted from the parents to innocent children yet unborn. So do I argue that the bonded system of our debt is being transmitted to innocent [future] generations, who will be stinted of sustenance in their mother's womb, and oppressed all the days of their lives, to pay the penalty of their perpetual servitude to their taskmasters. But if such a repudiation in contravention of law, may be made under the plea of military necessity for the overthrow of a written constitution [and the free government erected thereunder], how much stronger is the argument of a civil necessity, for the perpetuity of a system of free government in which the distinction between the rich and the poor shall be merely of imagination? It is argued that African slavery created an overbearing aristocracy. So we argue that the bonds [held mostly by Europeans] have created a most offensive oligarchy, that not only claims to rule society, but assumes to rule the government.
"But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who would be required to raise standing armies from their children to support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to maintain the [government] funding system.
"This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations; that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.
"This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country has not been an exception.
"In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and unscrupulous tyrants." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 264-265, 267. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

See also Christ's prophecies concerning wars and rumors of wars. These wars are all based on "the love of money [being] the root of all evil."

Judge Dean is talking about Article Four section two, Lincoln's Proclamations, the Civil Rights Acts, as amended, and the so-called Fourteenth Amendment. Those persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are all that property so described as belonging to the "United States," those empty civil rights, benefits, privileges and opportunities. Beginning with Lincoln's proclamations through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) and culminating in the so-called Fourteenth Amendment, these are the basis of the creation of the labor force in commerce needed to prop up the debt ridden system of Babylon which now rules America, made clear by Barker and Commager, and subsequent court decisions:

"Though the Emancipation Proc- lamation did not apply to the border states, nor to the 'subjugated' parts of the Confederacy, all of the border states, and also Tennessee, took action by 1865 to abolish slavery. Finally the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which became effective December 18, 1865, ended the question forever by forbidding slavery in the United States." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 409-410. [Thus it is ever plain that the policies of the postbellum amendments was carried out previous to "enactment" in law. Lincoln did a fait accompli through his proclamations to twist the arms of his Congress.]
"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711. [Emphasis added.]
"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential characteristics of the National Government [one of them being a bankrupt pauper], the provisions of the Constitution [primarily the commerce clause], or its laws [executive orders, proclamations, joint resolutions, lex mercatoria, 14 Stat. 27] and treaties [international law] made in pursuance thereof." Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135, 160.
"Where the state legislation, under its reserved power to alter and repeal charters of corporations, comes in conflict with valid treaty stipulations, and with the constitution of the United States, it is void." In re Tiburcio Parrot (1880), 1 F. 481, 482.

I should note here, that Lincoln saw his proclamations being military measures in international law, which means that any one who takes advantage of the benefits, privileges or opportunities thereunder, are impressed with a military and international character:

"The original [emancipation] proclamation has nolegal justification except as a military measure.If I take the step, must I not do so without the argument of military necessity, and so without any argument exceptthat I think the measureexpedientright? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism?Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, and even change any law in any State? Would not many of our own friends shrink away appalled? Would it not lose us the elections, and with them the very cause we seek to advance?" Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, dated September 2, 1863, from J. G. Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction (1951), p. 494, citing Works, vol. II, pp. 402-403.

Lincoln knew from his own admission that he was venturing where only despots tread, by setting up his own kingdom made in his image and likeness, known as the corporate 'United States.'

(To be continued next month)

Minimum Contacts

by Randy Lee

One of the newer fictions of 'American law' to come on the scene in recent years, to assist the 'The District of Chaldea,' (better known as Washington, D.C.) in its phony bankruptcy, is the term 'minimum contacts.' The implications of this term are quite devastating to the unsuspecting participant, to wit:

Minimum Contacts. "Sufficient contact of a nonresident natural person or a foreign corporation with a state to give that state jurisdiction over the nonresident or corporation. Minimum contacts, also called minimal contacts, is often referred to as a theory, a principle, or a test of whether a state has in personam jurisdiction, jurisdiction to tax, jurisdiction to regulate, and whether its judgments are entitled to full faith and credit. Exactly what facts constitute minimum contacts is in constant litigation under due process. E.g., a conclusion that a foreign corporation is doing business in a state is not enough to subject it to local process; there must be something 'substantial'--one of the most durable and flexible words in the legal vocabulary." "Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of precision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial's flexibility. A place for discretion." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), page 408 and 626, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California Los Angeles).

Notice in the next three cases cited, how important 'reason' is to the boys from The District of Chaldea.

Substantial evidence rule. "Under the substantial evidence rule, as applied in administrative proceedings, all evidence is competent and may be considered, regardless of its source and nature, if it is the kind of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In other words, the competency of evidence for purposes of administrative agency adjudicatory proceedings is made to rest upon the logical persuasiveness of such evidence to the reasonable mind in using it to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Chrysler Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., C.A., 631 F.2d 865, 890, 203 U.S. App.D.C. 283.
Substantially justified. "Test for whether government's litigation position is 'substantially justified' within meaning of Equal Access to Justice Act provision governing award of attorney fees is one of reasonableness, under which government is required to establish that its position has reasonable basis both in law and in fact." Russell v. National Mediation Board, C.A.Tex., 775 F.2d 1284, 1289. "Following 1985 amendments to Equal Access to Justice Act, in order to show that its position was 'substantially justified' and thus be relieved from liability for fees of a prevailing opponent, Government must show not merely that its position was marginally reasonable, but that its position was clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, and solid though not necessarily correct." U.S. v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Vernon County, State of Mo., C.A.Mo., 794 F2d 1313, 1317.

Whoa!! "Though not necessarily correct"? Sounds like 'truth' has no place in The District of Chaldea. Surprise!!!!! And as to 'reasonable,' we find 'humanity at its finest':

"Reasonable means in the law what it means in ordinary English: rational, just, fair-minded, not too much and not too little, etc. Reasonable means what you want it to mean; in the words of Ambrose Bierce, "Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion and evasion." (The Devil's Dictionary). Reasonable has no precise legal meaning. It is flexible. That is its virtue and only utility for the law." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), page 539.
Minimum Contacts. "A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

With the fact that Christians are non-residents to the foreign 'state' known as 'Washington, D.C.' or 'The United States,' it is important to not have these 'minimum contacts,' to exercise your God-given 'Right of Avoidance' of regulation, taxation, human reason, etc. If the Christian has these 'minimum contacts' with that foreign state or any other foreign state, i.e., State of California, State of New York, State of ............., County of ............, City of ............., that Christian will be looked upon as a 'natural person' (or human being) and be fully regulated thereby:

Minimum contacts. "It exists when a defendant takes purposeful and affirmative action, the effect of which is to cause business activity, foreseeable by the defendant, in the forum state." Mississippi Interstate Exp. Inc. v. Transpo, Inc., C.A. Miss., 681 F.2d 1003, 1007.
"But the basic due process question at issue in the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident is whether the non-resident has sufficient minimum contacts with the [forum] state such that the maintenance of the action against him does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." 16 Cal. Jur. 3d 143, 70, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154; Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683; Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 56 L.Ed.2d 132, 98 S.Ct. 1690 reh. den. 438 U.S. 908, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150, 98 S.Ct. 3127; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 100 S.Ct. 599; Secrest Machine Corp. v. Superior Court, 33 C.3d 664, 190 Cal.Rptr. 175, 600 P.2d 399; Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 62 L.Ed.2d 516, 100 S.Ct. 571 on remand 290 N.W.2d 633.
"In such a case, in order to comply with the due process clause, all assertions of state court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem actions, must be evaluated according to the minimum contacts standards set forth in decisions regarding in personam actions." 16 Cal.Jur.3d 450, 84, citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683.

It's quite clear from all of the above that the Christian, when 'engaged in business' within sight of the lex mercatoria, becomes susceptible to the whims of the arbitrary, capricious, and 'reasonable mind' of the secular humanists found in the 'halls of justice' in The District of Chaldea's district 'courts' and the 'courts' of the States, Counties and Municipalities, where the justice they speak of can only be found out in the halls or in their reasonable minds.

Scripture warns Us of these 'humans':

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Cor. 6:17.

Matthew Henry said of this verse, "There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolators, danger of being defiled and of being rejected; Therefore the exhortation is to come out from among them, and keep at a due distance, to be separate, as one would avoid the society of those who have the leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and not to touch the unclean thing, lest we be defiled." (by minimum contacts).

Winning in Court? The Pro Se Way!!!

How to Cook Your Goose --Their Way!!

by The King's Men

Perhaps the myth with the greatest impact on the general community of Christians is that which teaches you that you can go into the enemy's court, pro se, and fight your way to victory, and that you will then have the satisfaction of blurting out a loud blood curdling shout of, "There, I showed 'em!!!" We intend to show the fallacy and folly of such grandiose 'human' endeavors of the heathenistic, autonomous reasoning of men when engaging in the field with others of like species or genus. This may sound harsh, but harsh measures are necessary when the house is on fire and none have come to aid the fire-fighting; or, because there are those who try to put out the fire with gasoline. The following is intended for those Christians who have joined the sweeping Christian Law Awakening, which will, by the Grace of God, settle the great political question: Who is The Only True Sovereign?

They have joined the Awakening all right, but far too many are still fighting with the opposition's mindset and are using an eye-dropper to put out a four-alarm fire. Worse yet, many are fighting with 'weapons' guaranteed to 'get results' in the court to 'cook those vultures.' Many of these weapons are fashioned from ancient technology, circa 1862-1866, which has proven ineffective in the past, but which are 'improved' given a 'new look' and 're-packaged' for 'fun and profit' by the next profiteer, a.k.a. the 'patriot pirate,' at the expense of the desperate and ignorant but well-intentioned 'individual.' This has tragic results both long and short term: One, because many, if not all, of these 'packages' have no foundation in God's Law, and so tend to scatter and not gather Christians together; Two, in scattering Christians, they destroy their communities which need re-building by the sole Authority of Scripture; Three, they set individual Christians open for these patriot predators who prey on the offal of this ignorance; and Four, they tend to create individual moneyed interests and empires based on the profiteer's or 'patriot pirate's' new arbitrary 'standard' of what Law should be.

First, we'll define a few words in terms of their religious and political significance.

Person. This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving as it does, legal fictions and also apparently 'natural beings,' is difficult to understand: but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use. The words persona and personae does not have the meaning in the Roman civil law as that which attaches to homo, an individual or a man, in the English; it had a peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals. A 'person' here is not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition, or character borne by physical persons. The law of persons is the law of status or condition, to wit:
"A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his 'personality,' that is to say, the 'man-person'; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations." American Law and Procedure, Volume 13, pp. 137-162 (1910).

A few comments are needed here to explain this most important legal word 'person.' A 'person' has no physical senses and cannot physically perform to any degree in the world established by God. It needs the substance from God's world to perform, which makes it a parasite living off the host of substance, which is you, when you through ignorance, answer to it and stand surety for its obligations. Politically speaking, since the word 'person' is indicative of status or condition, by extension it is indicative of a relationship to the governmental entity which created it.

"A juristic person is domestic in the [forum] state by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 3, 7. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

When analyzing statutes which create and use 'persons,' we must look to the rules of construction so we can properly apply the above. There are three major doctrines of statutory construction, which by the way, are the same rules for interpreting Scripture.

Rule One

Noscitur a sociis. --'It is known from its associates.' "The meaning of a word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2150.
'It is known from its associates.' "The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. Under the doctrine of 'noscitur a sociis,' the meaning of questionable or doubtful words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases associated with it." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1060.
'Copulatio verborum indicat acceptationem in eodem sensu.' --Coupling of words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.

Rule Two

'Ejusdem Generis.' Lat. 'Of the same kind.' "In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, general words following an enumeration of specific things are usually restricted to things of the same kind (ejusdem generis) as those specifically enumerated." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 979. [Emphasis added.];
"Where a term has two meanings differing in the degree merely, it is to be understood in the larger sense wherever it occurs unless it appears to have been used in the narrower sense, by some form of direct expression, or from the context, the nature of the subject matter, or the res gestae. Miller v. Miller (1867) 33 Cal. 353, 355.
"Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, when enumerations by specific words or terms are used in a statute or ordinance, and they are followed by general words or terms, the general words or terms are held to refer to the same classification as the specific." Chambers v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 74 A.L.R.2d 412, 250 N.C. 194, 108 S.E.2d 211.

Rule Three

"For purposes of statutory construction, all of the statutory provisions in all of the codes must be read together and harmonized if possible." Rupley v. Johnson (1953), 120 C.A.2d 548, 261 Cal.Rptr.2d 318, 320.
"It is a well recognized rule that for purposes of statutory construction the codes are to be regarded as blending into each other and constituting but a single statute." In re Porterfield, 28 C.2d 91, 100, 168 P.2d 706, 712, 167 A.L.R. 675.

From the above references, we conclude that wherever the word 'person' is used in any particular code, rule, or regulation, it is the same 'person' in all codes, rules, regulations, and relates to all things created by that body of law. In the same vein, no one creates his own 'person.' The lawgiver creates, owns, and controls the 'person' because of the relationship of the superior establishing the status or condition of the inferior to the lawgiver. Again, from E. Hilton Young:

"If we are to consider their intentions as to the nationality of the juristic person, it seems to be at least as reasonable as any other assumption, to assume that they intended it to be domestic in the [forum] state in which it was to have its permanent home, and that its constitution and capacities, and their legal relations inter se as members, should be governed by the laws of that [forum] state. As to the intention of the [forum] state, it seems to be by far the most reasonable assumption that it is its intention that that part of its law which governs the constitution and capacities of juristic persons should of necessity be applied to those juristic persons, and those only, which have their permanent home [see 'To Be or Not to Be -- Home-less' in Issue the Sixteenth] within its (the forum state's) jurisdiction, and which thus operate under its protection and enjoy the advantages which it provides. They alone have any permanent connection with it, and constantly renew their legal relations [licenses, franchises, privileges] with its subjects and under its authority. And it is the rules of law that constitute the part in question of the law of a [forum] state relating to juristic persons, that are the personal law of a juristic person to which they apply." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, supra, p. 15. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

We can now fully agree with the following:

"...it is precisely those enterprises that are 'creatures of the law' to which the fourteenth amendment is addressed." Pollak, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity, 108 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1959).

Continuing, whenever you appear 'in propria persona,' a.k.a. 'in pro per,' you must conform to the lex fori, or 'law of the forum,' which as we have seen governs the persons, a.k.a. status or condition, entering that forum:

IN PROPRIA PERSONA. "In his own person; himself; as, the defendant appeared in propria persona; the plaintiff argued the cause in propria persona. Sometimes abbreviated on the printed court lists, P. P. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1524.

In the very first clause is contained an oxymoron and paradox. How does any one establish a relationship with himself? Because status or condition determine the person, and they imply a relationship, how does one give, create or become his own person?

The answer is, one cannot become his own person, unless, as a figment of his own imagination he presupposes that "I can do all things within myself." But, this is merely an argument in which one claims to be equal with God and is thus a sheer delusion. Conforming to the law of the forum or lex fori means reduction of status to acquire the attributes of the person sought. This is done through the metaphysical transformation of 'novation,' which removes all distinction between you and all other secular, earthly, mundane, Godless, and anti-Christian beings, or entities.

We come now to the argument of the 'pro se litigant,' which differs from the pro per argument only in the sense that a higher standard of performance is required by courts from the pro se than from the pro per.

Pro se. "For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1221.

Historically, we do not find the concept of pro se litigants before Lincoln's War. The reason is, the pro se litigant argument is only possible on the assumption that the man is acting as the advocate for his alter ego, i.e., on behalf of the fictitious person that has been created for him by the State. Thus, the pro se admits, without knowing it, that he is defending a fiction, which has only those 'rights' allowed by statute and the court, and that such a fiction is a 'person,' noticed by the court and statutes. It's impossible for the pro se litigant to challenge the jurisdiction of the court when, by his appearance, he has already granted the basic assumptions necessary for the court to acquire the jurisdiction. It's like saying; "I'm here to argue on behalf of a fiction over which the court has jurisdiction, and I want to challenge that jurisdiction over the fiction." If this doesn't make any sense to you, imagine what goes on in the mind of the judge when he hears the pro se in his court, saying, "you don't have jurisdiction, and I m not going to give it to you." Did you bring your strait-jacket with you?

The basis of the jurisdictional challenge must be, that the court has no jurisdiction over the 'person.' If such is the case, then why did the pro se even bother to show up in the court in the first place. Does one answer a phone that can't ring? Only if one believes that he hears a phone ringing, that no one else can hear. One is thus reduced to marching to the sound of a different drummer in a band that isn't playing and isn't there. Remember, the court has jurisdiction over the 'person,' not the 'surety,' until the two 'become one flesh' by appearance of the flesh. In short, this is the 'doctrine of coverture' under God, converted to the State, who then becomes your new god.

As we have pointed out elsewhere, Scripture and Christian common law deal in substance, while, on the other hand, commercial law and the acts of military governments deal exclusively, under the doctrine of necessity, in fictions that have people of substance knowingly or unknowingly standing as sureties for the God-less fictions, known as 'persons,' 'pro se litigants,' 'attorneys,' etc.

Now, imagine the quandary created by a pro se litigant who appears in a commercial court that deals only with fictitious persons, who can make no motions to move the court without admitting or sub-ordinating his substance to the person. He is subordinating his flesh and blood to the law that created the 'person,' which is no law at all.

It is ludicrous for the 'lawless' pro se litigant to attempt to bring in an argument of substance such as is found in Scripture or Christian common law, to defend a fiction in a fictitious court that has no law:

"Lawless, Lawlessness. adj. ANOMOS, without law, denotes lawless, and is so rendered in the R.V. of Acts 2:23, lawless (men), marg., (men) 'without the law,' (A.V.), 'wicked' (hands); 2 Thess. 2:8, 'the lawless one' (A.V., that wicked), 'of the man of sin' (ver.4); in 2 Pet. 2:8, of deeds (A.V., unlawful), where the thought is not simply that of doing what is unlawful, but of flagrant defiance of known will of God. See, LAW, c, no. 3. n. ANOMIA, 'lawlessness,' akin to A, is most frequently translated 'iniquity'; in 2 Thess. 2:7, R.V., 'lawlessness' (A.V., iniquity); 'the mystery of lawlessness' is not recognized by the world, for it does not consist merely in confusion and disorder (see A); the display of lawlessness by the lawless one (ver. 8) will be the effect of the attempt by the powers of darkness to overthrow the Divine[ly ordered] government [political question]. In 1 John 3:4, the R.V. adheres to the real meaning of the word, 'every one that doeth a sin (a practice, not the committal of an act) doeth also lawlessness': and 'sin is lawlessness.' This definition of sin sets forth its essential character as the rejection of the law, or will, of God and the substitution of the will of self. See INIQUITY and synonymous words." Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940), vol. II, p. 317. [Insertion added.]
"Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first spoke or wrote them." Bishop Hoadly's Sermon, preached before the King, March 31, 1717.

Clearly we can now see why judges call for the priest of the god 'science,' who is now called by the more deceitful name 'Psychiatrist,' to have the pro se litigant examined for compos mentis capacity.

Law, in its pure sense which can be easily understood, operates on the things which are created by the Law given by the Lawgiver. We have the Creation of God around us which declares this principle of Law to us. God's Law governs all that He created:

"Legis non verbis sed rebus sunt impositae. --- Laws are imposed on things and not words." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2142.

Since the law of persons is the law of status, then persons are things concerned and governed by the law creating their existence, because: One, neither a person nor a thing have a soul; and Two, without that connection to or with God, neither has access to any law outside the law creating them. For without the law, they have no existence.

"Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati. --- The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2141. And this is all important!

Because 'a person' has no access to any law outside the law creating 'it,' then no constitutional arguments can ever be raised by the person, successfully. Government is the person created by constitutions and no officer can make any arguments against the power establishing his office by using law which is not given him by the superior power. In the same vein, 'a person' created by legislation can use no law outside the law creating 'it' for any arguments against the superior power creating 'it.'

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d'autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy." Bodin, Republique, 1, Chap. 8, ed. 1629, p. 132; Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestitis, chap. 3. Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitative. Baldus, De Leg. et Const. Digna Vox, 2 ed. 1496, fol. 51b, ed. 1539. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907), 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834.
"Legislative authority of a state must be exercised within the territorial limits of the state [of the forum] and it has no extra-territorial jurisdiction." Redding v. Tinkum (1882), 9 P.C.L.J. 592.
"Courts designated by statute as proper for the trial of certain classes of actions are the only ones having jurisdiction of such actions." San Jose Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. City of San Jose (1937), 64 P.2d 1099, 19 C.A.2d 62, re. den. 65 P.2d 1324.
"The laws of a state have no extraterritorial effect." Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission of California (1920), 184 C. 26, 192 P. 1021, 12 A.L.R. 1190, error dismissed 255 U.S. 445, 41 S.Ct. 373, 65 L.Ed. 723; Wolf v. Gall (1917), 32 C.A. 286, 163 P. 346, reh g den. 32 C.A. 286, 163 P. 350; North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury (1916), 174 C. 1, 162 P. 93, L.R.A.1917E, 642.

This is the same which Christ saw when remarking that "A house divided against itself cannot stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, how then shall his kingdom stand?" The very instant you appear in 'pro per' or 'pro slave,' you become the 'real' thing and all defects in process, even if already objected to, become cured by such appearance, whether general or 'special.' Further, the courts assume the individual before them is 'the person' because the only one who can have any standing in their proceedings is the one who has an interest either in the person, the subject-matter, or the proceeding. Interest in either of the first two is submission to the cause. The last is the exercise of a visitorial power by ministerial duty to Christ, for Christ has the interest in the proceeding to ensure it is carried out according to Law. Wigmore wrote:

"Analysis of a Legal Relation. (1) A legal relation (ante, 2) may be termed a Nexus. The converse fact, i.e., that the State force will not interfere to compel or protect the parties, is a non-Nexus. Theoretically, to define the nexus is to state the law sufficiently; practically, the organs of the law are constantly stating a non-Nexus, i.e., that the State force will not interfere.
"A Nexus has two elements: the Persons, and the Interest. The Persons to a Nexus are two. From the side of the person by whom State force is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Right. From the side of the person against whom it is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Burden, Duty, Obligation, or Liability. The former person is termed Obligee, the latter Obligor." Wigmore, A Summary of the Principles of Torts, (Select Cases on the Law of Torts, vol. II, Appendix A.)
"(E)very taxpayer [statutory person] is a cestui qui trust having sufficient interest in the preventing abuse of the trust to be recognized in the field of this court's prerogative jurisdiction as a relator in proceedings to set sovereign authority in motion." In Re Bolens (1912), 135 N.W. 164.
"...in order to comply with the due process clause, all assertions of state court jurisdiction, including in rem and quasi in rem actions, must be evaluated according to the minimum contacts standards set forth in decisions regarding in personam actions." 16 Cal.Jur.3d 450, sec. 84, citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed. 683.
Minimum contacts. It exists when a defendant takes purposeful and affirmative action, the effect of which is to cause business activity, foreseeable by the defendant, in the forum state. Mississippi Interstate Exp. Inc. v. Transpo, Inc., C.A. Miss., 681 F.2d 1003, 1007. [This is done voluntarily by the defendant.]
"The source of the court's adjudicatory power, in the constitutional sense, more properly depends upon the defendant's relation to the forum, as [commercial] citizen or resident, or upon his conduct or activities in or affecting [commercial] persons or property within the forum. This is the real issue and the [court] should determine whether facts exist that constitutionally support the court's asserted jurisdiction." Gorfinkel, Special Appearance, 5 U. San. Fran. L. Rev. 25 (1970).

But this relationship is never established simply by the statute, because:

"[The] intention of one party does not make contract." Barrios & Co. v. Pettigrew (G. V.) Co. (1924), 68 C.A. 139, 228 P. 676.

Ergo, the intent of the legislature does not create the substance or surety for the 'person' defined in the statute. Voluntary appearance in and on various forms by you is necessary, for their purposes.

"Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus. --A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2153. [Emphasis added.]

It is established by those minimum contacts to which you affirm or to which you retain in relationship to the lawgiver. 'Minimum contacts' are those contacts, at the very minimum, which are enough to establish the court's jurisdiction over the person, resident address (mail box/P.O. Box), admissions, licenses, trades, occupations, employments, business, &c.

"...a court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence within the state [of the forum], except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. Shipman's Common Law Pleading (1923), Benjamin J. Shipman, p. 23. [Emphasis added.]

By appearance on paper, by attorney, or in your own behalf, submission to the cause is presumed, because the relationship both as to the 'person' and the forum, is affirmed by such appearance:

"The due process requires that relationship between a non-resident defendant and the forum state be such that it is fair and reasonable to require that defendant submit to suit in the state [of the forum]. 16 Cal.Jur.3d 143, sec. 70, citing Corneliuson v. Chaney, 127 Cal.Rptr. 352, 545 P.2d 264; Ruger v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 118 C.A.3d 427, 173 Cal.Rptr. 302.
"Quod semel placuit in electione, amplius displiciere non potest. That which in making his election a man has once been pleased to choose, he cannot afterwards quarrel with." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2159.

We conclude that if you wish to 'appear' you do so at your own risk!!!

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are His: And He changeth the times and the seasons: He removeth kings, and setteth up kings: He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: He knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." Daniel 2:20-22.
"With Him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle. He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty. He poureth contempt upon princes, and weakeneth the strength of the mighty. He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: He enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth [secular governments] and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and He maketh them to stagger like a drunken man. Job 12:18-25. [Insertion added.]

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon by John Witherspoon

(continued from Issue the Fifteenth)

Part Three of Three Parts

"The management of the war itself on their part, would furnish new proof of this, if any were needful. Is it not manifest with what absurdity and impropriety they have conducted their own designs? We had nothing so much to fear as dissension, and they have by wanton and unnecessary cruelty forced us into union. At the same time to let us see what we have to expect, and what would be the fatal consequence of unlimited submission, they have uniformly called those acts Lenity, which filled this whole continent with resentment and horror. The ineffable disdain expressed by our fellow subject, in saying, "That he would not hearken to America, till she was at his feet," has armed more men, and inspired more deadly rage, than could have been done by laying waste a whole province with fire and sword. Again, we wanted not numbers, but time, and they sent over handful after handful, till we were ready to oppose a multitude greater than they have to send. In fine, if there was one place stronger than the rest, and more able and willing to resist, there they made the attack, and left the others till they were duly informed, completely incensed, and fully furnished with every instrument of war, I mention these things, my brethren, not only as grounds of confidence in God, who can easily overthrow the wisdom of the wise, but as decisive proofs of the impossibility of these great and growing states, being safe and happy when every part of their internal polity is dependent on Great-Britain If, on account of their distance, and ignorance of our situation, they could not conduct their own quarrel with propriety for one year, how can they give direction and vigor to every department of our civil constitutions from age to age? There are fixed bounds to every human thing. When the branches of a tree grow very large and weighty they fall off from the trunk. The sharpest sword will not pierce when it cannot reach. And there is a certain distance from the seat of government, where an attempt to rule will either produce tyranny and helpless subjection, or provoke resistance and effect a separation.

I have said, if your principles are pure the meaning of this is, if your present opposition to the claims of the British ministry does not arise from a seditious and turbulent spirit, or a wanton contempt of legal authority; from a blind and factious attachment to particular persons or parties; or from a selfish rapacious disposition and a desire to turn public confusion to private profit - but from a concern for the interest of your country, and the safety of yourselves and your posterity. On this subject I cannot help observing, that though it would be a miracle if there were not many selfish persons among us, and discoveries now and then made of mean and interested transactions, yet they have been comparatively inconsiderable both in number and effect. In general, there has been so great degree of public spirit, that we have much more reason to be thankful for its vigour and prevalence, than to wonder at the few appearances of dishonesty or disaffection. It would be very uncandid to ascribe the universal ardour that has prevailed among all ranks of men, and the spirited exertions in the most distant colonies to any thing else than public spirit. Nor was there ever perhaps in history so general a commotion from which religious differences have been so entirely excluded. Nothing of this kind has as yet been heard, except of late in the absurd, but malicious and detestable attempts of our few remaining enemies to introduce them. At the same time I must also for the honour of this country observe, that though government in the ancient forms has been so long unhinged, and in some colonies not sufficient care taken to substitute another in its place; yet has there been, by common consent, a much greater degree of order and public peace, than men of reflexion and experience foretold or expected. From all these circumstances I conclude favourably of the principles of the friends of liberty, and do earnestly exhort you to adopt and act upon those which have been described, and resist the influence of every other.

Once more, if to the justice of your cause, and the purity of your principles you add prudence in your conduct there will be the greatest reason to hope, by the blessing of God, for prosperity and success. By prudence in conducting this important struggle, I have chiefly inview union, firmness, and patience. Every body must perceive the absolute necessity of union. It is indeed in every body's mouth, and therefore instead of attempting to convince you of its importance, I will only caution you against the usual causes of division. If persons of every rank, instead of implicitly complying with the orders of those whom they themselves have chosen to direct, will needs judge every measure over again, when it comes to be put in execution. If different classes of men intermix their little private views, or clashing interest with public affairs, and marshal into parties, the merchant against the land-holder, and the landholder against the merchant. If local provincial pride and jealousy arise, and you allow yourselves to speak with contempt of the courage, character, and manners, or even language of particular places, you are doing a greater injury to the common cause, than you are aware of. If such practices are admitted among us, I shall look upon it as one of the most dangerous symptoms and if they become general, a presage of approaching ruin.

By firmness and patience, I mean a resolute adherence to your duty, and laying your account with many difficulties as well as occasional disappointments. In a former part of this discourse, I have cautioned you against ostentation and vain glory. Be pleased further to observe, that extremes often beget one another, the same persons who exult extravagantly on success, are generally most liable to despondent timidity on every little inconsiderable defeat. Men of this character are the bane and corruption of every society or party to which they belong, but they are especially the ruin of an army if suffered to continue in it. Remember the vicissitude of human things, and the usual course of providence. How often has a just cause been reduced to the lowest ebb, and yet when firmly adhered to, has become finally triumphant. I speak this now while the affairs of the colonies are in so prosperous a state, lest this prosperity itself should render you less able to bear unexpected misfortunes - The sum of the whole is, that the blessing of God is only to be looked for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their own duty. I would neither have you to trust in an arm of flesh, nor sit with folded hands and expect that miracles should be wrought in your defence. - This is a sin which is in scripture stiled tempting God. In opposition to it, I would exhort you as Joab did the host of Israel, who though he does not appear to have had a spotless character throughout, certainly in this instance spoke like a prudent general and a pious man. Be of good courage, and let us behave ourselves valiantly for our people and for the cities of our God, and let the Lord do that which is good in his sight. 2 Samuel 1:12.

I shall now conclude this discourse by some exhortations to duty founded upon the truths, which have been illustrated above, and suited to the interesting state of this country at the present time; and,

1. Suffer me to recommend to you an attention to the public interest of religion, or in other words zeal for the glory of God and the good of others. I have already endeavoured to exhort sinners to repentance, what I have here in view is to point out to you the concern which every good man ought to take in the national character and manners, and the means which he ought to use for promoting public virtue and bearing down impiety and vice. This is a matter of the utmost moment, and which ought to be well understood, both in its nature and principles. Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners makes a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigour, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed. This will be found equally certain, whether we consider the great principles of God's moral government, or the operation and influence of natural causes.

What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy to God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country. Do not suppose my brethren, that I mean to recommend a furious and angry zeal for the circumstantials of religion, or the contentions of one sect with another about their peculiar distinctions. I do not wish you to oppose any body's religion, but every body's wickedness. Perhaps there are few surer marks of the reality of religion, than when a man feels himself more joined in spirit to a truly holy person of a different denomination, than to an irregular liver of his own. It is therefore your duty in this important and critical season, to exert yourselves every one in his proper sphere to stem the tide of prevailing vice, to promote the knowledge of God, the reverence of his name and worship, and obedience to His Laws.

Perhaps you will ask, what it is that you are called to do for this purpose farther than your own personal duty? I answer this itself when taken in its proper extent is not a little. The nature and obligation of visible religion is, I am afraid, little understood and less attended to.

Many from a real or pretended fear of the imputation of hypocrisy, banish from their conversation and carriage every appearance of respect and submission to the Living God. What a weakness and meanness of spirit does it discover for a man to be ashamed in the presence of his fellow sinners, to profess that reverence to Almighty God which he inwardly feels? The truth is, he makes himself truly liable to the accusation which he means to avoid. It is as genuine and perhaps a more culpable hypocrisy to appear to have less religion than you really have, than to appear to have more. This false shame is a more extensive evil than is commonly apprehended. We contribute constantly, though insensibly, to form each others character and manners; and therefore, the usefulness of a strictly holy and conscientious deportment is not confined to the possessor, but spreads its happy influence to all that are within its reach. I need scarcely add, that in proportion as men are distinguished by understanding, literature, age, rank, office, wealth, or any other circumstance, their example will be useful on the one hand, or pernicious on the other.

But I cannot content myself with barely recommending a silent example. There is a dignity in virtue which is entitled to authority and ought to claim it. In many cases it is the duty of a good man, by open reproof and opposition, to wage war with profaneness. There is a scripture precept delivered in very singular terms, to which I beg your attention; Thou shalt not hate thy brother in the heart, but shalt in any wise rebuke him, and not suffer sin upon him. How prone are many to represent reproof as flowing from ill nature and surliness of temper? The Spirit of God, on the contrary, considers it as the effect of inward hatred, or want of genuine love, to forbear reproof when it is necessary or may be useful. I am sensible there may in some cases be a restraint from prudence, agreeably to that caution of Solomon, Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you. Of this every man must judge as well as he can for himself; but certainly, either by open reproof, or expressive silence, or speedy departure from such society, we ought to guard against being partakers of other men's sins.

To this let me add, that if all men are bound in some degree, certain classes of men are under peculiar obligations to the discharge of this duty. Magistrates, ministers, parents, heads of families, and those whom age has rendered venerable, are called to use their authority and influence for the glory of God and good of others. Bad men themselves discover an inward conviction of this, for they are often liberal in their reproaches of persons of grave characters or religious profession, if they bear with patience the profanity of others. Instead of enlarging on the duty of men in authority in general, I must particularly recommend this matter to those who have the command of soldiers enlisted for the defence of their country. The cause is sacred, and the champions for it ought to be holy. Nothing is more grieving to the heart of a good man, than to hear from those who are going to the field, the horrid sound of cursing and blasphemy; it cools the ardor of his prayers, as well as abates his confidence and hope in God. Many more circumstances affect me in such a case, than I can enlarge upon, or indeed easily enumerate at present; the glory of God, the interest of the deluded sinner, going like a devoted victim and imprecating vengeance on his own head, as well as the cause itself committed to his care. We have sometimes taken the liberty to forebode the downfall of the British empire, from the corruption and degeneracy of the people. Unhappily the British soldiers have been distinguished among all the nations in Europe, for the most shocking profanity.

2. I exhort all who are not called to go into the field to apply themselves with the utmost diligence to works of industry. It is in your power by this means not only to supply the necessities, but to add to the strength of your country. Habits of industry prevailing in a society not only increase its wealth, as their immediate effect, but they prevent the introduction of many vices, and are intimately connected with sobriety and good morals. Idleness is the mother or nurse of almost every vice, and want, which is its inseparable companion, urges men on to the most abandoned and destructive courses. Industry, therefore, is a moral duty of the greatest moment, absolutely necessary to national prosperity, and the sure way of obtaining the blessing of God. I would also observe, that in this, as in every other part of God's government, obedience to His Will is as much as natural mean, as a meritorious cause of the advantage we wish to reap from it. Industry brings up a firm and hardy race. He who is inured to the labour of the field, is prepared for the fatigues of a campaign. The active farmer who rises with the dawn and follows his team or plow, must in the end be an overmatch for those effeminate and delicate soldiers, who are nursed in the lap of self-indulgence, and whose greatest exertion is in the important preparation for, and tedious attendance on, a masquerade, or midnight ball.

3. In the last place, suffer me to recommend to you frugality in your families, and every other article of expense. This, the state of things among us renders absolutely necessary, and it stands in the most immediate connection both with virtuous industry, and active public spirit. Temperance in meals, moderation and decency in dress, furniture and equipage, have, I think, generally been characteristics of a distinguished patriot. And when the same spirit pervades a people in general, they are fit for every duty, and able to encounter the most formidable enemy. The general object of the preceding discourse has been the wrath of man praising God. If the unjust oppression of your enemies, which withholds from you many of the usual articles of luxury and magnificence, shall contribute to make you clothe yourselves and your children with the works of your own hands, and cover your tables with the salutary productions of your own soil, it will be a new illustration of the same truth, and a real happiness to yourselves and your country.

I could wish to have every good thing done from the purest principles and the noblest views. Consider, therefore, that the Christian character, particularly the self-denial of the gospel, should extend to your whole deportment. In the early times of Christianity, when adult converts were admitted to baptism, they were asked among other questions, Do you renounce the world, its shews, its pomp, and its vanities? I do. The form of this is still reserved in the administration of baptism, where we renounce the devil, the world, and the flesh. This certainly implies not only abstaining from acts of gross intemperance and excess, but a humility of carriage, a restraint and moderation in all your desires. The same thing, as it is suitable to your Christian profession, is also necessary to make you truly independent in yourselves, and to feed the source of liberality and charity to others, or to the public. The riotous and wasteful liver, whose craving appetites make him constantly needy, is and must be subject of many masters, according to the saying of Solomon, The borrower is servant to the lender. But the frugal and moderate person, who guides his affairs with discretion, is able to assist in public counsels by a free and unbiased judgment, to supply the wants of his poor brethren, and sometimes, by his estate, and substance, to give important aid to a sinking country.

Upon the whole, I beseech you to make a wise improvement of the present threatening aspect of public affairs, and to remember that your duty to God, to your country, to your families, and to yourselves, is the same. True religion is nothing else but an inward temper and outward conduct suited to your state and circumstances in providence at any time. And as peace with God and conformity to Him, adds to the sweetness of created concerts while we possess them, so in times of difficulty and trial, it is in the man of piety and inward principle that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier.-

God grant that in America, true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable, and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.

THE END.

The History of The Law of Nature:

A Preliminary Study

A Law Review by Frederick Pollack

The following is Part One by noted jurist Frederick Pollack from the Columbia Law Review, Volume II, March, 1902. Part Two will appear in Issue the Twentieth. It is an excellent example of the 'autonomous reasoning' of humanists dictating what their 'law' is or should be. Note the definition of 'reasonable' on Page four.

In the domain of private law the ideas of reasonableness and natural justice, which do not the less belong to the Law of Nature because they have been called by different names at different times, leapt into fresh activity, and created or largely modified whole bodies of doctrine. Later, by a process which at first sight looks paradoxical, the same ideas became the vehicle for spreading the distinctive principles and methods of the Common Law in lands where it did not and could not formally claim any jurisdiction. We shall now try to follow the Law of Nature in these several careers of conquest, of which some at least are far from being closed.

International Law. With regard to International Law, it is notorious that all authorities down to the end of the eighteenth century, and almost all outside England to this day, have treated it as a body of doctrine derived from and justified by the Law of Nature. There has been a certain divergence of opinions on the question whether the law is established by the reason of the thing alone--natura rationalis, as Grotius says--or by the actual usage of civilized nations. But this divergence is really more in expression than in any fundamental conception. It was never asserted by the most zealous advocate of the Law of Nature that an individual opinion of what is just can, as such, make a general rule. Here, as elsewhere, we must apply the principle of Aristotle, and deem that to be reasonable which appears so to competent persons. There must be a competent and prevalent consent, and the best evidence of such consent is constant and deliberate usage. Discordant opinions as to what is right or convenient could never produce a uniform accepted usage, as, on the other hand, no other reason can be assigned for the general acceptance of certain usages by independent States than that they are generally believed to be convenient and just. In fact, the elements of reason and custom have been recognized by the highest authorities as inseparable, and strengthening one another. Thus the English law officers (among whom Lord Mansfield, then Solicitor-General, took the leading part) wrote in their celebrated opinion in the case of the Silesian Loan that the law of nations is "founded upon justice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage." Holliday's Life of William Earl of Mansfield, London, 1797, pp.428 et seq. In the very infancy of the doctrine Alberico Gentili, while he declared that the ius gentium applicable to the problems of war was identical with the Law of Nature, and claimed for it the authority of absolute reason, also vouched the continuing and general consent of mankind to witness it; not an imaginary consent of all men living at any one time, but an agreement constant and prevalent--in fact, quod successive placere omnibus visum est. For all practical purposes we may define International Law, with the late Lord Russell of Killowen, as "the sum of the rules or usages which civilized States have agreed shall be binding upon them in their dealings with one another," remembering, however, that the agreement need not be formal or express. Such rules may, of course, be modified, generally or partially, by convention or usage, (see per Lord Stowell, The Santa Cruz, 1 Rob Adm. at p.58) in any manner consistent with the objects for which the law of nations exists (all moralists allow that in some cases it is better, or less bad, to break an agreement that ought never to have been made than to perform it). This is not only required by convenience, but wholly in accordance with the doctrine of the Law of Nature as received in the Middle Ages, which expressly admitted the validity of positive rules and conventions not contrary to fundamental principle. If any one ever did want to lay down a dogmatic and immutable code of Naturrecht, it was not the school men, but the utilitarians.

Some English writers, and even one or two eminent judges, have rather superfluously protested that the opinions of text-writers cannot make law for nations. It is certain, as Lord Stowell pointed out, that they cannot; but the consensus of authors of good repute, or even the clear statement of one eminent author, may be taken as evidence of the accepted practice where practice is not shown to be otherwise. "Vattel" said Lord Stowell in a leading case on the right of visit and search, "is here to be considered, not as a lawyer merely delivering an opinion, but as a witness asserting the fact--the fact that such is the existing practice of modern Europe." The Maria, 1 Rob. at p. 363. The Paquete Havana, The Lola (1899) 175 U.S. 677, 700. It is equally plain that no State can maintain claims to exercise a novel jurisdiction over citizens of other States by appealing to the Law of Nature in the sense of the opinion entertained by itself alone of what is right and convenient in the case. An argument really of this kind was urged with great ability and eloquence, but without success, by the counsel for the United States in the Bering Sea arbitration. All this, again, is in strict agreement with the general principles of natural law. No particular opinion of this or that learned person, much less of an interested party, can make that reasonable which is not acceptable as such to the general opinion of civilized mankind.

In this country questions of International Law have mostly arisen in Admiralty jurisdiction, and our classical authorities consist to a great extent of Lord Stowell's judgments on points arising out of the exercise of belligerent rights at sea in the war against the French Republic and Empire. There is no doubt whatever as to the kind of law that Lord Stowell thought he was administering. It was ius gentium in the fullest sense, a body of rules not merely municipal, but cosmopolitan. For him the Court of Admiralty was a court of the law of nations, and of the law of nations only, not intended to carry into effect the municipal laws of this or any other country. "The seat of judicial authority is locally here, in the belligerent country, according to the known law and practice of nations, but the law itself has no locality." The Maria, 1 Rob. 341, 350. As for the opinion that nations are bound by the law of treaty only, and there is no other law of nations but that which is derived from positive compact and convention, Lord Stowell rejected it as fit only for Barbary pirates. The Helena, 4 Rob. 7. We must either admit that modern International Law is law founded on cosmopolitan principles of reason, a true living offshoot of the Law of Nature, or ignore our own most authoritative expositions of it. In fact, these utterances have been utterly ignored, so far as I know, by English publicists of the extreme insular school.

Some of the humanistic subjects covered by Frederick Pollack in Part Two in Issue the Twentieth will be: 'Natural Justice in the modern Common Law,' 'The Law Merchant,' 'The Common Counts,' 'The Reasonable Man,' and 'Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.'

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Præmunire

Præmunire. "An offence against the king and his government, though not subject to capital punishment. So called from the writ which issued preparatory to the prosecution: "Præmunire facias A,B. quod sit coram nobis," etc.; The statutes establishing this offense, the first of which was made in the thirty-first year of the reign of Edward I., were framed to encounter the papal usurptions in England; the original meaning of the offense called "præmunire" being the introduction of a foreign power into the kingdom, and creating imperium in imperio, by paying that obedience to papal process which constitutionally belonged to the king alone. The penalties of præmunire were afterwards applied to other heinous offenses." 4 Bl. Comm. 103-117; 4 Steph. Comm. 215-217.

"It is clearly agreed, that a person attainted in a præmunire can bring no action whatsoever; neither is it safe for any one, knowing him to be guilty, to give him any aid, comfort, or relief." Matthew Bacon's 'Abridgement of the Law,' (1876), Vol. 7, page 693.

"The defendant in a præmunire must regularly appear in person and not by attorney, whether he be a peer or a commoner, unless he is dispensed with by some writ or grant for that purpose." 3 Inst. 125.

"It is said by Jacob to be a corruption of præmoneri, to be forewarned, citing Du Cange." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2651.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

To a Mother

You have a child on your knee. Listen a moment. Do you know what that child is? It is an immortal being; destined to live for ever! It is destined to be happy or miserable! And who is to make it happy or miserable? You--the mother! You, who gave it birth, the mother of its body, are also the mother of its soul, for good or ill. Its character is yet undecided; its destiny is placed in your hands. What shall it be? That child may be a liar. You can prevent it. It may be a drunkard. You can prevent it. It may be a thief. You can prevent it. It may be a murderer. You can prevent it. It may be an atheist. You can prevent it. It may live a life of misery to itself and mischief to others. You can prevent it. It may descend into the grave with an evil memory behind and dread before. You can prevent it. Yes, you, the mother, can prevent all these things. Will you, or will you not? Look at the innocent! Tell me again; will you save it? Will you watch over it, will you teach it, warn it, discipline it, subdue it, pray for it? Or will you in the vain search of pleasure, or in gaiety, or in fashion or folly, or in the chase of some other bauble, or even in household cares, neglect the soul of your child, and leave the little immortal to take wing alone, exposed to evil, to temptation, to ruin? Look again at the infant! Place your hand on its little heart! Shall that heart be deserted by its mother, to beat perchance in sorrow, disappointment, wretchedness, and despair? Place your ear on its side and hear that heart beat! How rapid and vigorous the strokes! How the blood is thrown through the little veins! Think of it; that heart, in its vigor now, is the emblem of a spirit that will work with ceaseless pulsation, for sorrow or joy forever.

Power of the Gospel

The scruple is often heard, and sometimes from good men who have taken but short views on this subject, "What, after all, can you accomplish? Iniquity abounds, and the wicked seem to multiply and wax bolder!" True, sadly true; but they fail to inquire, what would the world become, without restraints? abandoned to its chosen course, and the rein of indulgence thrown on the neck of every passion? The Christian religion is healthy and purifying, and wherever it is inculcated, it will be to substantial purpose. It is adopted to the temporal, intellectual, and moral wants of our race; it harmonizes with the constitution of our physical and moral nature, and if its influences ever become disastrous, it is because by perverting it we have made them such. There is nothing in all the united universe that can so elevate and refine the soul. Take the most degraded from the haunts of vice, and let the spirit of God seal the gospel in his heart, in the assurance that the Lord waits to be gracious,, and notwithstanding all his vileness, will be reconciled, and remit all, and forgive all his rebellion and ingratitude; and his soul rises at the blessed thought; his bosom will begin to expand with noble impulses, as the love of God in the great scheme of redemption warms his soul. Now he hates his chains, abhors his vileness; his spirit breaks away from his bondage, and he rises to the liberty and purity of the sons of God. There is an energy and power in crucified love, that when it beams on the soul, melts and humbles, and exalts it. Such sympathies felt, and such sacrifices made for this living mysterious faculty within me. Heaven and earth moved in concert for the immortal principle that beats and breathes here! Ah, exclaims the conscious sinner, I will revere my being! -- I will cherish my hopes! This mighty motive will bring a world of rebellion to submission and obedience, in filial confidence and love.

Issue the Eighteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Serving Two Masters...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Six...

Scripture and the Law Merchant, Part Two ...

The Origin of Today's "Property Tax"...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Serving Two Masters

by Randy Lee

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mat. 6:24.

Matthew Henry said of this verse;

"We must take heed of hypocrisy and worldlymindedness in choosing the master we serve. v. 24. No man can serve two masters. Serving two masters is contrary to the single eye; for the eye will be to the master's hand. Ps. 123:1, 2. Our Lord Jesus here exposes the cheat which those put upon their own souls, who think to divide between God and the world, to have a treasure on earth, and a treasure in Heaven too, to please God and please men too. Why not? says the hypocrite; it is good to have two strings to one's bow. They hope to make their religion serve their secular interest, and so turn to account both ways. The pretending mother was for dividing the child; the Samaritans will compound between God and idols. No, says Christ, this will not do; it is but a supposition that gain is godliness, 1 Tim. 6:5. Here is,
1. A general maxim laid down; it is likely it was a proverb among the Jews, No man can serve two master, much less two gods; for their commands will some time or other cross or contradict one another, and their occasions interfere. While two masters go together, a servant may follow them both; but when they part, you will see to which he belongs; he cannot love, and observe, and cleave to both as he should. If to the one, not to the other; either this or that must be comparatively hated and despised. This truth is plain enough in common cases.
2. The application of it to the business in hand. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. Mammon is a Syriac word, that signifies gain; so whatever in this world is, or is accounted by us to be, gain (Phil. 3:7), is mammon. Whatever is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is mammon. To some their belly is their mammon, and they serve that (Phil. 3:19); to others their ease, their sleep, their sports and pastimes, are their mammon (Prov. 6:9); to others worldly riches (James 4:13); to others honors and preferments; the praise and applause of men was the Pharisees' mammon; in a word, self, the unity in which the world's Trinity centres, sensual, secular self, is the mammon which cannot be served in conjunction with God; for if it be served, it is in competition with Him and in contradiction to Him. He does not say, We must not or we should not, but we cannot serve God and Mammon; we cannot love both (1 John 2;15; James 4:4); or hold to both, or hold by both in observance, obedience, attendance, trust, and dependence, for they are contrary the one to the other. God says, "My son, give me thy heart." Mammon says, "No, give it to me." God says, "Be content with such things as you have." Mammon says, "Grasp at all that ever thou canst. Rem, rem, quocunque modo rem - Money, money; by fair means or by foul, money." God says, "Defraud not, never lie, be honest and just in all thy dealing." Mammon says, "Cheat thy own Father, if thou canst gain by it." God says, "Be charitable." Mammon says, "Hold thy own: this giving undos us all." God says, "Be careful for nothing." Mammon says, "Be careful for every thing." God says, "Keep holy thy sabbath-day." Mammon says, "Make use of that day as well as any other for the world." Thus inconsistent are the commands of God and Mammon, so that we cannot serve both. Let us not then halt between God and Baal, but choose ye this day whom ye will serve, and abide by our choice. Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (1706) Vol. 5, pp.65 and 66.

What does the law say about serving two masters?

"Each principal is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters.'" Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202.

Christians are slaves or bondservants of Jesus Christ, and therefore are bound by the same law.

And, as far as serving mammon:

"BAAL. (Heb.)--lord; master; possessor; owner; guardian; a husband; Jove; Jupiter; the sun.a generic term for God in may of the Syro-Arabian languages.
"Chief male deity of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Ashtoreth was their principal female deity (Judg. 2:13). The worship of Baal was directed to Jovis, Jupiter, or the Sun as the guardian and giver of good fortune, prosperity, and abundance.
"Meta. Baal means lord, and it was the besetting sin of the ancient Hebrews to apply this title to things formed instead of the formless. This tendency is still prevalent, and not merely among the Hebrews.
"All concepts of God as less than universal mind are Baal. Those who believe in a personal god are Baal worshippers, because they make an image of that which is 'without body, parts, or passions.' They should learn to go back of the realm of things, that they may come in touch with God, who is Spirit, mind, cause, omnipresence.
"Baal worship was a form of nature worship. All people who study materiality and seek to find in it the source of existence are sacrificing to Baal. This is strictly intellectual. But there are those on the soul plane who think that they are spiritual because they feel the throb of nature and join in all her moods. They are closely allied to the whirling dervish, and dissipate their soul substance in the various forces of nature with which they are in love. Such persons must do away with this Baal worship and call upon the life-fire of the Spirit to consume every material phase of sacrifice.
"Baalim and Asheroth represent nature in its various sensuous aspects. 'All the host of heaven (see Deut. 4:19 and 17:3) are the sun, moon, and stars and the twelve signs of the zodiac. When we fall into the evils of Manasseh (II Chron. 33:1-13) we think that the planets and stars rule over us and that it is necessary to pay them a certain degree of homage or worship because of their influence. Some people in this day have great faith in their 'ruling planets,' and think that they are bound to certain traits of character because they were born when those sidereal bodies were in the ascendancy. They are forgetful of the God power within them, and so are brought into condemnation.
"The Manasseh mentality usually goes from one step of Baalim worship to another, until it exhausts them all. Luck, chance, sorcery, familiar spirits, and wizardry are some of the avenues through which the Manasseh mind attempts to regulate its life. Astrology, palmistry, the guidance of spirits, mesmerism, hypnotism, are some of the many modern forms of denial of God. Indulged in for a time they lead the negative mind into deeper and deeper bondage, until the transgressed law reacts upon the transgressor and he is put 'in chains' and bound 'with fetters' and carried away to Babylon, or utter confusion. The way of escape is through prayer to God and return to His 'city of peace' within the soul, Jerusalem." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

And, the 'good intentions' of false masters:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster.

In 1868, Judge Henry Clay Dean warned of the new 'masters' waiting in the wings, better known as 'bondholders':

"Just here the tax list ends, as it reaches the mortgagor, the bondholder who owns the mortgage remainder of the real estate, and received the tax lists, stamp duties, excise and tariffs, to pay up the interests accruing upon the mortgage notes.
"This gentleman is our master, who has so long reveled in wealth that he does not know his own slaves when he meets them abroad, and has not for them that affection which association, responsibility, and interest given to the ordinary master. These are our untitled nobility. They are destitute of employment, indeed, they need no employment, every man who wields a plow, spade, anvil, loom or machinery of any kind, is his servant. Every woman who superintends a kitchen, garden, or boardinghouse, hands over to the bondholder all her surplus earnings after making daily tributes upon the necessaries of life, enjoying no luxuries for herself. The bondholder sits like a blind beggar by the way-side, shuts his eyes, extends his hands and cries of each one passing, in his piteous tones, 'can't you give a poor man a penny.' Lamartine, Kossuth, O'Connell, and all the renowned beggars, public and private, of modern times, in presenting the wants, claims, and necessities of themselves, or the mendicant whom they represent, are not to be compared with these indigent, honest, disinterested, patriotic, nay, more,--philanthropic bondholders.
"The tariff upon food, raiment, medicines, and all that we necessarily use, is a system of allowance as exact but more stinted, that has ever been imposed upon any laboring slaves, and when labor itself gives out, the laborer no longer of service to his master, is carted to the alms house, where his allowance [Social Security check, unemployment compensation, welfare checks] and helplessness are complete.
"Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. The laboring masses are allowed to vote, but if he is a tenant, the landlord controls his vote or ousts him. If he is a laborer, the employer follows him to the polls, examines his ticket, puts a spy upon his track, and dismisses him for an attempt to vote against his will.
"[*330] If he is an operative, the manufacturer notifies him that all the hands are expected to vote the ticket of the proprietor, upon penalty of loss of employment.
"If he is a house or body servant, he is disposed of in a more summary manner.
"The bank holds the same rod in quiet ways over its debtors, endorsers, and dependencies, who are expected to sustain the power that sustains them. The control is as complete over the polls as was ever held by Spartan over helot, by Jew over bondman, by Russian over serf, by master over slave.
"The footprints of the master precedes the slave into legislative halls, where he assumes the arrogant airs and commands in the same authoritative tones. Here the people's servants are bought with their own money, to betray their sacred trust, and add a new thread to the screw to press them down, or remove a link to shorten the chain which will bind them more closely to the car-wheel of oppression.
"In the court, the Judge is overawed with social proscription or sweetened with presents which could not be taken by an honest judiciary, or be given in evidence as bribes.
"Like courts, juries, misdirected by judges and overawed or corrupted by capital, or failing in this, attorneys are bought up, witnesses are intimidated or corrupted, until the slave suitor gladly abandons his [rightful and legal] claim and leaves the court in disgust [and frustration]. The failure of one discourages the rest, and capital as thoroughly subdues the contestant, as the master would subjugate his slave by the bludgeon or cat o' nine tails.
"Such is the multiform slavery of Americans by this debt, that every element of servitude has been transferred from the worst European governments to our American system.
"The Austrian and Prussian, flying [fleeing] from Provost Marshals, military government, arbitrary power and oppressive taxation, to preserve the credit of the reigning tyrant, comes to America to be greeted by all the odious appendages from which he has fled in Europe.
"The Irishman flies [flees] to escape a government made up of spies, adventurers and domestic enemies, to see the same style of government revived in the United States.
"[*331] Military establishments to suppress free enquiry, are the accompaniment of this style of government, which are always necessary to collect taxes and transfer the lands when the mortgages are foreclosed to secure the payment of taxes.
"Is this not slavery, or is it robbery, which takes your labor before it has been reduced to money, by levying taxes which must be deducted from your crops, in tariffs which must be paid in the purchase of your food and raiment? What is taxation without an equivalent, but rents? What are tariffs but subsidies, and what is slavery but the exactions of tariffs and taxes, which consume your labor and the time employed? What is transmitted debt but transmitted slavery, in its most deceitful form, against which philosophers have denounced as cruel and unjust; for the relief of which genius has no invention and industry no power?
"To free the country of these tariffs and relieve it of this taxation, and emancipate ourselves from the crushing weight of this exhausting and exhaustless slavery, is the primary and overshadowing necessity of our political and social existence." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, (1868) p. 328-331.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Six:

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Seventeenth)

It should be noted that the "privileges" arise from "private law" and are handled privately by international law administered by the military when dealing with the national government, because equal rights to make equal profits, from equally dispensed benefits exists solely in commerce, which the military power is and was pledged to protect:

"Privilegium est quasi privata lex --A privilege is, as it were, a private law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim", p. 2155.
"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law [not Law] [*330] by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.
"In order that the army or navy regulations should have the force of law they must not contravene the existing statutory law, but must be consistent therewith. U.S. v. Symonds, 120 U.S. 46, 7 S.Ct. 411, 30 L.Ed. 557; U.S. v. Webster, 26 F.Cas.No. 16,658, 2 Ware 46; Roberts v. U.S., 44 Ct.Cl. 411; Adams v. U.S., 42 Ct.Cl. 191." 5 C.J. 297.

So, all the "Congress" does is re-write the statutes to make and allow the administration of 'civil affairs' easier to manage by the military arm to collect revenue to pay the bonds--it still looks like law, and the badges worn look real, and they talk like they are the law and, etc. And it enlarged the commercial business of the federal courts at the same time, because now the debt of allegiance was between the executive branch from the proclamations of September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended; and, the so-called Fourteenth Amendment of which the courts take notice of the political acts of the political departments of government, but Christians forgot to take notice any of this because they began filing Title 42 "civil rights" suits, and followed a god unknown to them and certainly not recognized by the One Only True God:

"DEBTOR. One who owes a debt; he who may be compelled to pay a claim or demand. Anyone liable on a claim whether due or to become due. Cozart v. Barnes, C.C.A.S.C., 240 F. 935, 938.
"The term may be used synonymously with 'obligor,' 'mortgagor,' and the like. McDuffie v. Faulk, 214 Ala. 221, 107 So. 61, 62." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 492. [Emphasis added.] [All Good and Lawful Christians are obligors to Christ, because He paid the price for all of them.]
"The condition of peace or war, public or civil, in a legal sense, must be determined by the political department of the government, and the courts are bound by that decision." U.S. v. One Hundred Twenty Nine Packages (1862), Fed.Cas.No. 15,941.
"The recent case of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 58 S.Ct. 817, April 25, 1938, in overruling Swift v. Tyson (1842), 16 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 865, holds that the (legislative) federal courts must follow state rules and decisions in cases where federal citizenship [created by the aforementioned acts] is invoked solely because of diversity of citizenship. This holding has been repeated and reiterated in Ruhlin v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 203, 82 L.Ed. 1290, 58 S.Ct. 860; Rosenthal v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 263, 82 L.Ed. 1330, 58 S.Ct. 874; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 304 U.S. 261, 82 L.Ed. 1329, 58 S.Ct. 871, all decided in May, 1938." Hagendorn, The Law of Suretyship and Guaranty (1938), 35, pp. 26-27.
"For all the gods [secular magistrates, judges, ad nauseam] of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens." Ps 96:5.
"And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries [enticements of benefit, privilege, gain, advantage]. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods [by granting "civil rights" through the waging of war against Christians], and shall prosper [because of the funding system created] till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces [fate, chance, "military necessity"]: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things [commerce]. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain [revenue districts]." Dan 11:33-39. [This describes the eversor Abraham Lincoln, the first Hun in America. Christians were deluded by this anti-Christian man. The god he followed is the god followed by any one who files a Title 42 suit.]

This is the equity to which the Progress Development Corporation case is referring. The equity exists between the 'obligor-franchisee,' civil rights acceptor, and 'obligee-franchisor,' the de facto government of Abraham Lincoln.

Coincidentally, the interstate and foreign commerce of America, all in international law, picked up during and after Lincoln's War because of the expanded 'human resources' now available:

"Earlier methods furnished a model for later business development. By 1860 nearly all the basic elements of modern 'big business' had come into operation. The agricultural yield [commercial] had been greatly enlarged by increased population, increased acreage, and improved farm [commercial] implements. Manufacturing had passed definitely into the factory state, and the output of American factories was supplying the greater part of the domestic need, as well as the foreign demand for certain sorts of machinery--notably sewing machines and harvesting machinery. Commerce and trade in the products of farm and factory were stimulated and made easy by the opening up of more extensive transportation systems, by the rapid spread of the telegraph system, by the increasing formation of stock companies to finance large enterprises, and by the multiplication of banks.
"Business of the future was to deal in larger units than those of this earlier period, but its basic elements and the agencies through which it was to operate were developments and adaptations of these earlier methods rather than new inventions.
"The War between the North and the South aided business. As we have already seen the War between the North and the South caused great and rapid expansion in all forms of industry and business in the North. Farms and factories had to supply the needs of the armies. Mines and furnaces had to furnish material for building engines and rolling stock and for the rapidly lengthening railroad mileage.
"The discovery of new resources of oil, coal, and iron ore; the rapid expansion of our foreign commerce; and the creation of the national banking system all furnished new opportunities for speculation and for profits. [Shows the false bottom of Lincoln's world which exists today.] The tremendous expansion thus begun in the later 1860's continued through the first third of the twentieth century.
"The national banking system was inaugurated by Congress in 1863 chiefly to restore order to the currency. By this law, a bank wishing to issue notes must first buy government bonds and deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States. It could then issue bank notes to the value of the bonds, which were held by the government as security. Thus the notes were safe. In order to make them more secure and give them ready circulation, the law required each bank to keep in its vaults a certain amount of specie with which to redeem its notes on demand.
"The important banking tendencies in the twentieth century were the decrease in the great number of banks, the concentration of banking capital in a small number of banks in the large cities, and extension of banker control over industry, business, and transportation. [Which gives the president more control over it through the interstate commerce clause.]
"Regulation of business began in the states. The story of the regulation of business in the United States began in the states. By 1890 twenty-seven states and territories had taken steps to curb business combinations and break up trusts. State regulation of business, however, shortly proved ineffective. It was ineffective for two main reasons. In the first place, the larger business corporations that arose after the War between the North and the South were interstate in character. Incorporated [*519] in only a single state, they did business in several states--sometimes in all the states. This made regulation by a single state very difficult. In the second place, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution made the federal government the protector of the rights and property of 'persons'--which included corporations. A great deal of state legislation fixing rates or charges or hours of labor was declared void by the courts on the ground that it deprived such corporate 'persons' of rights or property [mere fiction denoting interests] contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of these two factors, the task of regulating business and transportation companies had to be assumed by the federal government." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 500-502. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Along with the increase of foreign and domestic commerce, the creation of a national banking system, and the creation of "civil rights", the revenues of the Federal government increased, because a new labor pool under the newly created "civil rights" existed, which could be tapped at will, to begin making those payments to the bondholders, noted by our esteemed Brother Henry Clay Dean:

"Legislative grants are contracts within the obligation clause of the Constitution." Blease v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co., 144 S.E. 233, 239.
"Franchise is a contract." City of Niles v. Michigan Gas and Electric, 262 N.W. 900, 902, 273 Mich. 255.
"Franchises are privileges derived from the Government, vested in either individuals or private or public corporations, and are of various kinds
"The grant of a franchise is in the nature of a vested right of property; subject, however, in most cases, to the performance of conditions and duties on the part of the grantees. They generally involve important duties of a public character, often onerous upon the grantees. They are necessarily exclusive [private] in their character, otherwise their value would be liable to be destroyed, or seriously impaired. So long as the grantee fulfills the conditions and performs the duties imposed upon him by the terms of the grant, he has a vested right which cannot be taken away, or otherwise impaired by the Government, any more than other property." California State Telegraph Co. v. Alta Telegraph Co. (1863) 22 Cal. 398, 422. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"A franchise is bi-lateral in nature and imposes obligations [debts] while conferring rights [privileges], so that acceptance is necessary to prove that grantee has undertaken those obligations [debts]." Greenberg v. City of New York, 274 N.Y.S. 4. [Obligations are debts--see DEBTOR, ante.]
"Where the power of taxation exercised by Congress, is warranted by the Constitution, as to mode and subject [its own legislated civil rights], it is necessarily, unlimited in its nature. Congress may prescribe the basis [its own legislated civil rights], fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government [Actions involving taxes are heard either in the Tax Court, or Federal District courts, both creations of "Congress."]." Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule (18__), 7 Wall 433, 19 L.Ed. 95, 98. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"The taxing power is given in the most comprehensive terms. The only limitations imposed are: that direct taxes, including the capitation tax shall be apportioned; that duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform; and that no duties shall be imposed on articles exported from any State. With these exceptions, the exercise of the power is, in all respects, unfettered." ibid. at page 99.
"FUNDS. Cash on hand: as, A B in in funds to pay my bill on him. Stocks: as, A B has one thousand dollars in the funds. By public funds is understood the taxes, customs, etc., appropriated by the government for the discharge of its obligations.
"In England 'The Funds' are synonymous with 'Government Funds,' or 'Public Funds;' 5 H.L.C. 280; and generally mean funded securities guaranteed by the English government; 27 L.J.Ch. 448; but do not include foreign bonds guaranteed by England; 2 Coll. 324; nor bank stock; 7 H.L.C. 273." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1324. [Emphasis added.]

Which means that those engaged in swollen commerce, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," are now in a class titled "taxpayers"; and, are the ones to whom this bankruptcy applies, because the United States went into bankruptcy to give the benefit of the protection of the "military power of the executive branch" which gave the "civil rights" these commercial persons and the other "low and lawless" created by Congressional legislation and their licensed "interests," under commercia belli contracts:

"The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States [Lincoln's de facto government]. They are under a duty to support the government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power." Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938), 304 U.S. 405, 58 S.Ct. 969, 82 L.Ed. 1427.
"American citizenship implies not only rights but also duties, not the least of which is the payment of taxes." U.S. v. Lucienne D'Hotelle de Benitez Rexach (1977), 558 F.2d 37. [See also Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444, 68 L.Ed. 895 & United States of America v. Slater (1982), 545 F.Supp. 179, 182.]
"COMMERCIA BELLI. War contracts. Contracts between nations at war, or their subjects.
"Agreements entered into by belligerents, either in time of peace to take effect in the event of war, or during the war itself, by which arrangement is made for non-hostile intercourse. They may take the form of armistices, truces, capitulations, cartels [industry sectors, free mail delivery on a post route], passports [immigration entry], safe-conducts [driver's license], safeguards. 1 Kent 159; 2 Opp. 274.
"Contracts between citizens of one belligerent and those of another, or between citizens of one belligerent and the other belligerent. They may take the form of ransom bills (q.v.), bills of exchange drawn by prisoners of war, or receipts for requisitions. 1 Kent 104." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 337.
"CARTEL. In trade and commerce. A combination of producers or any product joined together to control its production, sale, and price, and to obtain a monopoly in any particular industry or commodity. Also, an association by agreement of companies or sections of companies having common interests, designed to prevent extreme or unfair competition and allocate markets, and to promote the interchange of knowledge resulting from scientific and technical research, exchange of patent rights, and standardization of products. U.S. v. National Lead Co., D.C.N.Y., 63 F.Supp. 513.
"State of War. An agreement between two hostile powers for the delivery of prisoners or deserters, or authorizing certain non-hostile intercourse between each other which would otherwise be prevented by the state of war; for example, agreements for intercommunication by post [free delivery], telegraph, telephone, railway. II op. 282.
"Duel. A written challenge to a duel." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 270. See also Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 424.

This helps to explain why most of the "process" being written today is a "bill of exchange" which is carried as an "asset" on the accounting books of all de facto jurisdictions today. And if you look at the bankruptcy of the County of Orange in California, you'll see that it went bankrupt because about one hundred twenty million "dollars" of tickets had to be written off. It is part of the "cartel" during war time.

Your house mortgage is an example of a commercia belli contract and you become part and parcel of the problem. How do you know for sure? Go to your bank and look at the flag displayed.

"[A flag is] an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff [not a pike]. From a military standpoint flags are of two classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by mounted troops. Colors and standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted fringe of yellow on three sides.
"Use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power." The National Encyclopedia (1944), Vol. 4, p. 326. Edited by Henry Suzzallo, Ph.D., Sc.D., LL.D. Published by P. F. Collier and Son Corporation, New York. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Op.Atty.-Gen. 483.
"The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation, No. 260-10." 34 Ops. Atty.-Gen. 483, 485.
"FRINGE. A decoration of twisted thread or metal attached to the edges of a flag, usually a color or parade flag (19-1). Normally used only on the three outer edges, [*16] it may appear on from one to four of the sides of flag and at the ends of a cravat." Flags (1975), pp. 15-16.
"NATIONAL FLAG. A flag representing an independent state, especially a nation-state, but by extension the flag of formerly independent states and of non-independent national groups. Although chiefly associated with use by private citizens, either on land or at sea, the term is frequently applied to a design used in any one of six principal functions; see civil ensign, civil flag, state ensign, state flag, war ensign, war flag." Flags (1975), p. 19. [Emphasis added.]

See also Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959 and 24 F.R. 6865 for further information on the flag. The same also applies to 501(c)-3 "churches." They are created and established by the bankrupt military power exercising jurisdiction in and over "civil affairs." The flag flown indoors is the same flag. Therefore, these churches are God-less and lawless commercial entities engaged in fleecing the flock for the military power. This situation is similar to what the Lord says:

"Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Strangers [see definition of STRANGERS, post] have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth not. And the pride of Israel testifieth to his face: and they do not return to the LORD their God, nor seek him for all this. Ephraim also is like a silly dove without heart: they call to Egypt [the house of bondage through ignorance], they go to Assyria [descended from Babylon]. When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I will chastise them, as their congregation hath heard. Woe unto them! For they have fled from me: destruction unto them! Because they have transgressed against me: though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me. And they have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled upon their beds: they assemble themselves for corn and wine, and they rebel against me. Though I have bound and strengthened their arms, yet do they imagine mischief against me. They return, but not to the most High: they are like a deceitful bow: their princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue: this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt [house of bondage]." Hos. 7:8-12. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

The national bank, or a member of the Federal Reserve System, then is a weapon of war of the President in the field wielded against corporations, trusts, partnerships, natural persons--all God-less entities--to chastise them and make them feel the evils of commerce: "Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati --The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141; "Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis -- Man is a term of nature; person of civil law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2136.

In commerce there is no distinction between "commercial citizens" and "commercial residents," because both are the same:

"Citizens of the United States have at least the same rights and privileges as resident aliens." Salla v. Monroe County (1977), 395 N.Y.S.2d 366, 90 Misc.2d 427, motion granted Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. Monroe County (1977), 404 N.Y.S.2d 843, 43 N.Y. 985, 375 N.E.2d 1232, aff'd 409 N.Y.S.2d 903, 64 A.D.2d 437, aff'd 423 N.Y.S.2d 878, 48 N.Y.2d 514, 399 N.E.2d 909, cert. den. Abrams v. Salla, 100 S.Ct. 1836, 446 U.S. 909, 64 L.Ed.2d 262.
"As a general rule, every citizen of the United States, regardless of his residence, and every resident of the United States, regardless of his citizenship, is taxable on his income without respect to its geographic source. The constitutional power to impose the tax on such a world wide basis is sustained by Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444." Cases and Materials on Federal Taxation (1955), by Paul W. Bruton and Raymond J. Bradley, edited by Warren A. Seavey, West Publishing Co., p. 115. [Commonality is in "residence."]
"Since Const. Amend. 5, does not require equal protection of the laws, as does Amendment 14, applying to state action, cases decided under Amendment 14 have no application to federal taxes, where the only uniformity prescribed is the territorial uniformity required by Article I, 8 [exposing the federal law merchant]." La Belle Iron Works v. United States (1921), 256 U.S. 377, 41 S.Ct. 528.

This is the reason for the census of residents taken today, to check the bottom line of the "balance sheet":

"The census taken by the United States Secretary of Commerce under 13 U.S.C.S. 141 and used for congressional reapportionment is within the control of the President of the United States, since the President may be involved in the policy making tasks of his cabinet members whether or not his involvement is explicitly required by statute." Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992), 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636. [Emphasis added.]

Those blood soaked, phoney, filthy, evil war bonds that Judge Dean condemned so handily still are not paid off today. They are carried today, and in all probability, will never be paid. That doesn't concern the bondholder--your worship through extracted or compelled performance by or through your ignorance of all this is all the bondholder wants. Do you submit to the bondholder, or Christ?

"And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to such an one, as concludes not in favour of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil ruler whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society [not those who rule to save the bondholder's investment]. Such they are described to be, throughout this passage. Thus it is said, that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. It is manifest that this character and the description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon the supposition of the contrary. If rulers are a terror to good works, and not to the evil; if they are not ministers for good to society, but for evil and distress, by violence and oppression; if they execute wrath upon sober, peaceable persons, who do their duty as members of society; and suffer rich and honorable knaves to escape with impunity; if instead of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the public welfare, they attend only upon the gratification of their own lust and pride, and ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the case, it is plain that the apostle's argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes.
"If it be said, that the apostle here uses another argument for submission to the higher powers, besides that which is taken from the usefulness of their office to civil society, when properly discharged and executed; namely, that their power is from God; that they are ordained of God; and that they are God's ministers: And if it be said, that this argument for submission to them will hold good, although they do not exercise their power for the benefit, but for the ruin, and destruction of human society; this objection was obviated, in part, before. Rulers have authority from God to do mischief. They are not God's ordinance, or God's ministers, in any other sense as it is by his permission and providence, that they are exalted to bear rule; and as magistracy duly exercised, and authority rightly applied, in the enacting and executing good laws,--laws tempered and accommodated to the common welfare of the subjects, must be supposed to be agreeable to the will of the beneficent author and supreme Lord of the universe; whose kingdom ruleth over all; and whose tender mercies are over all his works. It is BLASPHEMY to call tyrants and oppressors, God's ministers. They are more properly the messengers of SATAN to buffet us. No rulers are properly God's ministers, but such as are just, ruling in the fear of God. When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God; and no more deserve that glorious character, than common pirates and highwaymen. So that whenever that argument for submission fails, which is grounded upon the usefulness of magistracy to civil society, (as it always does when magistrates do hurt to society instead of good) the other argument, which is taken from their being the ordinance of God, must necessarily fail also; no person of a civil character being God's minister, in the sense of the apostle, any farther than he performs God's will, by exercising a just and reasonable authority; and ruling for the good of the subject.
"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such as he [the apostle] himself describes; i.e. such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission" (1750), from Louis Hacker, The Shaping of the American Tradition, pp. 114-115. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king merely for this reason, that he rules for the public welfareit follows, by a parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour and destroy, instead of his charge to defend and cherish, we are bound to throw off our allegiance to him, and to resistNot to discontinue our allegiance in this case would be to join with the sovereign in promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare of which we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, are indispensably obliged to secure and promote, as far as in us lies.
"The king is as much bound by his oath not to infringe the legal rights of the people as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above the law, he loses the king in the tyrant. He does, to all intents and purposes, unking himself by acting out of and beyond that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in; and in such cases has no more right to be obeyed than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subject's obligation to allegiance then ceases, of course; and to resist him is no more rebellion than to resist any foreign invader." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission," cited in Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic, pp. 241, 242. [Emphasis added.]
"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin [bankruptcy]; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin [this bankruptcy] shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [proclamations, codes, rules and regulations of men], but under [God's] grace.Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Rom 6:13-16. [Insertions added.]
"Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men." 1 Cor 7:23. [Forego the novation imposed by un-Godly men for Christ has finished all that needed to be fulfilled.]

It is to be remembered, that:

"This great debt is a purely human affair, not invested with a single attribute of Divinity, and must be subjected to all of the examinations, criticisms, disputations, and legal ordeals peculiar to all other mere indebtedness, and it must not be forgotten that it is not a part of the history of the world, that mankind grow impatient for opportunities to pay public debts. Senator Sumner once declared that his 'people were clamoring for heavier taxation,' and were indignant because they were not permitted to contribute more freely of their money to the support of the Government. I confess frankly that I never knew just such a case.
"The debt of the United States, whether in bonds as the foundation of a hateful aristocracy, or in banks, the engine of perpetual illegitimate speculation, will ultimately be contested before the highest tribunals known to the contests of time--the frail, the fickle, treacherous court of popular will--yet only less potent than the decrees of the high chancery above.
"When the issues in the debt are fully made out, every step of the dangerous road through which we have passed, will be examined with a care which shall make men dizzy in contemplation of the chasms beneath, and the fearful, crumbling precipices [*434] along the tottering edges of which a drunken nation has staggered, and reeled, singing her bacchanalian songs, leaving sepulchres of the immortal dead, churches of the living God, gardens, cities, and plantations, the discoveries of science, the works of art, and the monuments of religion, in ashes, as the only landmarks by which their hateful march can be retraced. The is all that will remain of a cultivated refinement and peerless civilization.
"The constitutionality of the purposes for which appropriations were made, and the consequent debts contracted, will be carefully examined, if not before, will, after the furious fires of passion have died out, and the bitterness of strife has been dissipated in the changes of time.
"The contest will involve every thing at every step of time. A national debt, standing on the rails of the track of the advancing destiny of a great country,--a millstone hanging around the neck of labor,--an impassable gulf, with its boiling maelstrom lying between and separating the fortunes of the rich from the daily wants of the poor,--a treasure from which bribery draws her legislative poison, and corrupts the fountains of justice.
"This debt is a stream of power, which accumulates as it sweeps swiftly on, increasing in volume, to the vast sea of the future.
"This financial despotism on the one side has arrayed its platoons, companies, battalions, regiments, and grand army of assessors, collectors, and spies, to possess the property and discover of the liberty of the people. Against them, on the other side, are the people, who array their forces.
"The eighteen hundred thousand [Christian] citizens who refused to vote for Abraham Lincoln, in A. D. 1864.
"The whole Southern people who resisted his usurpation[s] with arms.
"The millions of poor people who have been ruined by the war.
"The soldiers, and their ruined families, who have nothing left of their meager savings, and grow restive in contemplation of the fortunes of contractors, and speculators, coined from the blood of their fallen comrades.
"The landholder, and every man who contributes to the support of the special, privileged, untaxed, and untitled bonded aristocracy. These are the parties to the great contest.
"[*435] When the issue is fairly made up, the trial will be short, speedy, and decisive. In this terrible conflict, the empty clamor of 'loyalty,' the clap-trap of 'national life,' will pass away with their concomitant slang phrases. Of all these evanescent things, the people will grow weary, and time will administer her own remedy. Debts are not the more enduring, because the more costly luxuries of party organization.
"In this struggle for liberty, there will be a thorough canvass; the power of the legislation which proposes to fasten the yoke upon the necks of an unwilling people as an appendage, if not an ornament, to their existence." Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), Crimes of the Civil War, pp. 433-435. [Insertion added.]

More 'Admissions and Confessions' next month.

Scripture and the Law Merchant

Part Two

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Seventeenth)

NOTE: the Scripture cited herein is from the 1611 Authorized Version, aka The King James.

In the previous part of this series we looked at the usage of the word 'merchandise' in Scripture. In this part, we will examine the usage of the word 'merchant.'

The word 'merchant' in the singular case is found in Scripture twelve times, while the word 'merchants' in the plural sense is found twenty-eight times, and the word 'merchants' in the possessive sense is found only once, with 'merchantmen' occurring twice. Thus, 'merchant' and its variants are found forty-three times in Scripture and we will examine these words in the order in which they appear, without reference to their tense.

The verses in which these words are found are: Genesis 23:16, 37:28; 1 Kings 10:15, 10:28; 2 Chronnicles 1:16, 9:14; Nehemiah 3:31-32, 13::20; Job 41:6; Proverbs 31:14, 31:24; Song of Solomon 3:6; Isaiah 23:22, 8, 11; Isaiah 47:15; Ezekiel 117::4, 27:3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20-24; 27:36, 38:13; Hosea 12:7; Nahum 3:16; Zephaniah 1:11; Matthew 13:45; Revelations 18:3, 11, 15, 23.

In Genesis 23 we find the story of the death of Abraham's wife, Sarah, and in 23:16 Abraham buys the field and cave wherein he will bury her.

"And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant."

That there is a striking difference between the workings of God's Law and man's law is seen in Genesis 37:28 within the story of the evil doing of Joseph's brothers. It is clear that the merchantmen mentioned herein, were not believers in God's Law because they sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites. As we have seen before, the restoration of the City of Jerusalem, there were still those who were doing things that were not permitted to be done on the Sabbath. Apparently, merchants were among the guilty and thus they were made to stay out of the City on the Sabbath to keep them from violating the Law.

"So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice."

In Job 41 there is a series of verses on Leviathon which are part of a series of challenges from God to Job and in speaking of Leviathon, God says,

"Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?"

In the last chapter of Proverbs, we find a description of a virtuous and Godly woman. In verse 14, she is likened to the merchants ships where,

"She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar."

Later in the same chapter of Proverbs the description of a Godly woman details how she makes money for the household.

"She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant."

The Song of Solomon has been variously interpreted as an allegory of the relationship of Christ to his bride, which is the church. In chapter 3, the bride searches for her lost love whom at last she finds in verse 6.

"Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?"

In Isaiah and Ezekiel, two great works of prophecy, we find many references to merchants with four cites found in Isaiah, and well over a dozen in Ezekial, especially in chapters 17 and 27. In the prophecies of Isaiah we again find condemnations that are to come on the merchant cities of Tyre and Zidon (Sidon). The isle referred to in 23:2 is Tyre. Verses 2, 8, and 11 of chapter 23 are here published together.

2. "Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished."
8. "Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth?"
11. "He stretched out his hand over the sea, he shook the kingdoms: the LORD hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof."

In the 47th chapter of Isaiah, Israel and Jerusalem are described as the daughter of the Chaldeans. This is directly related to the fact that Chaldea was a nation that skillfully employed the techniques of merchants of debt to weaken a nation before it was conquered by the army. Thus, the Chaldeans would go into a country and offer loans at low interest with special conditions which virtually guaranteed that the debtor would never pay off the debt. As this practice spread throughout a nation, it so burdened the middle class that it ceased to exist and hence, the country was ripe for take-over. But, as shown in verse 15, when the conquest comes, even the merchants of debt will abandon the nation.

"Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee."

In the 17th chapter of Ezekiel we find a parable spoken against Israel in the form of two eagles, one good and one bad. The first brings prosperity, but when Israel turns away to the second, judgment comes. The reference to merchants is found in verse 4.

"He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants."

Again, in the 27th chapter of Ezekiel we find the prophecies against Tyre, et al. But the prophecies are also against Judea and Jerusalem.

3. "And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty."
12. "Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs."
13. "Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of Nahum depicts the powerful imperialism of a despotic, pagan nation and declares the ultimate and certain triumph of God's justice and sovereignty. Here again, in such a system of tyranny, we find the merchants prominent in Nahum 3:16..
"Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away."

The last reference to merchants in the Old Testament is found in Zephaniah 1:11.

"Howl, ye inhabitants of Maktesh, for all the merchant people are cut down; all they that bear silver are cut off."

The first reference to the merchant in the New Testament is found in Matthew 13:45 and it occurs within the context of the Lord's description of the kingdom of heaven. Here, the Lord likens the obsessive passion of the merchant for gain, with what should be the passion of those in the kingdom of heaven.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:"

The remaining references to merchants in the New Testament are found in the Book of the Revelations of Jesus Christ to John and are all found in chapter 18.

3. "For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies."
11. "And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:"
15. "The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,"
23. "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

It is clear from this study of the merchant throughout the Scripture, that God does not look with favor upon the law of the merchant, since, in every case of judgment and prophecy against Israel and Judea we find that commercial activity was a prominent factor within the land when it was judged.

Thus, the nation that engages in such activities will be judged by God and punished for permitting such commercial activity to take place. We must note that the judgment is not directly because of commercial activity, since the judgment itself is earned from a much more pervasive apostasy of which commercial activity is but one manifestation of corruption, among many.

But, as we have pointed out in the News and in the Book of the Hundreds on many occasions, the law merchant is a corruption before God that seeks to advance a world view and religion that is not merely Un-Godly, but is clearly Anti-God and Anti-Christian. Particularly is this so with regard to the lending practices of merchants which are nothing more than slavery.

That we are not the first to note this is seen in the following extended quote from Crimes of the Civil War, by Judge Henry Clay Dean (1868), in which he draws the clear parallels between the slavery practiced in the South and the so-called Funding System of A. Lincoln which was launched during Lincoln's War Against All Christian States:

"The obligation of the slave to work for his master was purely a legal one; an investment of money under the protection of the law. If it were a sinful one, it was the sin of the law, not of the slaveholder. This relation we have repudiated with the full sum of three thousand millions of dollars of money legally invested in this particular interest. It is true that it was argued that this system [of slavery] was oppressive; so do I argue that the debt is oppressive beyond all endurance. It is argued that slavery was unjust; so do I argue that this funding system is unjust. It is argued that the system of slavery was cruel; that it was used to enslave the [*265] poor and helpless black man. So do I argue that the present debt is used as means to enslave the poor white man with the black man, to make them both the servants of the capitalist and bondholder.
It is emphatically presented, that the system of slavery was transmitted from the parents to innocent children yet unborn. So do I argue that the bonded system of our debt is being transmitted to innocent generations, who will be stinted of sustenance in their mother s womb, and oppressed all the days of their lives, to pay the penalty of their perpetual servitude to their taskmasters. But if such a repudiation in contravention of law, may be made under the plea of military necessity for the overthrow of a written constitution [and the free government erected thereunder], how much stronger is the argument of a civil necessity, for the perpetuity of a system of free government in which the distinction between the rich and the poor shall be merely of imagination? It is argued that African slavery created an overbearing aristocracy. So we argue that the bonds [held by Europeans] have created a most offensive oligarchy, that not only claims to rule society, but assumes to rule the government. Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 264 265. [Insertions added.]

The debt of the United States is slavery, which becomes more exacting as the debt increases in volume.

This debt has all the attributes of national and personal slavery, and fixes itself on the realty and personalty of the country.

Salmon P. Chase did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, Cooke, that the debt was a first mortgage upon all the property of the United States.

This affects the title of the lands and leaves every man but a tenant upon his own property, who may be ousted by the mortgagee upon the first failure to meet the appointed instalment assessed in taxes. The mortgagee is pursuing the same oppressive and delusive course that is always pursued by every other mortgagee, with the intent to absorb the mortgagor.

Seeing that the land will always remain to be seized for the debt after every thing else fails, the mortgagor first absorbs the personal property of his victim, then executes his land and holds both the realty and personalty in forfeiture of payment.

Our creditor commences on food, raiment and medicines, which we must have if we live at all by tariffs, and takes at least one half before we are allowed to reduce them to possession. This strikes every body.

Then he continues, by exacting stamps [licenses] of every soul that can make a contract, pay a debt, or take a receipt; this includes all of the very poorest laborers.

Then he exacts an income tax upon every man who can make a thousand dollars per annum; this is to strike the young and [*329] thrifty classes, just entering upon active life, oftentimes with parents and invalid relatives to support. From him five percent is exacted. Slight taxes are imposed upon gross amusements, all to feed the greater vices of life.

Just here the tax list ends, as it reaches the mortgagor, the bondholder who owns the mortgage remainder of the real estate, and received the tax lists, stamp duties, excise and tariffs, to pay up the interests accruing upon the mortgage notes.

This gentleman is our master, who has so long reveled in wealth that he does not know his own slaves when he meets them abroad, and has not for them that affection which association, responsibility, and interest give to the ordinary master. These are our untitled nobility. They are destitute of employment, indeed, they need no employment, every man who wields a plow, spade, anvil, loom or machinery of any kind, is his servant. Every woman who superintends a kitchen, garden, or boardinghouse, hands over to the bondholder all her surplus earnings after making daily tributes upon the necessaries of life, enjoying no luxuries for herself. The bondholder sits like a blind beggar by the way side, shuts his eyes, extends his hands and cries of each one passing, in his piteous tones, can t you give a poor man a penny. Lamartine, Kossuth, O Connell, and all the renowned beggars, public and private, of modern times, in presenting the wants, claims, and necessities of themselves, or the mendicant whom they represent, are not to be compared with these indigent, honest, disinterested, patriotic, nay, more, philanthropic bondholders.

The tariff upon food, raiment, medicines, and all that we necessarily use, is a system of allowance as exact but more stinted, that has ever been imposed upon any laboring slaves, and when labor itself gives out, the laborer no longer of service to his master, is carted to the alms house, where his allowance [Social Security check, unemployment compensation, welfare checks] and helplessness are complete.

Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. The laboring masses are allowed to vote, but if he is a tenant, the landlord controls his vote or ousts him. If he is a laborer, the employer follows him to the polls, examines his ticket, puts a spy upon his track, and dismisses him for an attempt to vote against his will.

[*330] If he is an operative, the manufacturer notifies him that all the hands are expected to vote the ticket of the proprietor, upon penalty of loss of employment.

If he is a house or body servant, he is disposed of in a more summary manner.

The bank holds the same rod in quiet way over its debtors, endorsers, and dependencies, who are expected to sustain the power that sustains them. The control is as complete over the polls as was ever held by Spartan over helot, by Jew over bondman, by Russian over serf, by master over slave.

The footprints of the master precedes the slave into legislative halls, where he assumes the arrogant airs and commands in the same authoritative tones. Here the people s servants are bought with their own money, to betray their sacred trust, and add a new thread to the screw to press them down, or remove a link to shorten the chain which will bind them more closely to the car wheel of oppression."

More from Judge Dean and The Law Merchant next month.

The Origin of Today's "Property Tax"

by John Joseph

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

Take a look at the 'NOTICE' on page fifteen. This is the beginning of today's "property taxes." First look at the capitalization of the words. They are in all capital letters. During time of war, this is called a ruse de guerre--a strategem of war, a deceit.{1} It looks official, and sounds official, but deceit is not what God's Law allows. And it is to be remembered that Christianity is the foundation of Law in the states.{2} Notice that this tax was imposed only six years after the close of the hostilities of Lincon's War v. All Christian States. In other words it did not take long to launch the new program of "co-operative federalism"--"to get along you go along."

No Good and Lawful Christian owed this "tax" unless their "property" was in Limestone County. This is not a question of geography--but a question of Law. This is a question of venue{3}, which determines the limits of the jurisdiction of the military officers in imposing this "tax."{4} Property which is not on the assessor's rolls cannot be placed there by the assessor alone.{5} Therefore, the property cannot be in the venue of the County sans consent of the seizor of the land under the Sovereign Authority of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and Christ Himself.{6} Such permission must be evidenced in the Law governing the slave, for without it no transfer is effectual.{7} "Property" is a nebulous term, and is governed by the Lawgiver establishing the "person" exercising the "right" in the "thing."{8} Clearly, then it is a matter of the source of the right of the person in the thing which determines the governing law. Thus, if the source of the right in the property is from the proclamations of Lincoln (September 22, 1862, or January 1, 1863) or the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) of then it is clearly in the venue of the County to be taxed--it is a paper title{9} which is commercial paper and is defective or no true title under God. It is important to note that a Christian does not lose his vested Right in land held by and under the Authority God through our Sovereign Lord Jesus, the Christ, because of conquest. Further, Lincoln's Proclamations did not apply to Christians in bondage to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.{10}

The higher Law governs all beneath it. This is upheld and pronounced by numerous authorities. The only property which can be taken by conquest is public property, because it is public property which waged war.

And notice the receipt at the bottom of this notice. It says, "Received of C. G. Andrews eight and 25/100 Dollars, amount of Military Tax levied upon him to defray expenses of Martial Law in Limestone County." It takes money to put "peace officers" in the field{12} to maintain the peace of the State, or any of its "political subdivisions."{13} Whenever and wherever codes, rules, and regulations use the term "peace officer," this is a military officer exercising control in and over civil affairs{14} in the field of operations. This does not mean that martial law is done away with--it is merely masked to delude ignorant Christians into complacency and compliance.{15} This is contrary to Scripture, for Christians are always at war.{16}

Christians were to never lose dominion under God's Law, but were and are to occupy until Christ returns.{17} They are to do this using only God's Law, which is sufficient for Christ is our Wonderful Counsellor and example in using the Law of Our Sovereign, for whom we labour in the field (All Good and Lawful Christians are soldiers of Jesus, the Christ.) It is we who have been derelict in our Duty to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in not pressing His Crown Rights. True Repentance is required of all to return to His Peace and Asylum. The present condition of affairs confirms Scripture.{18}

What is happening is that there is a "protection racket" set up, whereby Christians are duped into believing that they need martial law{19} to govern them, sans God's Word and Law. To keep this illusion alive, the imposed government always points to a constitution ratified by persons of its own creation and this is never challenged by Good and Lawful Christians. This is war non flagrante bello{20} through open military occupation{21} by a bankrupt,{22} secular{23}, God-less, anti-Christian occupant, having no standing in Law, administrating a military government{24} lacking recognition{25} by Good and Lawful Christians. This is evident from the notice where it says the tax is imposed{26} "to defray the expenses of Military Commission{27} and State Troops now on duty in said County." Thus, a military occupation in which the military government is superior to the Lawful Christian government under God is a reversed role.{28} See also 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867) which did not exist in these several consociated united states of America until after Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. The admission is made that the tax is without authority or right and the notice is a ruse de guerre by the employment of deception in time of war. There is no rule of law that compels one to pay for his own destruction; or, the destruction of the Christian community to which he belongs. Nor is there any law that compels a civil or military officer to violate God's Law in Scripture, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the basis of all law in the several consociated united states of America.{29} Lastly we come to the political question again. Military regulations have no validity where they interfere with the political rights of Good and Lawful Christians.{30} When Good and Lawful Christians decide they have had enough of the suspension of God's Law, it will return when they execute it in accordance with the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.{31} And last, we have the officer's nom de guerre{32}. This is not a true Christian name, but is a misnomer{33} done purposely. During time of war an alien enemy cannot maintain an action in his own name.{34}

If this evidence has not persuaded you of the gravity of the present situation here in these several united states of America, then clearly you are beyond hope at the present. Please ponder this in your heart and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in the Word of God for the knowledge, wisdom and understanding of God's Word and how to apply it in your life so that your seed may not live in the hell you now enjoy:

"Look forward also to distant posterity. Figure to yourselves millions and millions to spring from your loins, who may be born freemen or slaves, as Heaven shall now approve or reject your councils. Think, that on you it may depend, whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and inlightened people, enjoying Liberty and all its comcomitant blessings, together with the Religion of Jesus, as it flows uncorrupted from his holy oracles; or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness." Rev. Provost Smith, in a sermon given in 1775.
"It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave [Christian] liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them." Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), H. Niles, editor.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams.

May God richly Bless you according to your faith in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ, amen.

Endnotes

{1} "Ruse de guerre--a strategem of war." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), "Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1204; Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and rasPhes," p. 83.

"RUSE DE GUERRE. Fr. A trick in war; a stratagem." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.), p. 1499.

"STRATAGEM. A deception either by words or actions, in times of war, in order to obtain an advantage over an enemy." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590.

{2} "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728.

"And so it has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them, upon the emigration, all of it which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law." Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833), Vol. I, 157.

{3} "'Jurisdiction' is the power to decide a case on its merits, whereas 'venue' relates to the place where the suit may be heard." Toulmin v. James Mfg. Co., D.C.N.Y., 27 F.Supp. 512, 515.

"Distinction between 'jurisdiction' and 'venue' is that 'jurisdiction' imports power of court, 'venue' the place of action." Shaffer v. Bank, 160 S.E. 481, 482, 201 N.C. 415.

"'Venue' signifies the geographical division where a cause shall be tried and depends on constitutional and statutory provisions [which map out those distinctions]." Loftus v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 140 N.E. 94, 96, 107 Ohio St. 352.

"'Venue' involves a privilege which may be lost by failure to assert it seasonably by formal submission in a cause, or by submission through conduct." Harvey v. U.S., D.C. Ill., 86 F.Supp. 609, 616. It is here that you fail when you do not timely object to the venue of the cause through abatement.

{4} "Qualibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet --Every jurisdiction has its bounds." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2156.

"Legislative authority of a state must be exercised within the territorial limits of the state and it has no extra-territorial jurisdiction." Redding v. Tinkum (1882), 9 P.C.L.J. 592.

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv.

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "State," p. 3124.

{5} "Assessors have no authority to enter upon the assessment roll the name of any person whose property is by law exempt from taxation; nor to impose an assessment thereon. They have no jurisdiction whatever over such persons, or their property. Nor can they acquire any by any act, or decision, of their own." Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y.) 607.

"The assessment of property is a judicial act, upon which a certiorari will lie. But to make an assessment legal, the assessors must have jurisdiction of the particular case. If they transcend the limits of their authority, and undertake to assess property exempt by statute, they cease to be judges, and are responsible for all the consequences." Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y.) 607, 608.

{6} "A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202. [See also University v. Cambreling, 6 Yer.(Tenn.) 84; Fletcher v. The State, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 256; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 299; Hite v. The State, 9 Yer.(Tenn.), 207.] [Christians are slaves or bondservants of Jesus Christ, and therefore are bound by the same law.]

{7} "Forma legalis forma essentialis --Legal form is essential form." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), "Maxim," vol. 2, p. 129.

"Forma non observata, infertur adnullatio actus --When form is not observed a nullity of the act is inferred." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. 2, p. 129.1.

"The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods." Ps 24:1-2.

"Non dat qui non habet --He gives nothing who has nothing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2149.

"Qui non habet potestatem aliendandi habet incessitatem retinendi --He who has not the power of alienating is obliged to retain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157.

"Actus repugnans non potest in esse produci --A repugnant act cannot be brought into being (i.e., cannot be made effectual)." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.

{8} "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mt 22:21. See also Mk 12:17 and Lk 20:25.

"A Right varies with a variation in any one of the series of its constituent elements. The possible variations in the two extreme terms of the series are, however, far fewer than in the two intermediate terms. This is the case, first, because both of the extreme terms are Persons, so that they are subject to the same sets of variations; and secondly, because as a matter of fact the possible varieties in juristic personality are far fewer than those in the juristic character of objects or acts.

"The Law of Persons, as a source of variety in rights, is therefore distinct from and much smaller than the residue of the Law, which is generally called the Law of Things. The jurist may make either one or the other species of characteristics his starting-point in considering the aggregate of rights which make up the whole field of Law. He may consider seriatim the possible varieties in the persons with whom rights may be connected; [*140] treating under each personality of the various objects and acts with which it may be combined: or, he may start from the variations in the objects and acts; considering by way of supplement the modifications which the rights connected with these undergo in each case from varieties in personality. Thus the aggregate of rights may be likened to a figure of two dimensions: the shorter of these dimensions representing the Law of Persons; the longer the Law of Things. And the figure may be supposed to be marked off into squares, like a chessboard, by the intersection of a few horizontal lines expressing the possible varieties of personality, and of a multitude of vertical lines expressing the possible varieties of object or act." Holland, Jurisprudence, pp. 139-140.

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [Emphasis added.]

{9} "PAPER TITLE. A title evidenced by conveyances or similar documents which, however, confer no substantial right, either because the property has become worthless or because a paramount title exists which could oust any claim under these conveyances." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 237. [See also "Color of Title."]

"PAPER TITLE. A title to land evidenced by a conveyance or chain of conveyances; the term generally implying that such title, while it has color or plausibility, is without substantial validity." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1657. [Emphasis added.] Thus, the paper is not title, but is a prima facie rebuttable presumption of title.

{10} "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." Jn 10:1-5.

{12} "IN THE FIELD. Any place on land or water, apart from permanent cantonments or fortifications where military operations are being conducted. Hines v. Mikell, C.C.A., 259 F. 28, 30." Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed., 1968), p. 902. [Emphasis added. See also the attributes of the Roman gods Mercurius and Mars. This describes all "peace officers" and mail carriers.]

{13} "Moreover, the sole [*45] invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution 'forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, pp. 44-45 citing Oppenheimer's treatise Der Staat, ch. I and his Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Oekonomie. [Emphasis added.]

{14} "CIVIL AFFAIRS. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations in order to facilitate military operations and consolidate operational objectives. Civil affairs may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 73. [Emphasis added.]

{15} "Spencer does not discuss what he calls 'the perennial faith of mankind' in State action, but contents himself with elaborating the sententious observation of Guizot, that 'a belief in the sovereign power of political machinery' is nothing less than 'a gross delusion.' This faith is chiefly an effect of the immense prestige [*57] which the State has diligently built up for itself in the century or more since the doctrine of jure divino [divine right] rulership gave way. We need not consider the various instruments that the State employs in building up its prestige; most of them are well known, and their uses well understood. There is one, however, which is in a sense peculiar to the republican State. Republicanism permits the individual to persuade himself that the State is his creation, that State action is his action, that when it expresses itself it expresses him, and when it is glorified he is glorified. The republican State encourages this persuasion with all its power, aware that it is the most efficient instrument for enhancing its own prestige. Lincoln's phrase, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' was probably the most effective single stroke of propaganda ever made in behalf of republican State prestige." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State (1935), pp. 56-57.

{16} See for example, 1 Tim 1:18-19; 2 Tim 2:3; Eph 6:10-18; 1 Chr 12:33.

{17} "Testament is an appointment of some person [a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), pp. 167-168.

"Duties of the testator [our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] grwoing by record [the Scriptures] must be answered by executors before other duties." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), p. 233.

{18} "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace [of the LORD]." Jer 6:14. See also Jer 8:11.

{19} "MILITARY NECESSITY. The principle whereby a belligerent has the right to apply any measures which are required to bring about the successful conclusion of a military operation and which are not forbidden by the laws of war." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 241. [Emphasis added.]

"Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will." Chief Justice Waite, in United States v. Diekelman, 98 U.S. 520.

"The term `martial law' carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, Hawaii, 66 S.Ct. 606, 611, 615, 327 U.S. 304, 90 L.Ed. 688.

{20} See House Report No. 262, March 26, 1874.

{21} "MILITARY OCCUPATION. A condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force. See also OCCUPIED TERRITORY; PHASES OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 241.

{22} See 12 Stat. 665 (1863), 13 Stat. 99 (1864), and Fite, Social and Industrial Conditions in the North during the Civil War (Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1963), pp. 105-154.

{23} See Torcaso v. Watkins (1962), 387 U.S. 486. It is the separation of Christ's church from the State which begins the downward spiral of whole classes of civilizations, because of the tolerance for other God-less anti-Christian beliefs. This brings in the necessity of the military power to protect the pagan from the Christian, and vice versa. But since the military is never neutral, and it derives its revenue from anti-Christian sources, how do you think Christians will fare?

{24} "PHASES OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT. 1. assault--That period which commences with first contact with civilians ashore and extends to the establishment of military government control ashore by the landing force. 2. consolidation--That period which commences with the establishment of military government control ashore by the landing force and extends to the establishment of control by occupation forces. 3. occupation--That period which commences when an area has been occupied in fact, and [*289] the military commander within that area is in a position to enforce public safety and order. See also CIVIL AFFAIRS; MILITARY OCCUPATION." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), pp. 288-289.

{25} "A foreign power may bring an action in our courts, not as a matter of right, but of comity, which does not exist until such government is recognized by the United States." Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic v. Cibrario,

139 N.E. 259, 235 N.Y. 255, affirming judgment 193 N.Y. 952, 201 App.Div. 888, and reargument denied 142 N.E. 296, 236 N.Y. 591.

"The Russian Soviet Republic, which the United States refuses to recognize, cannot sue in our courts, even if comity did not depend on recognition, in view of the reasons given by the State Department for refusing to recognize it." Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic v. Cibrario, 139 N.E. 259, 235 N.Y. 255, affirming judgment 193 N.Y. 952, 201 App.Div. 888, and reargument denied 142 N.E. 296, 236 N.Y. 591.

"Lack of recognition does not permit individual suitor to bring de facto government before the bar." Nankivel v. Omsk All-Russian Government, 142 N.E. 569, 237 N.Y. 150, reversing order 197 N.Y.S. 467, 203 App.Div. 740.

{26} "IMPOSE. 1. To place (a burden, tax, etc. on or upon); to inflict; force; as, the king imposed a tax on the people. 2. To force (oneself, one's presence, etc.) On another or others without right or invitation; to obtrude. [Emphasis added.] 3. To pass off; to palm off; to foist, especially by deception [Emphasis added]; as, he imposed his doctrines upon a confused nation." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dict., Unabridged (1969), p. 915.

{27} "2. MILITARY JURISDICION-- Exercise. Military jurisdiction is exercised by a belligerent occupying an enemy's territory (military government); by a government temporarily governing the civil population of a locality through its military forces, without the authority of written law, as necessity may require (martial law); and by a government in the execution of that branch of the municipal law which regulates its military establishment (military law).

"The agencies through which military jurisdiction is exercised include:

"Military Commissions and Provost Courts for the trial within their respective jurisdictions. These tribunals are summary in their nature, but so far as not otherwise provided have usually been guided by the applicable rules of procedure and of evidence prescribed for courts-martial;..." Manual for Courts-Martial(1928), p. 1.

{28} "SUMMARY PROCEEDING. A form of trial in which the ancient established courses of legal proceedings are disregarded, especially in the matter of trial by jury" Jones v. Robbins from 8 Gray (Mass.) 329.

{29} "No military or civil officer can command an inferior to violate the laws of his country; nor will such a command excuse, much less justify, the act." Bushrod Washington, U.S. v. Jones, 3 Wash.C.C. 209.

{30} "The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.

"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613.

{31} "When a 'law is suspended,' the law continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation. Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98.

"Testament is an appointment of some person [a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1759), pp. 167-168. This has enormous political implications: Which testament deserves unconditional execution: The Truth, or a lie?

{32} "Nom de guerre--a war name; a pseudonym." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1927), "Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.

"PSEUDONYM, n. [Fr. pseudonyme, from Gr. pseudes, and onyma, name.] A borrowed or fictitious name, especially one adopted by an author; a pen name." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1453. [Emphasis added.].

{33} "MISNOMER.--I. Nouns. misnomer, misnaming; lucus a non lucendo (L.); malapropism, Mrs. Malaprop.

"nickname, sobriquet (F.), or soubriquet, by-name, pet name, assumed name, pseudonym, alias, nom de guerre (F.), nom de plume (English formation), pen name, stage name, nom de theatre (F.).

"II. Verbs. misname, miscall, misterm, nickname, take an assumed name.

"III. Adjectives. misnamed, miscalled, nicknamed; soi-disant (F.), self-styled, pseudonymous, so-called, quasi.

"nameless, anonymous (abbr. Anon.), innominate, unnamed, unknown, unacknowledged; pseudo.

"Antonyms. See NOMENCLATURE." Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language in Dictionary Form (1936), p. 310. [A nom de guerre, a war name, is a misnomer in Law.]

"MISNOMER. Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Culpepper v. State, 173 Ga. 799, 161 S.E. 623." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1151.

{34} "An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name." Wharton (1853) Pa. Digest Chap. 20, sec.94. cited in The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Bond, Bondsman, Public Bond

BOND. That which binds; any instrument in writing that legally bnids a party to do a certain thing. "Bond," "obligation," and "instrument in writing" are sometimes used as convertible terms.

Bondsman. One who by a sealed instrument [see above] engages that if another person (the principal [--the "United States") fails to do a specified thing [pay interest] he will pay a certain sum of money [taxes.] [All U.S. citizens are bondsmen.]

Public Bond. The obligation of a nation, State [commercial], or public corporation, to pay money at or within a specified time; municipal, State, or government bonds.

Holders of government bonds must be presumed to have knowledge of the laws by authority of which they were created and put into circulation, and of all lawful acts done by government officers under these laws. The obligations of the [Lincoln's] United States under the five-twenty bonds [seven-thirty and ten-forty bonds], consols of 1865, are governed by the law merchant regulating negotiable securities, modified only, if at all, by the laws authorizing their issue." Anderson's Dictionary of Law (1893), pp. 128-129. [Emphasis and insertions added where appropriate.]

To drive this point of the importance of bonds, the following should suffice:

"The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. [An excellent example of primitive practice, effected by modern technique, is furnished by the new State of Manchoukuo, and another bids fair to be furnished in consequence of the Italian State's operations in Ethiopia. On the negative side, it has been proved beyond peradventure that no primitive State could possibly have had any other origin. [The mathematics of this demonstration are extremely interesting. A resume of them is given in Oppenheimer's treatise Der Staat, ch. I, and they are worked out in full in his Theorie der Reinen und Politischen Oekonomie.] Moreover, the sole [*45] invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution 'forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group." Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, pp. 44-45.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

A Beautiful Argument

To a young infidel, who was scoffing at Christianity, because of the misconduct of its professors, the late Dr. Mason said:-- "Did you ever know an uproar to be made because an infidel went astray from the paths of morality?" The infidel admitted that he had not. "Then don't you see," said Dr. Mason, "that by expecting the professors of Christianity to be holy, you admit it to be a holy religion, and thus pay it the highest compliment in your power?" -- The young man was silent.

Our Blessings more than our Crosses

Consider that our good days are generally more in number than our evil days, our days of prosperity than our days of adversity. This is most certain, though most of us are apt to cast our accounts otherwise. How many days of health we enjoy for one day of grievous sickness! How many days of ease, for one of pain! How many blessings, for a few crosses! For one danger that surprised us, how many scores of dangers have we escaped, and some of them very narrowly? But, alas! we write our mercies in the dust, but our afflictions we engrave in marble; our memory serves us too well to remember the latter, but we are strangely forgetful of the former. And this is the greatest cause of our unthankfulness, discontent, and mourning.

Issue the Nineteenth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance', Part One...

Admissions and Confessions, Part seven...

Where is the Authority? you ask, Part Two...

Book Review, 'Crimes of the Civil War'...

Law and Metaphysics...

Christian Courts, Their Nature and Attributes, Part One ...

The Internet: Commercial Trap of The Twenty-First Century?

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Exercising Your 'Right Of Avoidance.'

Part One

by Randy Lee

"Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away. For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble." Proverbs 4:14-18.

Matthew Henry said, in part, of these verses:

"Those that have been well educated, and trained up in the way they should go, let them never turn aside into the way they should not go; let them not so much as enter into it, no, not to make trial of it, lest it prove a dangerous experiment and difficult to retreat with safety. 'Venture not into the company of those that are infected with the plague, no, not though thou think thyself guarded with an antidote.'"
"The reasons to enforce this caution:
1. 'Consider the character of the men whose way thou art warned to shun.' They are mischievous men (v. 16, 17); they not only care not what hurt they do to those that stand in their way, but it is there business to do mischief, and their delight, purely for mischief-sake. They are continually designing and endeavouring to cause some to fall, to ruin them body and soul."
"The way of sin is as darkness, v.19. The works he had cautioned us not to have fellowship with are works of darkness. What true pleasure and satisfaction can those have who know no pleasure and satisfaction but what they have in doing mischief? What sure guide have those that cast God's Word behind them? The way of the wicked is dark, and therefore dangerous; for they stumble and know not at what they stumble. They fall into sin, but are not aware which way the temptation came by which they were overthrown, and therefore know not how to avoid it the next time. They fall into trouble, but never enquire wherefore God contends with them; they consider not that they do evil, nor what will be in the end of it, Ps. 82:5; Job 18:5, 6. This is the way we are directed to shun." Matthew Henry's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (1706) Vol. 3, pp.666 and 667.

Avoiding the Judicial System

These verses apply directly to the current judicial system in America. A judicial system that takes pride in saying that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 US 203. In other words, a secular faith in which 'we have cast God's Word behind us.'

Those that enter the current commercial/ military 'judicial system' should take heed of Matthew Henry's warning, 'Venture not into the company of those that are infected with the plague, no, not though thou think thyself guarded with an antidote.'

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

Avoiding Debt

Judge Henry Clay Dean wrote in 1868:

"This fearful finale of paper money in France, is the legitimate result of her profligacy. The American Congress has been the exact reflex of the constituent assembly. The gold bill, the legal tender bill, the gold-bearing bond, was the reproduction of French folly and crime, with this one difference:
"That the French fanaticism, somewhat seasoned with justice, aimed their blows at despotism; the American fanaticism, directed by reckless dishonesty, struck at republican government, and destroyed its Constitution. The French repudiated the assignats, with the crimes which brought them into being; the Americans are building the funding system upon a depreciated currency, to fasten slavery upon the industry of the country, to transmit to our children that which was before but a temporary evil, to be avoided and eschewed.
"Debt is the measure of our personal liberty. Only the Russian aristocracy could enforce the Russian debt. It requires the whole force of the monarch, aristocracy, and monopoly of Great Britain, who own the labor and production of the country in advance of their creation, to make the British debt available for oppression. In America, the question is exceedingly simple, the repudiation of this debt, or the abandonment of the republican system of government.
"The military despotism in the South, is the first step in advancing crime to overthrow liberty. A necessary plan to carry out the funding system, to collect such a debt, and prepare the people of the North to submit to military espionage and posse as the accompaniment of their revenue system.
"The Congress has reduced the American people to a choice among three methods of extrication [to be enforced by the military, if necessary]:
"The first, the British funding system fastened upon us.
"The second, the French paper system of paying with greenbacks, and the hypothecation of the greenbacks, for the public lands [national parks], so as to leave no public debt.
"The third is outright repudiation. The first must be destroyed at all hazards. The second may be done or pave the way for the third. The people must be free from the task-masters of capital."
"This insanity which pervades society, in regard to the public debt, is precisely that which seizes every insolvent debtor. Ambitious to be rich, and careful to conceal his misfortune, he resorts to every possible scheme, and embraces every subterfuge which offers relief; but with that fatuity which involved him, he will pursue his shadows until they disappear in the setting sun of his gloomy life. Governments are multitudes of men who have combined their powers, and wealth, and folly, and insanity,--different from individuals only in their magnitude.
"The great financial calamity of the United States is, that we are in debt, without adequate means of payment. Every other obstacle, in the way of our progress, power, and glory, is magnified by this cardinal evil.
"Every subterfuge of speculation, every refuge of lies, has been exhausted to make our poverty seem wealth, and our blanched cheek of shame wear the face of honor. The last miserable shift of these commercial simpletons, is to pay the debt by a constitutional amendment [Fourteenth Amendment derived from The Civil Rights Acts]; then to secure the payment, more completely, by passing laws, from time to time [Income Tax Acts], that the public debt never shall be repudiated.
"There is nothing more ridiculous than an attempt to enact laws which may never be repealed. Such attempts always cast a just suspicion upon the law itself, which claims immunity from examination. Such laws inevitably lead to oppression, which will seek freedom in revolution. A government that enforces only such laws as may serve the purpose of tyrants, and obviates such as are necessary to preserve liberty, is unspeakably worse than simple arbitrary power, and command no more respect than that which is extorted by force [see Romans 13:1]. Of this character, are all laws which repudiate one class of debts outright, and make obligatory forever another class, based upon the same general principles, when the justice and obligation of each are in the nature of things subject to the judgment of each successive generation.
"Forever, at the most moderate calculation, is a long time hence, and must see many changes in its checquered course. Wise men are content to legislate for to-day, whilst the prudent as wisely care for the morrow. God alone is the lawgiver of eternity. Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pp. 428-432.

Avoiding Fraud

"A writing is void 'ab initio' in the case of fraud in the inception, and it need not be formally rescinded as a prerequisite to a right of avoidance." Bonnacci v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. (1943), 56 C.A.2d 657, 664, 137 P.2d 487.

Avoiding Evil

"Now the true Church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of His Church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world. William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), from Puritanism and Liberty (1965) p. 309.

In Part Two next month, we will examine ways of 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' when confronted by the current imperial power agents and Courts of The District of Chaldea, as well as those of The State of, The County of and The City of. See Page Etymologicum Anglicanum in this Issue for the comparison of 'Avoid,' 'Eschew,' 'Shun,' and 'Elude.'

Admissions and Confessions

Part Seven:

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

written and compiled by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Eighteenth)

By joining the debt ridden system of sin, you are merged and incorporated into the body of the bankrupt person, where there is no law but the law unto death. For there is only one body--and that body is a lifeless body, joined forever to the condemnation that awaits it. For those who do have no belief in Christ, there is only bondage unto death.

Law itself is a gift, for God gave the Law first in Creation, then to Moses. For the Christian, it is impossible for the bankrupt debtor person to give him any law because: One, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law; Two, the Christian has the Law written on his heart; Three, the Christian is Sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption; and Four, a debtor is not presumed to make a gift. In Christ there is no law of bondage to sin, but a Righteous Bondage to everlasting Life. When you came to Christ, you left the bondage of death behind. This brings to mind the exchange Christ had with the Pharisees in discussing the great gulf between Himself and them, that gulf being a distinction in status:

"BANKRUPTCY. The term 'bankruptcy' means the status of a person [corporation, partnership, trust, or natural person],who has been made the subject of the application of a bankrupt or bankruptcy law [Black's L.D.; Bouvier's L.D.; Cyclopedic L. D.; Rapalje & L.L.D. See also Sackett v. Andross, 5 Hill 327, 339, 348, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 11.], and also, in a secondary sense, refers to the system of law [Christian Law, in this case] under which such status is established. [Black L.D. See also Anderson L.D.]" 7 C.J. 17, 2. [Emphasis added. Remember, Law establishes the world or venue. See Gen 1:1.]
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath [condemned]; I am from above: ye are of this world [bankruptcy]; I am not of this world [bankruptcy]." Jn 8:23. [Question of venue and status.]

"Bankruptcy," then, has a specific meaning: it is the status of a debtor person under the existing Law establishing that status. This makes the bankrupt debtor a subject of the superior Law, which exists in the sides of the north--

"Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. God is known in her palaces for a refuge." Ps 48:1-3. [The north pole is considered the top of the world and its uppermost point.]

The maxims state the following in respect to debtors and their status the two most important being:

"Debita sequuntur personam debitoris --Debts follow the person of the debtor." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2131; and,
"Debitor non praesumitur donare --A debtor is not presumed to make a gift." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131.

Great is the gulf then between the Good and Lawful Christian and the bankrupt. According to God's Law, the Lawless firm of Lincoln, Lieber, and Company are bankrupt, and have the inferior status.

This condition of bankruptcy, not just of Lincoln's United States, but also of the States, is what allows the military, in various disguises, to roam freely among the Good and Lawful Christians in their states. They manage "civil affairs," collect revenues from the "low and lawless" for the bondholders holding the bankruptcy, maintain the condition of "peace," until Good and Lawful Christians re-establish their governments and once again rule in the manner entrusted to them by God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ:

"FIELD ARMY. Administrative and tactical organization composed of a headquarters, certain organic Army troops, service support troops, a variable number of corps, and a variable number of divisions." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 148.
"CIVIL AFFAIRS. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relations between military forces and civil authorities, both governmental and non-governmental, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile area of operations in order to facilitate military operations and consolidate operational objectives. Civil affairs may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of local government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 73. [Emphasis added.]
"The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted, shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breakout of the late civil war [A. Lincoln v. All Christian states]. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government. [Ed. Note: This was the ultimate check against the encroachment of the national government into the states, and the true reason for the War in the first place.]
"Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government." Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 82. [Emphasis added. The concept of union at any cost, not limited to bankruptcy, became the new religion. A huge and unmistakable reversal in the flow of law.]
"War was continued in those States until the President's [Johnson] proclamation of August 20, 1866, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater--'non flagrange bello sed nondum cessante bello.' [Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419.]
"The existence of what is called 'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains [abating the treacherous policy of Lincoln's proclamations, civil rights acts, and the phony amendments]--the animus revertendi--so long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed [the bondholder or his debtor] may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the danger is past, and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances. [1 Bish.Crim.Law, (5th ed.) secs. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited. See Stewart v. State, 1 Ohio St.Rep. 66-71.]
"If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.
"It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Con- [*4] gress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government,' that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them." Report No. 262, House of Representatives, 43d Congress, 1st Session, March 26, 1874. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law." Jefferies v. State, 39 Ala. 658, quoting General Orders No. 100, approved April 24, 1863. [General Orders No. 100 is the Lieber Code.]
"The military occupation of a country by a belligerent power or conqueror, does not, ipso facto, displace the municipal laws. The conqueror or belligerent occupier, may suspend or supersede, for the time being, the municipal laws, but in the absence of orders suspending or superseding them, they remain in full force." Wingfield v. Crosby (1867), 5 Coldw.(45 Tenn.) 241.
"The right of a military occupant to govern, implies the right to determine in what manner, and through what agency [of his own creation or one already existing], such government is to be conducted. The municipal laws of the place may be left in operation, or suspended, and others enforced. The administration of justice, may be left in the hands of the ordinary officers of the law [agency]; or these may be suspended, and others appointed in their place. Civil rights and civil remedies may be suspended, and military laws and courts and proceedings, may be substituted for them, or new legal remedies and civil proceedings, may be introduced." Hefferman v. Porter (1867), 6 Coldw.(46 Tenn.) 391. [Emphasis added.]
"The laws of war, as well in civil as in international war, authorize the occupying conqueror to organize and enforce government over the people of the enemy's country, subdued and held in firm occupation. The government so established, endures no longer than the belligerent and firm occupation continues, and ends with the restoration and resumption of the regular civil municipal government of peace." Isbell v. Farris (1868), 5 Coldw.(45 Tenn.) 426.

This is further evidenced in 12 Op.Atty-Gen. 182 (1867). In other words, the policy of the war is continued to promote commercial interests, welfare, and benefits protected by the military power to pay off these phony bloody bonds and is now "the law"--the Reconstruction Acts--called the "civil rights acts," "voting rights acts," ad nauseam, as amended. This is the same law as Rome, especially when it comes to "criminal" law:

"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies.In the postclassical period, as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.
"[The] more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws." Tacitus. [Bankruptcy brings and breeds corruption.]
"It isto be observed that the power exercised by the President in time of war is greatly augmented outside of his functions as Commander-in-Chief through legislation of Congress increasing his administrative authority. War demandsefficient organization, and Congress in the nature of things cannot prescribe many important details as it legislates for the purpose of meeting the exigencies of war. Never is adaptation of legislation to practical ends so urgently required, and hence Congress naturally in very large measure confers upon the President the authority to ascertain and determine various states of fact to which legislative measures are addressedWe thusfinda vast increase of administrative authority through legislative action springing from the necessities of war. [Charles E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 9.]" Randall, Constitutional Problems under Lincoln, pp. 37-39. [Emphasis added.]
"Obsta principiis, nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society." John Adams, Works IV, p. 43. [Thus, the law unto death is unbelief that God is Sovereign by believing that man is independent of God and sovereign.]

Note these armies, wherever they are in the field, never did, and do not now, bring the Peace of Christ:

"For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness [commerce]; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely [deceit]. They have healed also the hurt of my daughter of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace: when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them, they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jer 6:13-15. [Insertions added.]
"standing armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism." 27 Journal of the Continental Congress 433, 518-519.

The "law" used in all military proceedings conducting civil affairs is merely Roman imperial law, which is really no law at all:

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it.
"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, "Administra- tive Agencies and the Law", American Affairs Pamphlets, April 1946, p. 5.

See also McDaniel, "The Availability and Scope of Judicial Review of Discretionary Military Administrative Decisions," 108 M.L.R. 89. Further, this bankruptcy corrupts the judges on the Article One legislative court bench, but not just at the federal level, although this is the only admission I have found:

"More than once the judges of a[n Article I legislative] court have been indirectly reminded that they personally are taxpayers. No sophisticated person is unaware that even in this very Commonwealth the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service he is inviting a close inspection of his own returns. But I suppose that no one familiar with this Court believes that intimidation, direct or indirect, is effective." Lord v. Kelly (1965), 240 F.Supp. 167, 169. [Emphasis added. The judge in this case disqualified himself on these grounds. Cf. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124 in which it is ruled, "It is not competent for Congress, under the Constitution of the united States, to impose a tax upon the salary of a judicial officer of a state." But it is competent if that "judge" enjoys "civil rights."]
"Res est misera ubi jus est vagum et incertum --It is a wretched state of things when law is vague and mutable." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1471.

And for these reasons, Christians are not subject to the bankruptcy or its arbitrary and capricious proceedings:

"Consuetudo debet esse certa--A custom ought to be certain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.
"Consuetudo debet esse certa, nam incerta pro nullius habetur--Custom ought to be fixed, for if variable it is held as of no account." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.

All civilians sentenced by the military agents, are a:

"CIVILIAN INTERNEE. 1. A civilian who is interned during armed conflict or occupation for security reasons, or for protection or because he has an offense against the detaining power. 2. A term used to refer to persons interned and protected in accordance with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949 (Geneva Convention). See also PRISONER OF WAR." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 74. [Emphasis added.]

You must remember that Good and Lawful Christians are not "civilians":

"CIVILIAN. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civillaw. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 313. [Emphasis added.]

And you are not a "prisoner of war" in the international sense. You are, however, none the less, an exchangeable asset on the balance sheet, if you claimed or stood on any "civil rights"--either pay the fine or sit in gaol. The twin pillars upon which the present system rest are "civil rights" and "paper debt." Knocking out one pillar, destroys the other, and the tower of Lincoln, the most debased and unbased, crumbles.

Which means that only Christians, through Repentance to Christ, can ever attain, have and hold Dominion under the Sovereign Lordship of Jesus Christ, and not be beholden to the bondholders of the bankruptcy of the United States:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character [whether Christian or lawless] of the right claimed [or exercised], whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613. [Emphasis added.]

In Law, corporations, trusts, partnerships, and natural persons are not the equal of Good and Lawful Christians; they are "strangers" in the Law, because they are not privy to the covenant by and between Christians and their Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant, nor bound by it, are also said to be strangers to the covenant. Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [Emphasis added.]
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." Jn 8:23.

And, in Law, the question of Christianity being recognized is a political question:

"The Christian religion is, of course, recognized by the government [a political act], yet not so as to draw invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, etc.; Cooley, Const. 206." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Religion," p. 2865. [Insertion added.]
"The courts are not the guardians of the [Christian] rights of the people of the State, unless those rights are secured by some constitutional provision which comes within the judicial cognizance. The remedy for unwise or oppressive legislation, within constitutional bounds, is by an appeal to the justice and patriotism of the representatives of the people. If this fail, the people in their sovereign capacity can correct the evil; but the courts cannot assume their rights." Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (1868), p. 168, citing Perkins, J., in Madison & Indianapolis Railroad Co. v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 222.

See also Probasco v. Raine, Ohio Supreme Court, June 1893. The courts under the constitutions cannot assume the rights of the Good and Lawful Christians in the states, because those Rights are not under the constitutions, but exist outside them. See Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13 and Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 21 N.Y. 9. The remedy lies with Good and Lawful Christians in erecting and establishing Lawful Civil government under God:

"Allegiance, as we understand that term, is due to no Government. It is due the power that can rightfully make or change Governments. This is what is meant by the Paramount authority, or Sovereignty. Allegiance and Paramount authority do go together; we agree in that. But there is a great difference between the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority, in our system of government, as well as in all others. Obedience is due to the one, while allegiance is due to the other. Obedience to law, while it is law, or the Constitution, which is an organic law for the time being, and allegiance to the Paramount authority, which can set aside all existing laws, fundamental laws, Constitutions, as well as any others, are very different things." Alexander Stephens, Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, p. 25.
"There is a wide differencebetween the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority. Obedience is due to the one as long as it is the law, and allegiance is due to the other when it declares, as it can, that the law no longer exists. In our Government, as in all Governments, there must be a supreme law-making power on the subjects within its jurisdiction; that is, the supreme power of making laws to be obeyed on these subjects must be lodged somewhere. It is not an absolute power in any Government founded on the principles of ours. It is a power exercised in trust only. [For who can, could, or would determine the subjects upon which the Government could legislate?] This supreme power, moreover, or the delegation of its exercise, emanates from Sovereignty or Paramount authority, but it is not Sovereignty itself. All laws therefore passed in pursuance of the rules prescribed by the Sovereign or Paramount authority, are supreme, and to be obeyed as long as they remain of force by the continued authority of the Sovereign power [consent or assent]. This is universally admitted; no one disputes it. In this country, it is equally admitted on all hands that Sovereignty, which is the Paramount authority, resides with the [Christian] People. All government, according to our maxims, is but the exercise of in trust of delegated powers. The exercise of supreme or Sovereign powers may be by delegation. [But if delegated, the person to whom they are delegated is not sovereign in respect to the grantor of the power.] In this country [*40] it is entirely by delegation; but whatever is delegated may be resumed by the authority delegating. No postulate in mathematics can be assumed less subject to question than this. The exercise of supreme law-making power, even over the authority delegating it, may be legitimate so long as the delegated power is unresumed. Obedience to laws passed under such delegation of power, is, as I have said, a very different thing from allegiance which is due to the authority delegating the exercise of the supreme law-making power. Whenever the delegated powers are resumed, allegiance must be due to the resuming Sovereign power; to that which can rightfully make and unmake Constitutions." Alexander Stephens, A Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, pp. 39-40. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what [is] in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." Dan 2:20-22. [Emphasis added.]
"With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his. He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools. He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle. He leadeth princes away spoiled, and overthroweth the mighty.He poureth contempt upon princes, and weakeneth the strength of the mighty.He increaseth the nations, and destroyeth them: he enlargeth the nations, and straiteneth them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth [secular governments] and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man." Job 12:18-25.
"For promotion cometh neither from the east nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another." Ps 75:6-7.
"I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me." Jer 27:5.

To erect these governments and institute Christian civil government, Good and Lawful Christians can not and do not exercise any "civil rights" stemming from their creation by Lincoln in his proclamations, because they belong to the church of Christ and are not "civilians." Furthermore, being the bondservants of Christ, Christians have no power to contract with strangers of their Covenant with Almighty God Sealed and Evidenced by the Blood of Christ:

"The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord." Mt 10:24.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202.

More 'Admissions and Confessions' next month.

Where is the Authority? you ask.

Part Two

by Robert

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

Reprinted from Issue the Fourth of 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society News,' a monthly newsletter published by 'The Monmouth county Christian Jural Society, First House of Delegates,' in New Jersey.

Well!! Have you begun to understand, 'where is the Authority'? Are you reading Scripture for your edification? And if you are reading, are you listening? And if you are listening, are you following His Word in Scripture? If so, do you now know what is meant by, 'His Word'?

The understanding of the Word comes to us through the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. Does the Spirit dwell in you? for if you have not the same Spirit in you to understand Scripture as the Prophets and Apostles had in them to write Scripture, then there is no way true understanding can come to you, until that same Spirit is in you. Make sense! Did a light shine on the darkness?

Jesus himself teaches through the Holy Spirit, and He uses no hirelings, read John 10:13, 14: The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine. And John 10:27: My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me. And at Matthew 10:8, Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, freely ye have received, freely give. What hireling gives freely. He that hath ears, let him hear.

Just in case you are not getting an understanding of what is meant by 'His Word,' read in Scripture at John 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. Is it beginning to come to your understanding? Let us look at John 10:30, where it is written, I and my Father are one. So the Authority you ask about comes from God through His Word, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To help your understanding a little more, read in Scripture at John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And further, here are verses in Scripture for you to read how much Authority that His Word has. Matthew 28:18-20 reads, And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Therefore Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the Word that was made flesh, has all the power, and is the Authority, by Whom, and for Whom, We must live Our lives as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women. If you say at this point, 'I have to sit down and think about that,' then before you sit down to start thinking, get your Holy Bible (KJV), then sit down and read Acts 4:12, which says, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now start thinking.

Book Review

'Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System'

Written by Judge Henry Clay Dean

Printed for the Publisher W. T. Smithson by Innes & Co., Baltimore (1868)

Henry Clay Dean, a Northern Christian Judge, was one 'crying in the wilderness' in 1861. Those cries ended in arrest and incarceration under the lawless regime of Abraham Lincoln, all without trial or charges ever being brought before a military commission, court-martial, or a court at Law.

Judge Dean's dedication of his book reads:

"To the brave men, who, unmoved by the violence of party; unseduced by the temptations of wealth, and unawed by the cruelty of war, defended the priceless treasures of Constitutional Liberty; endured banishment, tortures, and death, rather than surrender their birthright, transmitted by the Fathers of 1776--
"To those upright soldiers, who, through five years of carnage, corruption, plunder, rapine, and desolation, preserved their hands unstained with innocent blood, their souls unpolluted with plunder, and maintained their manhood inviolate--
"To the laboring poor, whose subsistence is devoured by the combinations of Monopoly, Bankruptcy, Usury, Extortion, Standing Armies, Tax-gatherers and Usurpation--
"To the immortal dead, who surrendered their lives in defence of the honor and safety of their homes, and poured out their blood in rich libations to the God of Liberty--is this book dedicated by the author." The author.

On Reconstruction

"The Reconstruction Bill is the most monstrous crime of the Christian era. It is a crime against Christianity in this--that it transfers the government of a Christian people to the control of a degraded, imbecile race of heathens, who yet retain the idolatry and superstitions of the most revolting systems of heathen worship."

On War and Christianity

"To create wars on moral pretence is to overthrow the moral law, the source and the foundation of all laws, and Christianity, the standard by which every good must be measured. When the supreme law of the universe is made and unmade to gratify the whims and passions of the wicked, then we have nothing left on earth to preserve its peace."

Judge Henry Clay Dean's comments above show the Christian perspective in which this book was written through God's hand for Our edification.

This book was not written for those who currently have or maintain a short term perspective in terms of correcting the evils around you. This book was written for giving you the tools and information, from a Christian perspective, for your edification in re-claiming the inheritance for which Christ redeemed us, and which is currently being withheld from us due to our ignorance of Scripture, history, and Law.

We have quoted extensively from this book in past newsletters and in the Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds,' as a major source of Lincoln's despotism and usurpations, and the 'New Nation' created thereby.

The Publisher's Preface of this fine work:

"'The Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System,' which is now presented to the American people, is a most remarkable book. It is a plain rehearsal of thrilling incidents which have occurred in this country within the past few years; it is a record of some of the basest crimes ever inflicted upon man by his fellow; it graphically depicts many heart-rendering outrages perpetrated upon humanity, in the name of liberty, by the unbridled passions of a fanatical despotism; it is a faithful chronicle of passing events and contemplates the character of men as photographed by themselves in the sun-light of heaven -- it views things as they really exist -- fairly, honestly and openly; it withdraws the veil of mystery which conceals the hideous form of a ruined government and an oppressed people.
History is made to repeat itself, although upon a grander scale than the world ever before contemplated. Every page has been subjected to an unscrupulous inquisition; facts and figures are made to speak the untrammeled truth, and the entire testimony is unquestionable. The style is terse and the diction uncompromising, and every sentence is clothed in a strong lucid language which has the impress of the masterly hand and spirit of the distinguished author.
The work is gotten up in a plain, neat form, sufficiently cheap to be in reach of the general reader; typographical errors have been avoided as far as possible, and we trust it will find its way to the offices, shops and firesides of the great masses of the laboring and over-taxed people of the United States. It is the champion of truth and justice, and we send it forth on its mission, with full confidence in its power, to defend the right and maintain its principles." Wm..T. Smithson

On his arrest

"I have a personal reason for the publication of this book. I suffered under the reign of Mr. Lincoln, which was a vibration between anarchy and despotism. Why arrest? I cannot tell. Have never seen anything like charges, and suppose their were none in such form as would be recognized in any court of justice under the sun; and yet I am quite sure there was a cause for it, which is this: I am a Democrat; a devoted friend of the Constitution of the United States; a sincere lover of the Government and the Union of the States: am anxious for a reunion, and believe it the right and duty of a freeman, in a calm, candid manner, to discuss in a temperate spirit, the best modes of effecting this purpose. I have dared to participate in these discussions freely, which I have done from convictions of duty. This was the cause of my arrest."

On the income tax and tax-gatherer

"The tax-gatherer is a toll-dish upon the food, as a sponge-cloth upon the raiment of the laboring masses, to enrich the opulent. The income tax enslaves your productions; and, in the wealth of their mercenary ingenuity, all the means devised by the infinite resources of despotism and fraud, have failed to meet the growing demands of the fathomless debt, which will bind in chains the progressive industry of the unborn generation of our race."
"The Federal tax-gatherer, a trespasser upon liberty, was unknown to our forefathers. He is the chief personage of the funding system, who, at the cheapest wages, performs the most offensive service in the rudest manner. He is generally chosen for his want of feeling and insolence in the common walks of life. His wide range of discretionary plunder includes stamps, incomes, licenses, and excises."

On the National Debt

"The debt of the United States is slavery, which becomes more exacting as the debt increases in volume. This debt has all the attributes of national and personal slavery, and fixes itself alike on the realty and personality of the country. Salmon P. Chase (Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury) did not hesitate to publish to the world through his factotum, Cooke, that the debt was a 'first mortgage' upon all of the property of the United States."

Miscellaneous Chapter Titles

Overthrow of The Constitution of the U. S.

The New Nation

Destruction of Self-Government

Disintegration of Congress

The character of Congress that robs us of liberty

Degradation of the Judiciary

Infidelity of the Clergy

The Sacred Debt

Usury

Curse of the Funding System

Bondholders and Bondmen

The Tax-Gatherer

Military Usurpers

The 512 page 'Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System' is now available from the Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form. This rare book is available at 30.00 in cash or Postal Money Order, or $ 6.00 in pre-1964 silver coin. Call 818-347-7080.

Law and Metaphysics

by John Quade

We have called attention in the past to certain aspects of philosophy as they apply to the study of law and have mentioned in particular, the subject of epistemology, the doctrine on knowing and the basis of certainty and of its great importance in the study and implementation of law. Epistemology, however is but one of the four branches of of philosophy, the others being metaphysics, logic, and ethics. Of course, there is debate over whether ethics should not be considered as a separate discipline and whether or not rhetoric should be substituted for ethics as one of the branches of philosophy. This debate is not our concern here.

Instead, what we are concerned here with is the nature of metaphysics in general, and specifically the relationship of metaphysics to law. This relationship once occupied an important place in philosophy and once was a major concern in the philosophy of law. Today, the metaphysics of law is of no concern to any accept the academic types for the simple reason that most lawyers could care less about the metaphysics of law, and also because, from a humanistic stand-point, the metaphysics of law is a pointless pursuit since it can, in their opinion, yield no practical results for the lawyer, courts, or judges, to take notice of.

In general, metaphysics is the study of being, or in some sense, what is the basis for our existence. Is there an ultimate reality upon which our own being or existence rests or depends upon?

Thus, Black's defines metaphysics as:

'The science of being; the science which deals with ultimate reality.' Vineland Trust Co. v. Westendorf, 96 N.J.Eq. 343, 98 A. 214. Black's Law Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black, Revised Fourth Edition, published by West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1968.

The Oxford Shorter Dictionary takes a very modern and very humanistic view of metaphysics which is purely subjective:

'The science or study of certain phenomena which are 'beyond the scheme of orthodox psychology.' The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume One, p. 1241. Published by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, reprinted 1953.

Corpus Juris tells us more:

METAPHYSICS. That division of philosophy which includes ontology, or the science of being, and epistemology or the theory of knowledge; in a looser sense, all the more abstruse philosophical disciplines; in a narrower sense, ontology alone.

This definition is cited by the editors of Corpus Juris as having come from the Webster's New International Dictionary. C.J. then cites the same case as Black's (supra) and encloses a quote as follows:

"The fund is to be used for the teaching of metaphysics - the science of being - the science which deals with mind; the science beyond experience; the realm of transcendental rumination and of speculation of the philosophers."

How something can be called a science and at the same time 'the realm of transcendental rumination and of speculation' is beyond me. But, to bring the idea of metaphysics a little more down to earth, we note above that metaphysics is a study which includes ontology. Some Christians know of the ontological argument for God's existence, or Proof for God's existence which is often used by Christian apologists. Briefly the argument is that 'the existence of the idea of God of necessity involves the objective existence of God.' The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.

Since some men have the idea that God exists, God must exist in fact or man could never have conceived of God in the first place. That this is a circular argument has been noted by many who have refuted the argument precisely on the ground that it is circular. That all of man's arguments are more or less circular never occurs to most people, but this argument against the ontological argument is sufficient for humanists.

Now, while metaphysics is seldom discussed by anyone but the academic types, its importance is absolutely vital, especially when considering the problems of what is logically possible, what is the basis of authority for a particular argument or line of reasoning, and metaphysics is also directly related to the problems of epistemology and the problems of knowledge, i.e., how do you know you know.

And, since authority and logical argument is important for law as well as the problems of knowing in epistemological questions, the metaphysics of law should be a concern of us all.

But, when we turn to the legal theorists we find the following is typical of most when it comes to discussing the metaphysics of law:

"On the one side are those philosophers who assert that metaphysics is "the sovereign science," "competent to judge every other human science, rejecting as false eery scientific hypothesis which contradicts its own results." Maritain, An Introduction to Philosophy (1933) Ch. VI, p. 111. "[But] On the other hand, to many jurisprudents and social scientists metaphysics is an abstruse, obscure and futile body of speculation which has no significance for their problems."

Note that both these ideas above are from the humanists perspective and each cancels the other., not because there is any real force or authority for either argument, but because each in its own way asserts a relativistic argument that is incapable of making any truthful statement. The work in which these quotes are cited, goes on to say:

"These criticisms are partly justified by the terminology of metaphysics, which is vague because of the comprehensiveness of its subject matter. On the whole, metaphysics is the part of philosophy that has given it a bad reputation with the uninitiated."

What Patterson is really saying here is, metaphysics is too big a subject to be precise about and this fact has given it a bad reputation among the 'uninitiated,' i.e., those not in the know. But then, this makes perfect sense given the starting point of humanism, which is the autonomous reason of man that can know all truth without recourse to revelation from God. This tenet of humanism compels the humanist to confine himself to reasoning from the creation to the ultimate ground of reality, which no man has ever done. In simple terms, the humanist cannot get there from here.

But, as Drs. Cornelius Van Til and Rousas John Rushdoony have repeated pointed out, only if one starts with God will one argue truthfully and arrive at a definition for anything that actually conforms to the way things are. Any attempt to argue from Creation to the Creator, which is the basis of all being and hence the definer of the terms of metaphysics, is futile.

But, if one begins with God, the creator, ground, and sustainor of all being and metaphysics, one can then argue analogically from God the Creator to His Creation and solve the problems of metaphysics that are so important for establishing the authority of law and every other subject.

Patterson also says that lawyers and judges cannot avoid encountering metaphysical questions which must be dealt with if one wants to think clearly.

For jurisprudence, then, the chief importance of metaphysics is to know enough about it to avoid its pitfalls. Three examples of basic metaphysical problems are: the status of universals, the status of the "ought," and the nature of causation.

On Universals

Universals deal with the whole, the One as opposed to the many, the Unity of things as opposed to the Diversity of things. The Unity of all things is, for the Christian, found in the Godhead of Father , Son, and Holy Spirit. Universals are important for law because they deal with such topics as:

What is a rule of law? What is a legal duty? Do such things really exist or are they merely figments of the imagination, like the hobgoblins that were once used by ignorant parents and nurse-maids to frighten children?

If there are no metaphysical universals then there are no rules of law, no legal duties that bind lawyers, judges, and courts, and thus all decisions of judges are individual decisions that have no relation to any other decision, there is no precedent that binds a lawyer or judge and there are no rules to guide the courts decision in any matter. And, the end result of any case is the mere whim or fancy of some judge. This is, of course a purely relativistic position and means that what may be law for one court and judge in one case is not law in another identical case in which an entirely different decision that contradicts the earlier decision can be, and usually is, made.

The clearest example of courts such as these is the local traffic court in which many judges will not hesitate to say that the only law in that court is that which comes out of the judges mouth. For any man to attempt to enter into such courts to defend himself is sheer stupidity and folly which can have only one outcome, "guilty" as charged.

On Ethics

The status of the 'ought' or, what one 'should' do is dealt with in Ethics. For the Christian, we can state the proper position by paraphrasing the Apostle Paul, who says that men ought to worship God, their Creator. Men 'should' seek to glorify God and enjoy him forever, which is the goal or summum bonum of all Christian thought and life on Earth and in Heaven. The rules for ethical or Godly conduct are, for the Christian, found in Scripture which is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

For the humanists, however, things are far more complicated, if not impossible to decipher in ordinary speech and conversation. The humanists answer to the problems inherent in their system of ethics is mass confusion in a sandwich of garbage on leather spread with quagmire. The humanists answers range from situation ethics to the system of Immanuel Kant to the modern view which seeks to totally separate value from the facts about us.

Kant's original idea was to protect religion from science and he ended up by driving a wedge between reason and faith. Kant, in fact, separated 'reality', the realm of science, from value, in the intellectual disciplines (which included religion) with his scheme of 'phenomena and 'neumena,' and ended up by destroying both.

Patterson looks with approval on Kant's work when he says that

"The scientists makes his knowledge universal by consciously striving to keep out his prejudice. The ethical philosopher becomes more objective and more tolerant by being conscious of the leap from fact to value, and the law-maker, with a variety of means at his disposal, is even more aware of the evaluative theories at his disposal."

Thus, in law, at least, the law-maker becomes a god by determining for himself which of his many theories at his disposal he will apply to his next act on behalf of the people. Of course, this means that every other law-maker has an equal right to apply his theories to the acts he does and the only answer to the resulting chaos that comes out of the compromise between theories is, that one man must impose his will on all others so that at least one coherent view will control the end result. This means, clearly, a dictatorship and nothing less will do.

On Causation

Causation is a very important aspect of metaphysics and law. Patterson says,

"Both the metaphysical and the legal conception of cause originated with the common sense observation that for any given event an indefinite number of but-for causes can be discovered."

Causation in law can be seen in an example as follows:

[the] seller-promisee would not have made the good but for the act of the postman in delivering the perfidious buyer's offer; should the postman be held liable? The question whether all events are predetermined by inevitable causes, or some of them arise by chance or by the exercise of man's free will, is a metaphysical question on which, ... an answer in favor of the latter alternative is given by all legal systems which impute individual responsibility for harmful acts. Even if culpability (e.g., negligence or malice) is eliminated as a criterion of legal responsibility (as under Workman's Compensation Acts), some causal relation, however slight, must be found between the conduct of the person to be held responsible and the harm for which compensation is to be made (e.g., "arising out of and in the course of the employment").... Cause is one of those pervasive concepts which needs investigation to determine its significance in the context of a particular inquiry.

And, all this confusion above results in no real answer for the metaphysical problems associated with causation in law. Law has come to see, however, as a purely humanistic device, the application of 'proximate cause' as the result of an act of free will. One is responsible for the violations of law because one 'willfully' disobeyed the presumed norm or standard of conduct for a given society. This definition, however, fails to take into account a number of factors which have combined to reduce such a causation idea to a standing joke in polite society. Who really is responsible for things and the state of society? Can a criminal really be blamed for his theft when he grew up in a bad home? These and similar humanistic conceptions merely muddy the waters of causation because there really is no way to define, in humanism, why a man should be punished for a given act that is in violation of somebody's law somewhere.

For the Christian, the picture is far different and made clear in Scripture.

Man is responsible for his acts, not because he has a free will, but because he knows the truth and refuses to follow it. He knows what God requires and refuses to obey it. As Paul says;

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

Thus, men are responsible for their lawlessness, and also for their negligence and malice, and free will has nothing to do with it. The Scripture not only tells us what sin is, according to God's Law, but it also describes the forms of punishment for that sin, both in the present and in the future and the hereafter.

Christian Courts,

Their Nature and Attributes

Part One

by John William

This begins a series on Christian Courts that a Christian Jural Society may implement once it has formed and lawfully implemented its Covenant. It is by no means intended to be exhaustive, nor is the series considered the final word as if it comes from God's mouth to the paper. It is merely intended to be suggestive of what form the Courts might take.

The Reader is requested to examine the work with the above in mind and is encouraged to make suggestions for changes in wording and in the addition of further information, rules, etc., to the overall statement of the work.

It is presumed that the Court will have at its disposal, a minimum library for determining the meaning of words, maxims of law, a set of state court decisions from ones own state and a set of federal court decisions. These sets of court decisions need not continue beyond 1860. From time to time the Reader will notice footnotes to works that may also be included in this library, along with books that deal specifically with the make-up of courts At-law as they existed in America prior to 1860, such as 'Indictments and the Office and Duty of Grand Jurors,' published in 1831.

One of these works is very good at showing the details of how the Supreme Court is implemented according to the Constitution. This work is, "A Treatise on the Organization, Jurisdiction, and Practice of the Courts of the United States, by Alfred Conkling. Third Edition, Revised and Corrected, Published at Albany, by W.C. Little and Company, Law Booksellers. (1856). This work of some 926 pages is now rare in this edition.

One method of using Conkling's work is not to follow it slavishly, since Our intent is somewhat different than his in that he was concerned with the courts of the united States, whereas we are concerned with Christian Courts. Thus, where necessary, we have modified and re-phrased work's such as Conkling's to conform more specifically to Christian doctrine and the Law of God.

Further, Our work is only concerned with those aspects of works such as Conkling's that implement Courts At-law, i.e., courts that hear actions in common law.

We begin with a word concerning the office of judges in Christian Courts.

It is likely that Christian Jural Societies may hold court and hear actions as an Assize Court, which means that while a judge is not required to hear cases before such a court, it it still an excellent idea if the jural society Covenant makes some provision for a judicial expert, well schooled in Scripture and common law, to advise the Court as they deem necessary, or as set forth in the society's Covenant.

A word of caution, the Society Covenant should not describe their court as an Assize court, because the old Assize courts could only hear actions involving a freehold and nothing else. Since Our Christian Courts will hear a good deal more than actions on freehold questions.

We raise the idea of an Assize court only to point out that Christian Jural Society Courts are like an Assize court only in the sense that they need not have a judge, though it is recommended that they have someone to act in that capacity.

We first consider what the requirements for a judge should be and how he is to be installed in office, whether by a general election of the county electors, by election of the Society, or by the appointment of a judge by some or all of the officers of the Society who may sit as a Special Judiciary Committee.

All these methods may be set forth in a Covenant, with each being applied as a particular set of circumstances arise. Thus, initially, a judge may be appointed by a Judiciary Committee from among those nominated by the Christian members of the Society. Later, the whole Society may elect a judge, and/or, the judge may be elected for a specific term at each Society general election in the county or parish.

Requirements for a judge are the same as those of all officers in the Society. First, he must be a Christian of unquestionable character with good standing in either a local church or ecclesiastical society, and he ... "must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" [1 Tim 3:2] and, if he has children, they should be "faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." [Titus 1:6]

Examining a Candidate

All Candidates should stand for examination by the officers and members of a Society and answer questions on his Christian character and knowledge of Christian common law, Scripture, procedures, and process allowed in Christian Courts. The Judiciary Committee should submit for Candidates, a list of written questions on a wide variety of subjects, religious and legal. This examination may precede or follow questioning by the body. Usually, one is questioned first by the body in order to determine who is most qualified to take the examination.

The written examination should not be hurriedly prepared, just to get a judge in office quickly. To avoid this, the Judiciary Examinations, both for a judge, clerk, and Constable, should be prepared well in advance of the Society's first election.

And, when a Candidate takes a written examination, he should be allowed to use all the works in the library of the Society to complete it and during the examination, he should be monitored by the Judiciary Committee or some portion of the Committee comprising not less than three officers of the Society. The examination may be given over a period of days, for example, two hours a day for three or four days.

The Judiciary may appoint someone to assist the Candidate in finding resources in the library, supplying paper, pencils, etc. The Examination Assistant may be the Court clerk, or the Society Librarian.

When giving the examination, the Judiciary Committee must remember that it is more important for a Judge Candidate to know where to find what he needs to assist the Christian Court, than it is for a Candidate to know everything there is to know off the top of his head.

When the examination is completed and graded by the Judiciary Committee, the Committee may question a Candidate on wrong or incomplete answers, before the Society or the full Committee, and give a Candidate the chance to explain his alleged errors. Candidates must be allowed to justify wrong or incomplete answers for it may turn out, that the Committee has asked the wrong question, or has provided a wrong answer to a question..

Examinations should test a Candidates knowledge of God's Law, Christian common law actions, the proper form of common law process (which is quite technical), the rules of English as they apply to common law process.

The examination can be given in parts, and, as suggested above, each part may be given on a separate day.

Every Candidate should study "The Institutes of Biblical Law," by Rousas John Rushdoony, Volumes I and II, published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company (1973). This and other works by the same author are invaluable in seeing the historical manner in which the Law of God has been applied to thousands of situations.

Once a Candidate has been qualified, examined, and either appointed or elected to office, the Society may hold a ceremony to induct him into office as the other officers are inducted into office, according to the Rules of Protocol for the Society.

The induction ceremony may involve an affirmation (sometimes called an oath) of the form suggested in the Christian Jural Society Handbook, and short speeches by the officers, and the judge elect, at a dinner gathering of the Society. In addition, the Judges' Affirmation should contain a phrase such as the following:

"By my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, before whom this holy thing is holy, I will to the Good and Lawful Christians in this realm, be faithful and true, loving all that they love and shunning all that they shun, do justice to rich and poor alike according to the Law of God and the custom of the world; and never by my will or by my force, in word or in deed, will I do any thing that is hateful to them or contrary to The Law of God; on condition that they will hold me as I deserve and will furnish all that was agreed between us when I bowed myself before them and submitted to their will in Christ."

The Judge then forms the Court and publish a schedule of the Court Sessions that is consistent with the Rules established by the Society Judiciary Acts.

The Court Clerk

As designated in the Jural Society Covenant, there should be one court clerk, in whose office all the court's proceedings are entered and in whose hands all the records and paperwork of the court are kept.

The clerk's office must be at the same location where the Society holds its meetings, and he is prohibited from doing any act that may be construed as practicing law. He should place a bond with the Society denominated in dollars in silver in some amount determined by the Society and noted in the rules thereof. While he may not assist parties to an action with filing their case in the court, he will make certain that all process conforms to the Rules of Court process and must refuse any process that does not meet Style Manual requirements. He may not, however, rule on whether a demandant or defendant has filed the proper process for a particular action as this is the responsibility of first, the representative Townsmen, and second, the judge.

It is customary for the court to review the process and make certain that the process content is properly written for the action stated in the heading of the writ. If process is badly written such that its errors are fatal to a further processing of the action, the Court issues an order to dismiss the action if by a demandant, or an order to a defendant to file a new response to the action. Copies of such orders are given to all parties, their representative Townsmen, and to the Society. Parties may t hen apply for a new Court date in the current or a future Session.

If, Court business is brisk, a Society may wish to appoint or elect an Associate Justice to the court whose responsibility it is to approve all process before it is filed with the court clerk. It will thus be the Associate Justices responsibility to write the orders to dismiss or re-file a cause, but such orders can only be issued after judge has given his approval.

Please Note: No judge or other court officer shall be permitted to use a stamp for his signature on any document, and such signatures shall be made in black ink.

A court clerk may initiate, on his own filing with the court, an action to demand payments that may be due for his services for filing process and that which may the result from a court decision, when an action is settled that requires one or the other party to pay restitution. The action filed by the clerk in such matters is a formal Summary Proceeding of Attachment.

Sessions of the Court

As noted above, a court holds Sessions according to the Covenant or Rules of Court approved by the Society in its Judiciary Acts.

Unless otherwise determined by the Rules of Court or the Society, the length of the Session is normally set by the court itself, depending on case load. This was always the practice of the Federal and State courts before 1860, since the court alone knew what its work-load was at any given moment.

Thus, each Session may being on a specific day in each month, but the Session length, is determined by the Court based on how quickly the case load can be dispensed with.

Orders and additional process on a particular action heard in the court are written by the judge and until such are written, filed with clerk, and served on all parties, the action is not closed.

If a Society has space, as in a separate room, it is best that a Court Session and its records be kept separate from the records kept by the Society Scribe or Recordkeeper, although a copy of court decision and orders is usually lodged with the Society Records and Librarian.

The Assistance of Counsel

In all Courts Christian, it is customary to allow parties to any action to plead their own cause, and if they so choose, they may use a Townsmen, or some other Member of the Society as an Assistant Counsel. But, no party and his Counsel may plead, that is speak to the Court, at the same time. Only one voice may plead a cause before the court, and one only - for the entire case.

The power of determining who will speak is entirely within the discretion of the demandant or defendant.

No member of any association of attorneys, as in a Bar Association, may plead any cause or action in a Christian Court,even if that Attorney professes to be a Christian, nor is he allowed to witness proceedings from the gallery, and any party to an action who violates this rule must be fined by the court and the offending person ejected from the courtroom.

The reason is, argument of a cause in a Christian Court by a member of the Bar automatically compromises the action and disqualifies a court from hearing the cause. The admission of a Bar member into the Court imports a law that is utterly foreign to the law of Christian Courts.

Careful steps must be taken by the judge, clerk, and bailiff, to insure that no such violations ever occur. Some procedure must be implemented whereby the Court can protect itself from this eventuality.

Thus, whenever any person, not a member or officer of the Society, plans to attend the hearing of a cause, or give testimony in a cause, or provide physical evidence to the Court, information must be collected from such person by the Court clerk, to be reviewed by the judge, before the cause is ever brought to trial.

Such persons shall, as all other parties to an action filed in the Court, make an affirmation of his Christian faith and shall state explicitly that he is not a member of any Bar Association or other foreign entity.

Please Note: The testimony of an atheist is not admitted in a Christian Court.

There is one possible exception to the above rules.

It is possible that in time, de facto powers may recognize the Jural Society Courts validity and honor their subpoenas to those in foreign jurisdictions.

But, even if this does not happen, Society members and officers can still file actions against those in foreign jurisdictions through existing county clerks in their ex officio capacity as clerk of the superior court, i.e., as clerk of the At-law court.

In this case, it is entirely possible for the Society to subpoena defendants in a foreign jurisdiction to appear in the Christian Court and give testimony, or appear as a defendant.

If a party is called as a defendant or to give testimony or provide evidence, by this means, he shall strictly follow the procedures outlined above that are necessary to protect the sanctity of the Court.

The Society Counsel

The Society may in its discretion, appoint or elect one man to act as the Society Counsel in filing actions against parties outside the Society, in foreign jurisdictions. In general, the Society Counsel will have the same qualifications as a judge, including the examination requirement.

When Society Counsel issues process it is served by Elisors through the Heralds' Office. The Herald selects the Elisors and receives back from them the Proof of Service, a copy of which the Herald files in his own records, while the original is returned to the Court.

A Society Counsel may, upon request from the Society, the Court, or any other officer of the Society, give advice or render an opinion on some point of law.

Court Reporter

The decisions of the court are published by a Court Reporter who shall have the responsibility to publish decisions in a uniform manner. He shall also be responsible to print and make copies of such reports and decisions and deposit a specific number of copies with the court clerk, the Society Recordkeeper or Scribe, and make copies available to Society officers and members at a nominal cost and this task shall be carried out in a reasonable amount of time after a decision is rendered. The number of mandatory copies a Reporter must make and where the are deposited is set by the Society. A deadline shall be allotted for a Reporter to finish these tasks.

A Society may require a Reporter to forward copies of the court's decisions to the Secretary of State of the State in which the court sits, as a courtesy, or to send copies to other foreign jurisdictions.

Court Bailiff

The Court Bailiff shall have charge of all moneys deposited with the court, shall maintain order in the court at the judge's discretion and shall eject anyone from the courtroom as directed by the judge.

Assize Courts

While the Courts of the Society function like an Assize court, if a judge is appointed or elected to the Court, he shall act as a referee, maintain proper procedures and good order in the court, see that the rights of all parties are fully protected before and during the trial of the action, and shall advise all parties, including their Assistant Counsel of any violations of Court Rules, and if such violations warrant it, a judge shall have the right to sequester a jury while he administers corrective measures, or fines, against the offending parties.

The judge shall implement the jury's decision as specified, and see to it that the bailiff administers restitution, as the Law of God requires.

Ecclesiastical Courts

Any party to an action, a member of the jury, or the court itself, may request by an appeal in writing and by giving proper notice to all, that an ecclesiastical court be convened to hear a point of law or render a decision as to restitution that must be made by a defendant if convicted of the offense given in the demandant's cause.

Such court shall be convened within as short a time as possible in order not to delay the other court's proceedings, and shall render its opinion in written form which shall be read aloud in the court before the cause before it proceeds to its conclusion.

The ecclesiastical court should consist of not less than twelve men and their decision on the matter before them must be carried by a significant majority, i.e., a two-thirds majority or more.

Next Month we will continue this series and cover such topics as; pre-trial procedures, the county clerk's office, the Rules of Court, etc..

The Internet:

Commercial Trap of The Twenty-First Century?

by John Quade

In the early days of the automobile, especially during the 1920's, a new phenomena appeared in the land--car theft. The Federal and State governments responded by setting up a registration system for all vehicles. If the car was stolen and the State recovered it, officials would know who it belonged to, and they could then return it to its rightful owner.

But, instead of this registration being a one time fee, merely to create the registration record and store it, it became an annual fee, and thus, it was an on-going benefit which the State could withdraw if the car owner failed to continue paying the fee. The whole thing appeared to be justified by a real need to stop car theft, and the registration fees were very low, at first.

Then, along came F.D. Roosevelt and converted us all to enemies of the Federal corporation known as the United States. This was done merely by changing a word in the "Trading with the Enemy Act," of 1917 with an Executive Order. According to the act, all enemies of the United States doing business 'within' the United States must be licensed, and all of a sudden, everyone had to have a driver's license, and the registration fees went up, in part because the Federal government required all automakers to put a Vehicle Identification Number on each car they made.

Of course, this new benefit and his newly created COUNCIL ON STATE GOVERNMENTS had to be paid for, and the registration fees went up, and all of a sudden, the automobile became a piece of commercial property, and another apparently innocent benefit of the government became a 'commercial trap.'

History is blanketed by these kinds of subversions on the part of the Federal and State governments and we need only mention Social Security, the 'free' home delivery of mail, and '401k plans' for the Reader to see what we mean.

The question is--is the Internet and its worldwide network of computer systems just one more commercial trap that the Federal government has allowed to exist but which will, at the appropriate time, become another one of those apparently innocent 'little benefits' for which a Federal and State fee will be charged, and which will, of course, convey the necessary 'minimum contacts' the government needs to regulate and tax it fully. That would mean, of course, that all who use the Internet would come under the direct authority of the Federal government, ex post facto perhaps, and the Internet would become just another tool of robbing the masses of their life, liberty and property.

Lest you think this is not a serious possibility, consider the following:

First, the Internet was originally ARPANET, a Defense Department funded and controlled computer network that was designed to link defense contractors. Then the universities got involved because they also participated as research consultants and sub-contractors on thousands of Federal projects.

It wasn't long, of course, before the commercial service providers got involved, and whereas just six years ago there were only a few dozen, there are now millions of everyday Americans 'hooked' on the Internet. It has of course been misused by 'the kiddy porners' and other such deviates, which has given government regulation its first foot in the door. What will be next?

Second, when the King's Men began to form and publish their works, and recopy the great old law books, we saw the Internet as an ideal way to propagate the message of Christian law reform across the land and announced Our intention to set up a National Computer Network for News Patrons. As an afterthought, we decided to do some investigating of where the Internet stood in terms of law. Was there a way to use the Internet without getting sucked into the trap of commercial law and the lex mercatoria? This was the most important question we had to answer.

It turns out that all the designations used by INTERNIC (a domain name regulatory body) such as .com, .org, .net, and so on, are all commercial in nature.

Thus, after digging in every nook and cranny we could find in the Internet, to determine the standing in law of all these different Internet designations, we have not only failed to find anything definitive on the legal standing of these designations, but we find further that there is no set standard as to who should use a .com, .org, and .net. INTERNIC will not divulge any information on the legal standing of these designations because "law is not within their area of expertise." And, this is the group that supposedly controls who gets what!!!

Now, one does not have to be a weather man in order to see that large, murky, gray or dark clouds can be a problem when they begin to gather.

And, all those groups out there who are supposedly guarding our freedom of speech on the Internet base their understanding of the law on statutes, all of which are commercial in nature.

For these reasons, and many more that could be cited, we have decided not to mount an Internet site and expose ourselves and The Christian Jural Societies to possible involvements or entanglements with the Federal commercial jurisdictions.

Though some of the King's Men still have Internet e-mail, this will likely not last long and will be terminated in the next few months.

Our failure to mount an Internet site has been noted by many of those who read The News, and for this we apologize and beg forgiveness.

Accordingly, we have begun to research alternatives for providing the same information by different means. Whether this means setting up a BBS (which means News Patrons will have long distance expenses), or setting up and starting an Internet-look-alike, has not yet been decided. We may end up with a combination of the above.

In the mean time, we are offering at no charge to those News Patrons who request it, the following books on floppy disc:

The Law of Mandamus.

The Presidency and the Courts.

A Treatise on American Citizenship.

The Confessions of Augustine.

U. S. and the States under the Constitution

Call 818-347-7080 to request the discs.

We still believe that the computer and its capabilities are of vital importance to the success of the Christian Jural Societies and law reformers, but currently we cannot in good conscience go the Internet route.

If you have any input or suggestions as to how we can achieve the goals we have set for a National Computer Network, we would be very pleased to hear from you.

For those who have an Internet account, you may reach us with your comments and suggestions at: johnq@qnet.com. This account will not remain open much longer, so please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you and God Bless.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Avoid, Eschew, Shun, Elude

Avoid, in French eviter, Latin evito, compounded of e and vito, probably from viduus, void, signifies to make one's self void or free from a thing. Eschew and shun both come from the German scheuen, Swedish sky, etc., when it signifies to fly. Elude, in French eluder, Latin eludo, compounded of e and ludo, signifies to get one's self out of a thing by a trick.

Avoid is both generic and specific; we avoid in eschewing or shunning. or we avoid without eschewing or shunning. Various contrivances are requisite for avoiding; eschewing and shunning consist of only going out of the way, of not coming in contact; eluding, as its derivation denotes, has more of artifice in it than any of the former. We avoid a troublesome visitor under real or feigned pretences of ill-health, prior engagement, and the like; we eschew evil company by not going into any but what we know to be good; we shun the sight of an offensive object by turning into another road; we elude a punishment by getting out of the way of those who have the power of inflicting it. Prudence enables us to avoid many of the evils to which we are daily exposed: nothing but a fixed principle of religion can enable a man to eschew the temptations to evil which lie in his path: fear will lead us to shun a madman, whom it is not in our power to bind: a want of all principle leads a man to elude his creditors, whom he wishes to defraud. We speak of avoiding a danger, and shunning a danger; but to avoid it is in general not, to fall into it; to shun it is with care to keep out of the way of it." Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), by George Crabb.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Eternity

Suppose some little insect, so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye, were to carry this world, by its tiny mouthfuls, to the most distant star the hand of God has placed in the heavens. Hundreds of millions of years are required for the performance of a single journey. The insect commences upon the leaf of a tree, and takes its load, so small that even the microscope cannot discover that it is gone, and sets out upon its endless journey. After millions and millions of years have rolled away it arrives back again to take its second load. Oh what interminable ages must pass before the one leaf shall be removed! In what period of coming time would the whole tree be borne away? When would the forest be gone? And when would that insect take the last particle of this globe and bear it away in its long, long journey? Even then, eternity would but have commenced. The spirit then in existance would still look forward to eternity, endless, unchangeable, illimitable, rolling before it. The mind sinks down perfectly exhausted with such contemplations. Yes! our existence runs parrallel with that of God. So long as He endures, so long shall that flame which He has breathed into our bosoms glow and burn; but it must glow in the brilliance and the beauty of heaven, or burn with lurid flame and unextinguishable woe.

Be a Good Neighbor

A man wished to drain a marshy pool in his garden, and very imprudently turned the water in, under the fence, to his neighbors garden. The man whose rights were thus invaded was a Christian. He said nothing, but immediately employed a man to dig a trench and provide for the removal of the water. He greeted his neighbor as he daily met him with his accustomed cordiality, and was more careful than ever to set him the example of integrity and high-minded generousity. Whether the man who was guilty of this meanness ever felt ashamed of his conduct we cannot tell, but this we know; that the harmony which had existed between the two families remained uninterrupted; and they lived, side by side, year after year, in perfect peace.

Said another one, who lived near by, and witnessed this transaction, "It is an outrage which I would not tolerate. I would build a strong dam by the side of my fence, and drive the water back again upon him." This is the spirit of the world. Let us see how this plan would have worked. In the first place, it would have enraged the individual thus frustrated in his sordid undertaking. And the more fully conscious he was that he was in the wrong, the more would his malignity have been excited. We can better bear the injuries which others inflict upon us than the consciousness that it is our own dishonorable conduct which has involved us in difficulties. He immediately would have adopted retaliatory measures, and either have thrust his bar through the opposing wall, or have contrived some other scheme by which he might annoy his adversary. Provocations and retaliations would have ensued in rapid succession. A family feud would probably have been at once enkindled, extending to the children as well as the parents, which might never have been extinguished. Immediately there would have ensued a train of petty annoyances, leading eventually to an expensive law-suit, and embittering years of life.

As it was, the Christian governed his conduct by the principles of the Gospel. He submitted to the wrong; and probably, by submitting to it in the spirit which Christianity enjoins, converted the event into a blessing to himself, his family, and his neighbor. The occurence was forgiven, and in a few days forgotten; and the family lived years, side by side, in friendship, and prosperity, and perfect peace. Is it not better to follow the advice God gives, than to surrender ourselves to the dominion of our own passions?

Issue the Twentieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Christian Courts, and Epistemological Self-consciousness, Part Two...

Admissions and Confessions, Part Eight...

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War...

Book Reviews, "Administrative Justice' and 'Commission on Intergovernmental Relations'...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Two..

Civil Rights: The Road to Serfdom, Part Two...

Miscellaneous Notes...

Scripture and the Law Merchant, Part Three...

The Law of Nature vs. God's Law, A Law Review, Part Two......

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Christian Courts,

and Epistemological Self-Consciousness

Part Two

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Nineteenth)

As we seek to establish Christian Courts in which Christians can bring their actions in the protection of life, liberty, land, and chattel property, it will require that the Christian grow in his understanding of the philosophy of Our system of law. For this philosophy will govern and guide not only the establishment of the Courts, but the law heard in Our courts, the procedures we will use, and the process that is filed or served by demandants (plaintiffs) and defendants.

This entire process is more a matter of reforming and reconstructing that which is already available to us, but which has been lost through Our own failure to 'remember the old ways.' Thus, we can take the forms, process, procedures, and rules of the old-style courts at-law (common law) and infuse them with new meanings that embody God's Law. This in turn, will require a whole new way of thinking on a much deeper level than we have done before.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of Christian presuppositional apologetics, stressed the importance of Christians being epistemologically self-conscious. Indeed, the idea that the whole warp and woof of history is the gradual epistemological self-consciousness of Christians runs throughout Dr. Van Til's works. Thus, Van Til had a positive view of the future and in principle he was what we would call a post-millenialist, i.e., one who believed that Christ returns after the Bride (the church) has made herself ready through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

Epistemological self-consciousness is a long word with a really very simple meaning. Since epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the study of knowing, i.e., how does one know that one knows anything. What is the basis of certainty in what we know. Most people today, have no idea what their basis of knowing is and this factor is absolutely crucial.

The evolutionist may think he knows that the earth is billions of years old, but is it? How does he know this? The Christian believes in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit but, how does the Christian know this? One may believe in the validity of God's Law and the common law but, how does he know that such is a valid form of Lawful expression?

We are not talking about knowing a set of facts. This is not the epistemological answer because facts must be integrated into a system of thought which, in turn, is built on some more ultimate foundation. All facts are interpreted facts the moment we perceive them. But, by what means do we interpret them and how do we know that Our interpretation is the true one. This is a major problem for all knowing in the world we live in.

It's a problem because, whether we 'know' it or not, the vast majority of people act as if all knowing were merely a matter of opinion. If you doubt this, try and engage someone in a conversation about law today and they will invariably resort to arguing that 'so and so says,' or 'I've heard that' or, 'my pastor says.' In other words, knowing the truth is not what I know, but what someone else knows. And, this kind of knowing is the heart and soul of Atheistic relativism wherever such thinking is found. Sadly, this problem of relativistic knowing has crippled the Christian church and reduced it to its current level of impotence and apostasy.

The victims of relativistic knowing spend a major part of their lives running around in the dark or a dense fog and bumping into walls, doing things without really knowing what they're doing or why. They operate by 'feelings,' and 'opinion,' not by real knowledge. Their basis is faith in man. Consequently, for these people, life is one long and continuous series of mistakes, many of which are very costly. They are again, victims of their lack of knowing.

Even when they think they know something very strongly, it has no real strength or power because there is always the element of doubt which, as time goes on, creeps in to undermine their effort. For such people, it is better to do nothing about the world condition than to take anything or any cause too seriously to pursue it with all of ones' heart, soul, mind, and body. These are the people who are always waiting on the sidelines for someone else to do it or take the first step. The law reform movement is riddled with this kind of thinking because they really don't know.

Many examples of this could be cited, but one will suffice for the present. For years the King's Men have been telling everyone not to sign "U.C.C. 1-207 without prejudice" or one of the variants of this phrase, on any document that purports to be lawful. Yet, in spite of repeated warnings, they do it anyway because 'my friend says' that this is the way to do it. By this act, their so-called Lawful, or common law process, is shammed and Lawful process is turned into commercial process. The process fails, ending up in a major hole from whence they cannot extract themselves.

This happens because they do not know the difference between Lawful and commercial process when they see it. Knowing the right thing to do is now, and may always be foreign to them because they do not know. And, spending many hours in the law books will not help. Again, it is not a matter of gathering facts of law, because facts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. And, this process of interpretation takes more work than reading the law books!

Now, as Christians, we are supposed to live on the basis of God's Knowledge found in Scripture. But, in spite of having the ultimate Word of God, the final standard in all matters of faith and practice, and being called as a unique people, set apart from the world, most Christians function no differently than Non-christians.

They're in debt up to their eye-balls, divorce is rampant, and most will not obey God's Law. Indeed, it has been said quite candidly and quite often, that the majority of today's Christians are among the most ignorant and lawless people in the world! They do not know how to know. Most wouldn't know the truth even if it ran over them in their own drive-way, and what's more, they not only don't know how ignorant they are - they don't want to know. Because if they knew, it might force them to repent and reform their lives and change their ways and this could bring them into confrontation with the world powers and their own superfluities of life.

Take, for example, the phrase that Christians use every day -- "I just love Jesus." When asked to define love, most will say something like "Love is patient, love is kind, love is blah, blah, blah," and so on. But, these verses 'describe' love, not 'define' it. Thus, they do not know the difference between a description and a definition. If one cannot define love, one does not know whether he loves or not. Without such a definition, held clearly and self-consciously in the mind, one could hate someone else and never know it!!!

Of course, Scripture defines love very clearly, but this definition implies certain things that the modern Christian doesn't want to deal with.

Thus, Our Lord defines love as; "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15; and Paul defines love at Romans 13:10 as, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Thirteen times Scripture commands us to keep the Lord's commandments in the Old and New Testaments. But, do Christians keep the Lord's commandments? Obviously not. Thus, Christians do not know what love is, in spite of the clear teaching of Scripture.

Above, we said that the reason Christians do not deal with the definition of love is because it has implications that they do not like. These implications are, that if a Christian is to truly love his wife and family, the church body, his neighbors, his enemies, and all else, then he can only do so by keeping God's Law. If we take this seriously, it means we must obey God rather than men, and this will bring us into confrontation with the world. The bottom line is, love is what one does, not what one feels or professes. 'Actions speak louder than words' is an implied maxim of God's Law.

The reason for this little side-trip into the definition of love is simply to point out that, knowing God's plan for us is not difficult if we stick to God's Word and not the opinions of men and the humanist world. We must reject all forms of relativism. In Christianity therefore, knowing, on its simplest level, is easy. We simply compare Scripture with Scripture, or as the Reformers used to say, sola scriptura, (scripture alone).

The implications of this are many. God's Law is not merely key to understanding what love is. It is also key to success in the law reform movement if God's Law is the content or meaning of all Lawful process that Christians use to defend their life, liberty, land, and chattel property.

At first sight, Our examples above would seem to solve the problem of knowledge and knowing. But, do they? Superficially, yes. But, this is as far as it goes. In the larger sense, we must take full account of the fact that the ultimate key to knowing is having the standard of God's Word, an absolute standard, which is the opposite of the humanist's relative standard.

We can only be said to know, truly, provided we fully accept God's standard as Our standard for truth. Only when God's Word is the absolute and final standard for all knowing can we be said to know anything. This does not mean that we will know everything in the exhaustive sense, for only God can know exhaustively. But, what we do know, we can know truly, that it is the truth and on this basis we can act, and on no other.

Thus, if God's Word is Our only and final authority in all matters of faith and practice in the general sense, then in the particular sense of Law, it is also Our standard and by this means we can evaluate all forms of law and make a determination as to which is true and which is false. If we, for example, studied Scripture to determine if commercial law is valid for Christians to use, the standard of God's Law would have made it clear that the law of the merchant is not Biblical.

The Christian would have then rejected the use of things such as "U.C.C. 1-207" at the outset. It would not have mattered who said what about the matter, i.e., it would not have mattered what the opinions of men were. And thus, we would have rejected it, no matter how stupid and ignorant the world, or Our friends thought we were. God's standard would have come first and last and we would have clung to His Law and rejected the commercial law. (See 'What is the Law Merchant?' in Issue the Sixteenth of The News).

In a very real sense, we would have known the truth of the matter.

Thus, we come to the question of Christian common law and the epistemologically self-conscious Christian. And, when we say 'self-conscious' we mean that we know consciously (as opposed to sensing, or feeling) what we know about law in general, and God's Law in particular.

For many months we have stressed the fact that we are not merely interested in the common law, per se, because this term, without qualification, has been compromised by the Romans who run the present imperial powers. The current idea of common law is not the common law that we all think about when we discuss the Writ system. It is, in fact, through the work of Lord Mansfield and others, corrupted to mean or include the commercial law, or lex mercatoria. Thus, humanist man has re-created the common law in his own image and to suit his own purposes.

And, when we see the phrase in current State constitutions such as; "Unless contrary to existing law, the English common law shall be the rule for all the courts of this State," it means that the rule in the courts of the State embraces Mansfield's commercial common law, not the original common law of England and America.

Christians in the law reform movement must know this. Failure to take it into account means the difference between success or failure in all we do. For if we presume that we can serve or file common law process in the current courts, meaning the common law of old, we are wrong and the process will fail and we will lose Our case.

If, on the other hand, we mean to use the common law of old and make certain a court knows what we mean, we must use the phrase 'Christian common law' when we refer to common law. Otherwise, the court must assume we mean commercial law, and not the older, Christian idea of common law, which is non-commercial.

Further, when we write the process itself, it must, at every point, embody God's view of Law and not that of men or the so-called 'patriots.' Man cannot serve two masters and thus we cannot mix different kinds of law in Our process.

One may think that we must know all forms of law in order to avoid mixing different systems and corrupting Our process. This, however, is not necessarily so. The most important law to know is God's Law because it is Our standard by which we measure and judge all other systems of law, process, and procedure. Thus, we need not spend a fortune on a massive library to know what other systems of law teach. We are ahead of the game if we know the truth of God's Law, first.

With all the commentaries, lexicons, dictionaries, and other tools available for use with the Bible, it is far easier to get to know God's Law than it is man's law. Then, when we confront other law and measure it by God's standard, we can judge whether such law is Godly or not.

The point is, if God's Law is Our standard and Scripture the basis of all we know, then the background or presupposition of all Our knowledge is Scripture and in this we can have the utmost confidence and act accordingly. We can press the Crown Rights of King Jesus and advance the Kingdom of God on all fronts.

By this means, we will know what we know and why we know it and we can know the truth that will set us free from the Roman system that corrupts the land. Epistemologically self-conscious Christians will take the forms and procedures of Christian common law and fill it with God's meaning in His Law and against such there is no other law with force and effect. In such a milieu there will be no doubt as to what constitutes real Law and what doesn't.

Yes, we will make mistakes, some may go to jail, some may lose all their worldly possessions, as many others already have. But, they will have served a very real need and purpose in God's Plan for Christian Dominion throughout all the Earth. Gradually, line upon line, tittle upon tittle, stone upon stone, the Holy Spirit of God will work through His church and we will once again know what Reformation and Reconstruction really mean.

Thus, Our goal is nothing less than the establishment of Christian Courts, manned by Christians for Christians that adjudicate matters of law based upon God's Law. Let us hope that we will not forget to teach Our children and their children's children that "... where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Eight

Written and compiled by John Joseph

The District of Columbia is a separate political community and jurisdiction from the states:

"The District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State whose sovereign power is lodged in the Government of the United States; but it is not strictly a State within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. The inhabitants of the District of Columbia are not Citizens of a state." Metropolitan R. R. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 9; Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U.S. 444; Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 453; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 397.

This being the case then, the laws made for the District and those subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which are international and interstate, do not enter the Christian states, ala Swift v. Tyson. They do enter the States of the Union, however, which is a commercial venue, and not a Christian Venue:

"No statute of Arkansas inhibits persons described as belonging to 'low and lawless types of humanity' coming into the state. Under the 14th Amendment, and under the interstate commerce clause, of the Constitution, they now have that right [privilege]." State of Arkansas v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 96 F. 353. [Emphasis and insertion added. Note the difference in the source of the right. A difference in source points to a different and separate venue.]

This being the case then, these instruments are made by a law which exists in a foreign venue attempting to penetrate the Christian Venue. The law from the other venue must be evidenced in some way:

"The existence of any foreign law must be proved by evidence showing what it is. And there is no legal presumption that the law of a foreign state is the same as it is here. 2 Stark. Ev. (Metcalf's ed.) 568; Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp.Rep. 163. If a foreign law is unwritten, it may be proved by parol evidence; but if written, it must be proved by documentary evidence. Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 Johns.R. 385; Frith v. Sprague, 14 Mass.R. 455; Consequa v. Willings, 1 Peter's Circ.C.R. 229. The laws of other States in the Union are in these respects foreign laws. Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. 293.

The sin for which America is now being judged was seen over one hundred years ago by one who recognized the commercial evils coming and tried to do something about it, at that time:

"In politics and morals, as in mechanics, it is impossible to war successfully against principle. The principle will ultimately prevail. The wickedest of all follies, and the absurdest of all crusades, are those which attempt to make things equal which God in his wisdom has made unequal. It is a struggle against a principle which can never succeed, where reason has sway, until 'the leopard can change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin.'" Alexander Stephens, quoted in Wilson, Patriotic Gore (1962), p. 411.

Must all Christians pay for this? Surely; for the sin, being interstate, is a disgrace to all peoples in their respective states, Christian and non-Christian, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." The difference is that Christians have peace with God through Jesus Christ --non-Christians do not. All "Churchian- ity" types should take heed now:

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments [codes, rules, regulations and interpretations] of men.For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 15:8-9 and Matthew 5:20. [Insertion added.]

Read also Nehemiah 5, which is the present situation today, condensed. Essentially the secular mime of Law is running rampant to satisfy the lust for power of fanatic bankers, their litigation-crazed attorneys, and their pawn "governments" licensing speculation in the profits derived from their exploitation of ignorant Christians, using the "maxim" of "law":

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur --The populace wishes to be deceived, therefore let it be deceived."

but:

"Deceptis non deciptientibus, jura subveniunt--The laws help persons who are deceived, not those deceiving." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131.

This must be looked at in the proper context, however. There are remedies at Law for deceit, but not when you go into a court legislated for the purpose of balancing your "equal rights" with the bondholders' rights:

"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods." Ex 23:32;
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8, 10-12.

This is the doctrine of consociation--no one brother is over the other in pre-eminence, for Christ is the Head, and all Christians have pre-eminence over the anti- or non-Christians. The only Rights in common that Christians exercise are those with which they are vested by God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and, they are not privileges from codes, rules, and, regulations of man. The seal of the Holy Spirit evidences the character of the Good and Lawful Christian; the seal of Caesar evidences the character of the "low and lawless":

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

And:

"No man can serve two masters.You cannot serve God and mammon."

These two verses are mutually exclusive, and not to be confused. By the Law no man is justified; but Good and Lawful Christians are justified by Christ, for Christ fulfilled the Law, and gave each Good and Lawful Christian Standing in Law, whereas 'civilians' stand under the Law.

The other remedy concerns itself with ignorance of fact. Let us first set up the scenario. The District of Columbia is a separate political community and jurisdiction from the states.

"The courts of this State are not presumed to know the laws of other States or foreign nations, nor can they take judicial cognizance of them, till they are legally proved before them. [*130] But when established by legal proof, they are to be construed by the same rules and to have the same effect upon all subjects coming within their operation, as the laws of this State.
That the lex loci rei sitae must govern the descent of real estate, is a principle of our law, with which every one is presumed to be acquainted. But what the lex loci is the Court can only learn from proof adduced before them. The parties knew, in fact, that the intestate died seised of estate situated in the State of New York. They must be presumed to know that the distribution of that estate must be governed by the laws of New York. But are they bound, on their peril, to know what the provisions of these laws are? If the judicial tribunals are not presumed to know, why should private citizens be? If they are to be made known to the court by proof, like other facts, why should not ignorance by private individuals have the same effect upon their acts as ignorance of other facts? Juris ignorantia est, cum jus nostrum ignoramus, does not extend to foreign laws or the statutes of other states." Haven v. Foster (1829), 9 Pick.(Mass.) 111, 129-130. [Emphasis added.]
Ignorance of law signifies ignorance of the law of one's own country. ibid.
Ignorance of the law of a foreign government is ignorance of fact. ibid.
In this respect, the laws of other states in the Union are foreign laws. ibid.

In other words, Christians know the Law of Christendom because it is revealed in God's Creation, and by Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and is written on their hearts, but it is not imputed that they know the law of the stranger, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' or his filthy and bloody national banks. If the courts don't know the laws of strangers, how could Christians, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' and his national banks? If courts require proof of the law of strangers should not Christians require this of the strangers in their state, i.e. Lincoln's 'United States' and his national banks? This is ignorance of fact, and not of law.

Ignorance of fact excuses and is a good plea in a court at Law, but not a legislative court, which is where most relief is sought by these filthy banks during a foreclosure. The issue essentially is: One, that the law of the stranger has never been brought forward and proved to be law at the time any engagements were made or undertaken (Why?); Second, the fact that a stranger wishes his foreign law preferred over that of the Christian state raises a political issue do you follow the Law of Christ or the law of the stranger? Which is the Law of Peace? Who has the Truth? If it is the Truth, then why the attempt to hide the Truth? Possibly because they have no law because it lacks substance, it is fiction:

The Deity has not given any order or family of men authority over others, and if any men have given it they only could give it for themselves. Samuel Adams.

Fictio juris non est ubi veritas;-- Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2134.
Fictio cedit veritati, fictio juris non est ubi veritas;-- Fiction yields to truth, where the truth appears, there can be no fiction of law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2134.
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi;-- Truth fears nothing but concealment. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2167.

Can an officer of the law plead ignorance of Christian Law? Surely not:

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:17-21. [Emphasis added.]
Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law. In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

When Christians begin to understand, apply and Righteously exercise the Law of God, then substance shall return to the forms of government which existed before Lincoln's War v. All Christian states, because it was Christian communities that were destroyed by Lincoln:

"These rights [of Christians] can be destroyed only by destroying the [Christian] communities which have inherited them. To destroy [Christian] communities for the enjoyment of their inherent rights, is a crime of nameless atrocity." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System (1868), p. 27. [Insertions added.]
"The traditional symbols of community in the West, the traditional images and metaphors, have been above all, religious and legal. In the twentieth century, however, for the first time, religion has become largely a private affair, while law has become largely a matter of practical expediency. The connection between the religious metaphor and the legal metaphor has been broken. Neither expresses any longer the community's vision of its future and its past; neither commands any longer its passionate loyalty." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), p. vi. [Emphasis added.]
"For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy." Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System(1868), p. 35.
"Public policy is dictated by the law making power of the legislature, and is found in the general tenor of statutes, and in direct enactments." Female Academy v. Sullivan, 116 Ill. 375. When the legislature, within the powers conferred by the constitution, has declared the public policy, and fixed the rights of the people by statute, the courts cannot declare a different policy or fix different rights. The remedy if any is needed, is with the people and not with the courts. Probasco v. Raine, O. Supr. Ct., June 1893. Robert Clowry Chapman, Public Policy, 2 Mich. Law Journal 308, 309 (1893). [Emphasis added.]

There simply is no other solution available outside of Christians taking Dominion under God to re-establish their communities:

Absentem accipere debemus eum qui non est eo loco in quo petitur; -- We must consider him [the Good and Lawful Christian] absent who is not in that place in which he is sought. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2124. [Insertion added.];
Res perit domino suo; --The destruction of the thing [Christian civil government] is the loss of its owner. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), Maxim, vol. II, p. 145.

Until next month, may God Bless you All Richly and guide you away from the evil one.

Book Reviews

"Administrative Justice and The Supremacy of Law in the United States" by John Dickinson, (1927)

'Commission on Intergovernmental Relations' by U.S. Gov't. (1955)

'Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in America' gives us a unique look into the humanistic autonomous reasoning of the Twentieth Century Law Profession.

This book is an excellent tool for looking into the mind of the enemy.

Why has law in America come to the low point it has? Why is it that man's law can be one thing one minute and something else the next minute? Why do lawyers practice the 'ethics' they do? What law does an Administrative Agency really have? Why are Administrative Agencies 'above it all'?

These and many related questions are answered quite openly in this book. The following are excerpts from the book.

The True Nature of Government

"Governments have been more and more becoming agencies for the direct supply of public services to their constituents. The oldest instance is the post-office. Other examples in the case of our Federal government are the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the Shipping Board, and the Irrigation Service. Municipalities frequently engage in the supply of water and light to their inhabitants. Closely analogous to the administration of such business or quasi-business projects is the task of administering the distribution of a fund, as in the case of pensions, or of a domain, such as the public lands. In all these instances the government stands on one side of an essentially business relationship, and the individual, as customer or beneficiary, on the other. In this field, accordingly, it is not unfair to regard administrative adjudication as primarily a step in carrying on the business of government; it adjudicates what may be called for the sake of convenience the statutory 'privileges' of individuals rather than their more fundamental 'rights.'"

"No system of pure 'regulation by law' could exist, or has ever existed. Government has always acted on its own motion, and for other purposes than to enforce the judgments of a court."

Arbitrariness of man's law

"Law is an artificial system which is always gathering new material. The controverted points of one generation become the settled rules of the next, and fresh work is built up on them in turn."

"But the insistence upon a regime of law entails consequences which are not always well realized. It is quite inconsistent with the Austinian notion that law and the command of a sovereign are synonymous. For from moment to moment the sovereign may issue contrary commands."

"The heart of the legal system is in its concepts. These are the fixed points which introduce an artificial stability into the ebb and flow of human relations--the hard identities which for its own purposes the law impresses upon resemblances, to create certainty through ability to predict the legal consequences of acts."

Miscellaneous Chapter Titles

Regulation by government v. regulation by Law

Legal Order in Fields of disputed Social Policy

Meaning of 'Supremacy of Law'

Court review of Administrative Determinations

The 403 page 'Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in America' is available from The Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form.

The Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs, which is still in existence today, was created by Public Law 109, approved July 10, 1953 to investigate National-State-local relationships--the first official undertaking of its kind since the Constitutional Convention in 1789. In this first of its reports, is displayed the reversal of the traditional American idea of government from the bottom, up, to the new form of government which is from the top, down, due to 'financial and military emergencies.'

The New Government

"New administrative undertakings of the (Civil) war and post-war years introduced the National Government permanently into fresh areas of activity. Among these were the first Morrill Act of 1862, which made land grants for agricultural and mechanical colleges in each State; the establishment of a Commissioner (later Secretary) of Agriculture in the same year, and of a Commissioner of Education in 1867; and in 1870 the creation, under the Attorney-General, of a Department of Justice to supervise from Washington the activities of the United States attorneys in the field. More important for the business world was the establishment of a National banking system in 1863. This created for the first time a corps of National bank examiners. In a follow-up move, Congress used the taxing power to oust the States from the field of chartering banks of issue. Soon thereafter there was a uniform currency [under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913]."

The Power of the President

"What those powers were, and which National authority was to be the judge of them were questions not so conclusively settled. Chief Justice Marshall asserted emphatically in 1803 that it was the power and duty of the judiciary to say definitively what the law--including the Constitution--means ["judicial review"], when a question is raised in a proper case. But his successor, Chief Justice Taney, found in the doctrine of "political questions" some limitations on the judicial power to interpret the supreme law. Further limits are inherent in the nature of the process of judicial review over legislation, confined as it is to cases and controversies. Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln expanded the role of the President in ways the Court could not control, ways that sometimes give that office a decisive voice in determining the scope of National power as well as the direction of National policy.Congress has extended the sphere of National action."

The Results

"To many, the expanding powers of the National Government seemed destined to reduce the States to mere administrative provinces. This prospect was sharpened by Supreme Court decisions which appeared to have the effect of removing almost all significant constitutional limitations on the expansion on National activities. It was often aggravated by the conviction that many of the newer activities constituted invasions of individual freedom and ought not to be undertaken by any level of government. Thus the fear of usurpation of States rights was frequently combined with the fear of undue paternalism."

This 311 page full discloser report by the enemy is an important opportunity to study the innerworkings of the beast. It is available from The Christian Jural Society Press in re-copied book form.

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War

by John Joseph

We recently received a call from a Good and Lawful Christian Woman in Hawaii, a Godly mother of two, whose husband had been incarcerated for not fulfilling the "law" of the imperial Caesar. I do not know all the particulars of this Good and Lawful Christian Man's incarceration, and for purposes of this discussion they are not relevant. What is relevant is that this Woman was standing with and supporting her husband in all his Christian labors which should earn her the respect of her local Christian community. Is she not following Scriptural mandates in Genesis and the epistles of Paul? Why then does not the Christian community come forward and take care of the widows, as it should? Is government now to take care of what belongs to Christ? Does the man have to die before his Good and Lawful Christian Wife is pronounced a widow on his death? Surely not. If the man is incarcerated, can he possibly take care of his family while waging war for the Lord? Surely not. He is as good as dead as far as those affairs are concerned. It is the duty of the Christian community to take care of the widows in their times of struggle and need, and because her husband had stood on God's Law, and she had supported him in his Christian labors, she has a right to demand the support of the Christian community. Does not the husband's particular cause concern, edify, exhort, and preserve the church? Does it not concern the common wealth that Good and Lawful Christians be preserved? Does not that which concerns all be supported by all? If the Christian community does nothing, then it shows how dead that community is in relation to Christ.

Husbands, if you believe your wives have no role in this war, you are grossly mistaken. Wives, if you think your husband can go it alone, you will shortly know how wrong you are. Forget "Equal Reprobate Amendments" and the other ilk of the Marxist commercial world. You both belong to Christ, and in His Law He calls you by one name alone, just as He called them Adam in Genesis 5:2. See also Gen. 2:23.

To encourage you brave women who have called and shared your trials and tribulations with us, we are going to begin publishing in the news some stories of some remarkable Christian women who stood with their husbands during the most bloody time in American history--Lincoln v. All Christian states. We are not trying to compare you with these women; and, we do not want you doing that either. We wish merely to show that our Lord is there to light your path with His Word through thick and thin.

We do not want you to think that because you are a woman you are necessarily weak; but, as Good and Lawful Christian Men we feel it is our duty to encourage you in your struggles when you have the feeling of weakness and helplessness, just as you have supported, encouraged, and exhorted your husband in his time of need. We also extend an open invitation to you: One, to fellowship with us; and Two, to write articles of your experiences for publication in the News so you can encourage, exhort, and edify others in the same trenches as yourselves. It is not enough to call yourself a Christian, for as James says, "I will show you my faith by my works."

If there was ever a time for Repentance and healing in America, the time is now; and, the Good and Lawful Christian Women now living hold in their hands a shared destiny with their husbands in passing along to their posterity that fine and extremely rare quality of being a loving Christian Wife standing with and by her husband as he stands in the gate executing the living Testament of Christ by and under which he rules his house in the fear of the Lord; and, a mother to her children, raising them in the admonition of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

For all you Good and Lawful Christian Women who have stood with and by your husbands in the past, we thank you for supporting your husbands, the privilege of your fellowship, the pleasure of meeting some of you and your Godly endurance--for without your exhortations the road is long and hard alone. Is it not written "A house divided against itself cannot stand?"

Next month, our first heroine. Until then, may our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, go with you, comfort you, and Bless you and yours, Amen.

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance'

Part Two

by Randy Lee

(continued from Issue the Nineteenth)

To begin, we will first examine what it is we are to avoid, and second, how we are to avoid it.

On June 12, 1867, (two years after Lincoln's War had ceased) Attorney General Henry Stanbury made public notice of his opinion on The Reconstruction Acts. That opinion, at 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182, stated that the Reconstruction Acts are:

"a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority, is reversed."

Fifty years later William E. Birkheimer, author of 'Military Government and Martial Law' reconfirmed this 'new jurisdiction' through the 'Reconstruction Acts':

"There have been numerous instances in the history of the United States and of particular States of the declaration of martial law. But for completeness of design and efficacy of measures for carrying it into successful execution, nothing could surpass these acts of Congress. They established a military despotism. ....Judging from these acts, the authority of Congress in this regard would seem to be complete. It was attempted in vain to enjoin the carrying this legislative martial law into execution. The Supreme Court refused to interfere. The power and duty conferred and imposed by those acts, it was observed, were purely executive and political in their nature and beyond the sphere of the judicial cognizance. Nor was this system of government wanting the attributes of power, firmness, and, considering the times, justice." Military Government and Martial Law (1917), page 486, by William E. Birkheimer (Major, General Staff, U.S. Army and Acting Judge-Advocate, Department of the Columbia).

And 84 years later, Dean of Harvard Law School, Roscoe Pound, revealed how well this 'new jurisdiction' meshed with 'the new corporate State' and its 'new Marxist philosophy' of law:

"A change from the rational moral political and legal philosophy of the eighteenth century and the ethical idealist political and legal philosophy of the nineteenth century began in the sixth decade of the last century when Marx announced his economic interpretation of history. The ethical idealistic and political idealistic interpretation of political and legal history, dominant in the nineteenth century, began to give way at the end of the century before the conception which Marx propounded in 1859. Where history had been taken to be a record of the unfolding of human experience of the idea of liberty, Marx asserted the unfolding or realizing of an economic idea--the idea of satisfying human wants. For some three decades this interpretation remained unnoticed. It was taken up in 1889, got much vogue in continental Europe in the last decade of the century and came to the United States at the beginning of the present century, where it has had increasing vogue. Out of it has grown what is called 'economic determinism,' a doctrine that all the phenomena of law and government are necessarily and inexorably determined by purely economic causes; that every act of legislation and every exercise of the judicial function is inevitably in the nature of things dictated and shaped by the self-interest of the dominant social and economic class in a society which, by a like necessity, will be class organized until the ultimate doing away with private property. The legal order is a regime of force, the force of a politically organized society, applied at the instance of a socially and economically dominant class upon those whom that class is able to constrain. Thus, law is what ever is done officially in the way of imposing the force of such a society upon those subject thereto. The motivation of imposing of that force is purely economic. Precepts and principles and doctrines and ideals are illusion or superstition or wishful thinking. They are used to cover up results reached independently on a purely economic basis." 'Administrative Law,' by Roscoe Pound (1941), pp. 116-118.

Four years later, Roscoe Pound further explains this 'new jurisdiction':

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it."

"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, Administrative Agencies and the Law, Am. Affairs Pamphlet, April, 1946, p. 5.

And the continuance of the 'new jurisdiction,' new military government, new Constitution and new Marxist nation/State created by A. Lincoln was bluntly expressed by Columbia Law Professor George P. Fletcher in the June 23rd, 1997 issue of 'The New Republic,':

"The 'original republic'--the one for which our 'forefathers' fought 'face to face-hand to hand'- exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War."
"The new Constitution--the one that shapes and guides the national government and disturbs the new patriots to their core--begins to take hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original Constitution..... This short speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
"Nationhood, equality and democracy--these are the ideas that forge the new Constitution. But Lincoln was a good lawyer, and lawyers always seek to camouflage conceptual transformations as the continuous outgrowth of language used in the past. That's why he invoked government "by the people" to capture the new principle of democratic rule. But the significance of the People had changed. They no longer exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy. States and individuals can no longer set themselves apart from the nation. The people exist exclusively as voters, as office holders and as beneficiaries of legislation." George P. Fletcher, 'Unsound Constitution,' The New Republic, June 23, 1997, p. 14-18.

The Reconstruction Acts are still in full force and effect today; they have never been repealed. The reason they have never been repealed is because they were created for the financial 'reconstruction' of that new government of conquest known as 'The United States,' which was, and still is, bankrupt. (see 'Admission and Confessions' in Issue the Sixteenth).

The administrative agencies are simply the 'civil affairs' arm 'in the field,' of the military regime, to collect war reparations--by license, not by law.

The Gettysburg Address was a 'war measure,' a ruse de guerre--a deception of war--perpetrated on a Christian country in ruin, by an enemy of Christ.

Mr. Fletcher, lover of the Marxist concepts of 'nationhood,' 'equality' and 'democracy,' is absolutely correct when he says, "They (the people) no longer exist as the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy." When you analyze the words he used in his article, you see that the 'new republic' referred to is the result of a military government in conquest exercising legislative martial rule over the conquered 'citizen/resident/voters.'

'Citizenship' under 'The United States' ties you directly to that corporate 'new nation'/'new republic,' with its paper debt, due and payable to the stockholders of the corporation, better known as 'the bondholders' (banks).

All is not lost, however. It all depends on whose reality you choose to live under--the 'Death of Reality' through the fiction known as 'The United States'; or--

'The Way, The Truth and The Life' through The Godhead of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

It is important to know that "the State's taxing and regulating authority only extends to those schemes and devices which the State itself created." For example:

"It cannot be doubted that the Legislature can name any privilege a taxable privilege and tax itbut the legislature cannot name something a privilege unless it is first a privilege." Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland (1960), 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453, 455-456.

In other words, "Rights cannot be taxed or regulated," but, "If you choose to play with our toys in our sand box, you are also choosing to play by our rules." This is what Mr. Fletcher is referring to when he says, "The people exist exclusively as voters,--as beneficiaries of legislation" [through the new elective franchise].

With all of the above in mind, where do we go from here? The only place a Good and Lawful Christian can go in time of trouble is to The Word of God!!!

Taking into consideration Romans 13:8 "Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law,"--I Corinthians 7:23, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men,"--and Proverbs 22:7, "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender;"--

and in relation, Judge Henry Clay Dean's statements in 1868 that,

"debt is the measure of our personal liberty,"

and;

"the feverish prosperity created by artificial wealth, is the natural prelude of general bankruptcy,"

and;

"experience has given to history this one truth, which will never change its force among men; that funded debts and standing armies will enslave a people. These evils are inseparable. A standing army will necessitate a funding debt, to support it; and a funding debt will require a standing army to collect it,"

--it must be said then, that the avoidance of debt is the primary source for the avoidance of the trap known as 'benefits, privileges and opportunities' acquired from the current de facto governments and their administrative agencies, and the resulting pains and penalties created thereby. (see 'Minimum Contacts' in Issue the Seventeenth).

For when a 'personal' debt is taken on, you become merged with the bankrupt 'person' known as 'The United States.' That 'bankrupt person' is continually looking for new ways to bind you as 'surety for the principal debtor,' and uses ways already in place to do the same, such as 'The National Banking Acts,' 'The Reconstruction Acts,' 'The Civil Rights Acts,' 'The 13th-27th Amendments,' 'The Homestead Acts,' 'The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended in 1933,' 'The Motor Vehicle Acts,' etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Those 'personal debts,' and 'benefits, privileges, and opportunities,' which become 'minimum contacts,' (creating the bond between you and the State debt) that are to be avoided, are:

Voter registration.
'Free delivery' of mail to your home.
Post Office Box or business.
Bank Accounts and Loans.
Use of a Social Security number.
Government or Corporate Employment.
Insurance Policies.
Drivers License or any other license, or
government issued I.D.
Automobile Registration.
Property Registration.
Court Appearance.

All or any one of the 'minimum contacts' above, and many others, establish you as a 'resident' and a belligerent 'in the field,' subject to the 'military authority.'

Residency is all important in this 'novation' scheme, for it brings you within their political bounds and makes you 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'

In addition, all of the 'minimum contacts' above, and many others, are 'commercial' in nature. That commercial nature is what makes you their 'belligerent in the field' and binds you to the debt.

It is 'presumed' by the imperial powers that you are within their political jurisdiction. But all 'presumptions' are 'rebuttable,' if you can evidence that you are not the 'person' they presume you are.

A presumption cannot be rebutted if you have the political ties to the government, such as license, insurance, free mail delivery, voter registration, etc.

The reason it cannot be rebutted concerns the maxim of law, 'no man can serve two masters.' In other words, "if you look to us for your rights, or for a privilege to do an act, we are your absolute master; you belong to us and you will do as we say." It is important to note here that a 'benefit' or 'privilege' is a 'gain' that is always received from a 'superior.' In other words, "he who was a public servant or minister before, becomes the superior." For example, the Fourteenth Amendment's protection clause of 'the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States,' makes the State the master or superior of those who claim to be 'a citizen of the United States.'

With all of the above in mind and a thorough understanding of the information contained in the other Christian Jural Society News articles mentioned, one can proceed on a solid tack to 'Exercise Your Right of Avoidance.' 'A sincere desire,' lacking the knowledge and understanding necessary to perform the task will not do. The commitment of learning how to 'come out of her' must be there. It's a task that will not be overcome, overnight. It's a matter of setting particular goals and sticking to those goals. There is much sacrifice involved, but if it is written on your heart to do so, it will be a Blessing.

The following shows the implications of three major 'minimum contacts' and suggestions for avoiding them through alternative means:

Voter Registration

(Please read "Admissions and Confessions' in Issue the Fourteenth as a supplement to this section.)

"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this act (Reconstruction Act), is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the State, or such of them that are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the mean time to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions." 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 182.

Vote. A 'voter' is an elector who votes--an elector in the exercise of his franchise or privilege of voting. People vs. Pease, 27 N.Y. 57, (1863).

Voter. Its meaning depends on the connections in which it is used, and is not always equivalent to elector. In a limited sense a voter is a person having the legal right to vote, sometimes called a legal voter. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1576.

Legal Voter. A person meeting constitutional requirements and who is registered. A person invested by law with right to vote. A person qualified by U.S. Constitution and laws of state to vote. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 897.

Person. Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to "person." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1142.

For those who no longer wish to be a militarily franchised 14th Amendment 'person,' possessing 'civil rights' and not Rights granted by God, a Sample Voter Registration Cancellation Letter can be found on page 166 in the new Third Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds."

For those that believe that they can change things at the polls, think about this--All of the 'laws' passed and debts accumulated since the 'new jurisdiction' was created are all war measures. War measures only have force and effect so long as the war continues. If those world powers that control the current form of government here, were to allow a change in that form, it would end the debt and the despotism. This is the reason why the Reconstruction Acts are still in place, why 'the permanent state of national emergency' (which is equivalent to 'a state of war') continues and why new 'wars' are continually created and maintained, i.e., 'the war on drugs,' 'the war on gangs,' 'the war on poverty,' 'the war on illiteracy,' 'the war on cancer,' etc., etc. Therefore, the 'war' rages on, in spite of the 'privileged' voters.

Free Delivery of Mail

"On July 1st, 1863, free city delivery service was instituted (war measure) .....the one test in changes in routes must be: 'Will the service be as good or better than formerly?' The test of self-support should not determine the future of this facility which brings benefit to every citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country.
It is the highway of service, designed by a democracy with faith for a social institution of vital importance in a people's nation....it is the democratic instrument of a democracy." United States Postal Policy (1931), pp. 114 & 118, by Clyde Kelly (Member of Congress, Member of Post Office and Post Roads Committee, House of Rep., Author of 'Postal Legislation').

For those who no longer wish to be one of Mr. Kelly's and Mr. Fletcher's Marxist 'instrument of democracy in a people's nation' and one of its Fourteenth Amendment citizens receiving its benefits through 'free delivery' of mail, you must receive your mail in general delivery. A 'general delivery package' is available from The Christian Jural Society Press. It includes a 90 minute audio tape with accompanying paperwork and instruction.

In accordance with general delivery, you must remove the street numbers and mail box from your house. Street numbers and mail boxes were a voluntary act brought about in 1863 so that the mailman would know where to deliver the mail and have a place to deposit it. The call was, "If you want the convenience (benefit) of having your mail delivered to your home so that you won't have to go to the post office to pick it up, you will need to supply numbers and a mailbox for that purpose."

The numbers and mailbox (and P.O. Box) have now been extended for 'service of process' by all governmental agencies, for the numbered house is the fictional commercial designator, 'in the field,' needed by those agencies to connect you with their system. Removal of the numbers from the house has been very successful for many in holding off the imperial powers, by not giving them the fiction they need.

Bank Accounts and Loans

The connection between banking, loans, commercial instruments, etc., and The Law Merchant are so overwhelming, that it will suffice to say that God makes it quite clear in Scripture about merchants, when speaking of Ephraim:

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

In 1868, Judge Henry Clay Dean made it quite clear that the usurious bankers and their banks, and the de facto government, were to be avoided like the plague:

"The national banks are a glaring fraud, to which the Government has made itself a criminal party in oppressing the people."

"The bankers, brokers, extortioners, usurers, and stock-gamblers, united in conspiracy with public officers in immediate proximity to the Treasury and revenue, to deprecate the profligate redundancy of the currency, immediately went to work to buy up the outstanding notes which were drawing no interest and were serving the purposes of a circulating medium as well as any other mere paper currency could do, which promised no coin as a basis of redemption, and much better than any substitute which was not a legal tender in the payment of debts." Crimes of the Civil War & Curse of the Funding System, p. 383

These banks promoted and financed a war on Christendom in the same manner as the buyers, sellers, and money-changers had turned God's House into a den of thieves in Christ's Day. Christ drove them from the Temple -- Too many today honor them by turning their savings over to them to support and promote their usury.

Believing that the possessions God has graced you with would be safer in the 'hands of the oppressor,' than under the protection of God, is to put 'the deceiver' between you and God and to say that God is not sufficient.

The bankers and money-changers of today are the same as those of Christ's Day and of the 1800's, only with different names and different faces. To use a bank or to take out loans is to contribute to the 'lies and desolation' and the perpetuation of the beast. Until the 'den of thieves' are made to 'wail and knash their teeth,' the 'lies and desolation' will continue.

Next month, we will examine the difficult alternatives to the driver's licence, automobile registration and court appearance issues.

Civil Rights:

The Road to Serfdom!

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Sixteenth)

As we have seen from previous articles on this topic, Civil Rights are presumed by all military governments and their officers and agents in America, to apply to everyone within the borders of the States and Possessions of the Federal government.

It is this question of presumption and its nature as treated in the Codes that we want to focus on here, because prior to Lincoln's War, the nature of presumption was entirely different than it is today.

Before Lincoln's War, no officer could presume he had jurisdiction in any matter or event, unless the act were criminal and it happened in his presence. In all other matters, the officer had to prove certain factors - before a warrant could issue and an arrest could be made.

Thus, an officer may suspect that such and such was the case, but until he had investigated the matter and collected sufficient evidence to convince a judge to sign his warrant, no arrest could be made.

Today, all people that come within the purview of any officer with powers of arrest, are presumed to be arrestable without warrant. All the officer has to have is 'probably cause' that someone may have done something wrong and he can affect an arrest. Later, he can gather the evidence he needs to bring the person before the judge.

Thus, in a traffic stop, the officer has made an arrest the instant he turns on his red light. The purpose of the discussion he has with a man or woman behind the wheel after he has stopped them is merely to gather more evidence and the information he needs to fill out his citation. All of which takes place under the threat of a gun.

In other words, the officer presumes that one is already guilty of some traffic 'infraction' (a military term) but he needs the admissions and confessions of the alleged 'driver' to complete his act of revenue collection and further, he may, and likely will, find further infractions that he can add to the original charge.

One may be stopped for not wearing his seat belt, but the officer may also find that one's registration has lapsed or that one has no insurance on the car.

Was the whole seat belt issue created for revenue purposes? Perhaps. The fact is, the lack of seat belts merely provides the 'excuse' for the stop and the traffic citation. Revenues from traffic stops have increased a great deal because of it.

This is the benefit - to the Federal government - of Civil Rights and the reason for their creation.

The problem is, for everyone in the law reform movement, how do we deal with this enormous injustice based upon the presumption of officers?

First, the answer is, in the general sense, found in Christ, and in a specific sense, in one's knowledge of Scripture. For the ultimate presumption of the officer is, that one is not acting in the mode and character of a Christian.

In other words, the officer's first presumption is that the person he has stopped is a pagan. And, unless the person stopped has given clear evidence to the contrary - before the stop was made - the officer must presume that such a person is a pagan and treat him accordingly.

To be blunt about it, every Christian who drives a so-called vehicle is presumed to be acting in the mode and character of a pagan, i.e., in commerce, because he has borne or given no evidence to the contrary.

Is this not bearing false witness?

In other words, when a man professes to be a Christian and yet acts in a manner that tells the whole world that he is a pagan, the Christian is bearing false witness to the whole world. Can the officer be blamed for writing his traffic ticket in such a case? Obviously, not!

Yet, there are thousands of 'patriots' out there who insist that they are Christians and live under God-given Rights, but they act as if they were pagans by filing Title 42 suits against arresting officers and the courts, and assert that "my rights have been violated!!!"

Is it not evident that such suits are a further contradiction and a greater false witness to the world, because such suits are only for 'persons' who come under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and its subsequent amendments,--not Christians.

The point is, a growing number of Christians are long on profession and short on practice. They profess to be Christians, but in fact, they act like pagans in all they do. They honor God with their lips but their heart is far from Him.

Do they want to repent? Apparently not. The more important question is, will they repent? Again, not likely, at least as long as they are so comfortable in the civil rights womb of imperial government.

They want their bank accounts, but don't want to be held to account for dealing in 'commercial instruments' under the commercial banking laws.

They want the comfort and convenience of free home delivery of their mail, but refuse to consider themselves as residents and citizens of the United States, which they are when they receive such 'benefit.'

They want all their so-called Constitutional Rights when there isn't anything available but Civil Rights through the 14th Amendment, but they will not study to show themselves approved.

They want the convenience of driving on Federal military highways in a lawless manner, i.e., disturbing the peace by speeding, running red lights, etc., or trafficking in commerce to the General Public, but don't want to pay the fiddler and accept his license, registration, and motor vehicle code, the purpose of which is to control such lawlessness.

They want all the rights, privileges, and immunities of God's Law but they will not form Christian Jural Societies with Christian courts that can defend their true liberties, because "it's too much work and takes too much time away from the pleasures of life."

Thus, these 'Christians' are a lawless breed of pagans, lacking the ethics and morals required to honor the God that gave and continues to give them life.

They will probably continue down the road they are on and the pain level will grow, until there is a change in the heart. The Christian discernment must be there for this change to take place.

The one true Blessing in all of this is that there are also a growing number of Christian workmen that are not ashamed of their calling, 'studying to show themselves approved unto God,' and they are 'rightly dividing the word of truth.'

This they do to honor their only Master who is The Way, The Truth and The Life; Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Miscellaneous Notes

by Randy Lee

Fiat Money

From the 1961 World Book Encyclopedia, page 89, 'fiat money' is defined as:

"Currency issued by a government without any gold or silver reserves behind it. The Latin word fiat means literally 'let it be.' Although fiat money has no real value, the government has said, 'Let it be money.' It holds its face value as long as people have confidence in the government. Some modern currencies resemble fiat money because they cannot be redeemed in gold. Issuing fiat money does not solve problems of money scarcity and cannot produce confidence."

Parent

From the same source as above, page 135, parent is defined, in part, as follows:

"The law no longer considers children the property of their parents. Today the welfare of the child is considered as important as the legal right of his parents to control him.
Some of this change in thought came about early enough to be expressed in the English common law, which is part of the legal structure of both Canada and the United States.
A person who takes over the duties of a parent, either temporarily or permanent, is said by the law to be in loco parentis (in place of the parent). Teachers and guardians act in loco parentis."

Scripture and the Law Merchant

Part Three

by John Quade

The point of the analysis of the law of the merchant that was done in previous Issues of the News was to show that not one verse in the Bible supports the idea of Christians being engaged in commerce. Further, it is also clear that when God's judgment falls on the earth, whether local or world-wide, the merchants and those who depend on the merchants will suffer great loss and severe pain.

This being the case, why would any Christian want to stay in commerce? The answer is, because they do not take God's Word seriously. Even when it is pointed out time and again that Scripture opposes such practice, they will first look to find some way around the clear meaning of the Bible, rather than repent of their sins. For, in the final analysis, the current life of most Christians is just far too comfortable, convenient, and makes the good life easy. This is the real reason why they do not want to repent.

Of course, many will say that it makes no difference because the Lord is coming back next Wednesday at 12:15 (or 12:28, depending on which Evangelist you listen to) and meanwhile their own communities continue to disintegrate along with the rest of the world.

I remember once that Hal Lindsay, the great Evangelical 'prophet of rapture fever, scare and share' theology, once said at the Light and Power House in West Los Angeles that: "If I'm still here in ten years, then everything I've said is a lie." That statement was made in 1970 and Hal Lindsay is still here, twenty-seven years later!!!

But what is so remarkable about the Christian apathy towards that type of theology and commerce today is, they supposedly read the Bible every day and do not see that precisely the same events that happened to Christ, the Apostles, and hundreds of thousands of other Christians in the first three centuries of the church, is happening today--all around them. Christians should know and understand Roman history better than the secular world and recognize its sins when they see them. But, they don't and could really care less.

Too many of the Christian public are like the man who stands in the middle of a ten story building and watches it crumble in a 9.5 earthquake rather than get out of it. No, this man is rejoicing because his pastor tells him that before a single brick hits him on the head, the Lord will snatch him out and take him to safety. Of course, the pastor yells these words through an open window from outside the building.

Christians in their 501(c)3 churches condemn the world everyday on national television but they would never admit that they are themselves responsible for the corruption in the land. After all, "the quicker the world goes into the toilet, the quicker the Lord comes back." And, if one is going to be raptured off the earth next week, there isn't time to do anything. No, the best we can do is evangelize and get more to join our 501(c)3 commercial corporations and wait with the rest of the twits for the Lord to come back next week. They all have their guaranteed fire and life insurance policy that says that, "We're going to heaven--why worry about it?"

There is a maxim that says; he who fails to protect another from clear and present danger when a word will prevent the crime, is guilty of the crime himself. Scripture says; "Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind" (Lev. 19:14) Can you continue to look the other way and watch millions of people stumble and fall and be cast on the rocks of commercialism.

Scripture prohibits one Christian from suing another and yet daily, Christians take each other to court, going before the ungodly, but they will not take the time and trouble to form their own courts. Very well, suffer the consequences predicted by Judge Henry Clay Dean over one hundred and thirty years ago:

"In the court, the Judge is overawed with social proscription or sweetened with presents which could not be taken by an honest judiciary, or be given in evidence as bribes.
Like courts, like juries, misdirected by judges and overawed or corrupted by capital, or failing in this, attorneys are bought up, witnesses are intimidated or corrupted, until the slave suitor gladly abandons his claim and leaves the court in disgust. The failure of one discourages the rest, and capital as thoroughly subdues the contestant, as the master would subjugate his slave by the bludgeon or cat o' nine tails."

Every court in America is utterly corrupted, like the whited sepulchre that is beautiful on the outside and full of the blood of corruption on the inside.

Few Christians today tremble at the thought of God's judgment because they have turned Him into a pure God of Love. If God wouldn't stay his hand when it came to judging the Jews, why should he stay his hand against those modern Christians who are utterly committed to the judaismus ways of commercial law???

We have tried Our best at The News to clear the road of stones so the blind could walk without stumbling and we have made a total commitment to helping Fellow- Christians learn how to live life according to God's Law. We don't have all of the answers, but what we do know, we publish. We will continue this effort for as long as we can, but the final Word on that is not in Our hands to control, but in God's hands.

Just as your successful efforts depend on enough Christian support in your community, so it is with The News.

The Law of Nature vs. God's Law

A Law Review by Frederick Pollack

The following is Part Two by noted jurist Frederick Pollack continued from Issue the Seventeenth on the subject of God's Law vs. The Law of Nature, from the Columbia Law Review, Volume II, March 1902. It contains an excellent display of the 'autonomous reasoning' of the humanist mind, and the quandaries of that mindset created by casting God's Word behind.

It also shows why it is so important to qualify which Common Law/common law you are speaking of, i.e.--Christian common law, Commercial Common Law, English Common Law, etc.--for they each represent opposing customs & usages.

...We must either admit that modern International Law is law founded on cosmopolitan principles of reason, a true living offshoot of the Law of Nature, or ignore our own most authoritative expositions of it. In fact, these utterances have been utterly ignored, so far as I know, by English publicists of the extreme insular school.

All of which indicates that Austin had little acquaintance with evolutionary and comparative ethics. [I do not remember to have seen anywhere the argument against God-given ethics that if that is their true source we might reasonably have expected that we should also have been supplied with infallible ideas as to the varying degrees of "pravity" involved in the various acts of misconduct. But our judgment as to the degrees are most helplessly human. "A theocracy brands blasphemy and idolatry as crimes deserving of death, while it looks upon a boundary violation as a simple misdemeanor (Mosaic law). The Agricultural State, on the other hand, visits the latter with the severest punishment, while it lets the blasphemer go with the lightest punishment (Old Roman law). The Commercial State punishes most severely the uttering of false coin; the Military State, insubordinates and breach of official duty; the Absolute State, high treason; the Republic, the striving after regal power." Ihering's The Struggles for Law, 45. See also Lecky's Hist. of European Morals, VII; Muirhead's Elements of Ethics, 193.]

Later writers have found no difficulty in declaring that this Divine Law "is merely our old friend the Law of Nature in very transparent disguise." [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law, 19] And so it is.

Since Sir Henry Maine and the other writers above noted, no one can be excused for disbelief in "the Historical Method before which the Law of Nature has never maintained its footing for an instant. [Ancient Law, 86-7.]" The early English Common Law lawyers used the phrase the "Law of Reason [Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. 600.]" in a sense much equivalent to the Law of Nature. They would say "that such and such a rule is grounded in reason"; just as now and then our own judges will say that their view is in accordance with "the elementary principles of justice." Locke speaks of the "Law of Nature, which is the same thing as the Law of Reason [On Govt. Bk. II. c. 8; and see, c. 2.]" and of "the Law of Nature - that is, the will of God. [Ibid., Bk. II, c. 11.]" Hobbes refers to the "Law of Nature-that is to say, common equity" [Leviathon, 127.] - such laws being "contained in this one sentence, Do not that to another which thou thinkest unreasonable to be done by another to thyself." [Ibid., 126. Cf. Justinian's Inst. Lib. 1, Tit. 1] With the Stoics, "Live according to Nature" really meant "Live according to Reason." [Pollock's essays Jur. And Ethics, 334.]

Turning now to the "Law of Nations," let us see whether it presents any more solid substantiality? Do not take the phrase to mean the Law between Nations. But if you do, observe that international law is based upon notions of rules which ought to guide and control international action ; and that these notions are but by slow degrees emerging into formulas and definitions, ["International law may be defined to be the aggregate of rules regulating the intercourse of states which have been gradually evolved out of the moral and intellectual convictions of the civilized world as the necessity for their existence has been demonstrated by experience." Hannis Taylor on Internat. Pub. Law, 86;] without which you may talk about laws but have none. [Except in crudest condition and regulative of simplest transactions.]

The Law of Nations was known, to the Romans as the Jus Gentium. It was presumed to be "the sum of the common ingredient in the custom of the old Italian tribes." [Maine's Ancient Law, 49]

But in reality it was nothing more or less than a very transparent device by which the Romans improved their own Jus Civile - brought it down (or up) to date.

"Institutions are the products of the past process, are adapted to past circumstances, and are therefore never in full accord with the requirements of the present." [ Weblins The Theory of the Leisure Class, 191.]

More than that, secular man progresses, but his institutions, his systems of law (and other things) harden and cake around him, and must be got rid of by explosion or subtle infusion. And the development of the law is a history of cake and infusion.

This Jus Gentium was a stroke worthy of the Roman genius. (Very like our English Equity, as we shall see.) There was to the Romans a distinction between the civil law (that is the peculiar law of any particular State), and those laws which were to be found in every State. One evidently was merely conventional, and the other was derivable from the nature of things. Not that the Roman lawyers had in reality collocated the foreign laws, and having scored out all discrepants, had produced an anthology of synoptics. No, this distinction between local and universal law was not one of ascertained existence; it was nothing but the difference between the Roman law as it was, and the Roman law which more enlightenment declared it ought to be. And the assertion of a law common to all nations ["The Law of Nations is common to all (secular) mankind": Justinian's Inst. Lib. 1. Tit. 2, s. 2.] was nothing but a particularly happy method by which the law was brought into harmony with current notions of justice [Mr. James Bryce tells us that the Roman magistrates proceeded "by taking those general principles of justice, fair dealing, and common sense, which they found recognized by other peoples as well as their own," ("If indeed we are to suppose that the Praetors ever really did study the laws of the various neighbors of Rome," p.619); "and by giving effect to those mercantile and other similar usages which they found prevailing among the strangers resident in Rome. Thus by degrees they built up a body of rules which, while it resembled their own system in many of its general features, was less technical and more consonant to the practical convenience and general understanding of mankind." Studies in Hist. and Jur. 571-2.].

The first excuse for departure from the Jus Civile was found in cases in which a foreigner was a party. Romans (not usually superfluously deferential to foreigners) assumed that in such cases it would not be fair to apply their own law and so they consulted all other laws (really consulted their own ideas of equity), and gave judgment accordingly. Principles thus adopted very soon affected the whole body of the civil law of Rome, and finished by complete amalgamation with it, and much improvement of it. (Very like our English Equity history.)

The Law of Nations had precisely the same basis, and solidity or frailty as the Law of Nature - "the rules of conduct deducible by reason from the general conditions of human society"; "the ideal to which actual law and custom could only approximate";[Ante, p. 142.] [ the ideal to which, in spite of caking, we have always determined that they shall so far as possible approximate. The history of these laws being closed, we can now see that "the Law of Nature is simply the Law of Nations seen in the light of a peculiar theory, the expressions were practically convertible"; [Maine's Ancient Law, p. 57. And see Hannis Taylor's article in 175 North Am. Rev. 465; and Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. 581. The identity of the laws was adopted by Grotius.] and that the Jus Gentium was merely Praetorian Law (upon the pretence of being law common to all nations), even as so much of our own law is judge law, upon pretence of being law common to all England -- with this difference: that the Praetors avowed their law-making proclivities, [See Justinian's Inst. 1, tit. 2, s. 7; Lib. III, tit. 13. s. 1] while our judges are supposed to find laws in the bulrushes or some other improbable place. [See Maine's Ancient Law, 32, 33.]

And what are we to say of the Common Law? Surely there was a Common Law somewhere? Have we not Common Law courts, and Common Law books, and Common Law at the very basis of our American and English and Canadian law? Yes, yes; but what was it? and where did it come from? is it here yet? or has it vanished? and did anybody ever see it? or is it mere space with judge law filling? Do not let us imagine at any rate that there is some old book somewhere in which the Common Law is written down.

And do not let us think that "the Common Law of England," about which we hear so much, is the only or the first Common Law, or that it has anything very peculiar about it. Upon the contrary, away back among the Greeks 'Aristotle divides law into that which is Common, being in accordance with nature and admitted by all men," (our old friend Law of Nature) "and that which is peculiar, settled by each community for itself." [Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur., 567.] and Demosthenes refers to the "Common Law of all man-kind." [Ibid., p. 568.] Justinian too declares that "Every community, governed by laws and customs, uses partly its own law and partly laws common to all mankind (Communi omnium Aominum)." [Institutes, Lib. 1, Tit. 2, s. 1.] And the Stoics identified the Law of Nature or the Common (Universal) Law with the Divine reason.[Bryce's Studies, 568.]

The Common Law then is not a code, or a body of law, or an anthology of synoptics. It is precisely the same thing as the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations [The Law of Nations is Common to all mankind": Justinian's Institutes, Lib. I, Tit. 2, s. 2.] - the vague, undefinable ideal to which we feel that we are stumblingly approaching; guided by reason into the right road, some say; cuffed by failures out of the wrong, think I.

Lord Esher pretty well unmasked this glorified unreality, the Common Law, when he said that, "The duty of the Judge is to find out what is the rule which people of candor and honor and fairness in the position of the two parties would apply in respect to the matter in hand. That is the Common Law of England." [Speech, 15 Nov., 1897.]

Professor Thayer (whose death was a great loss) said that "the exercise of their (the judges) never questioned jurisdiction of declaring the Common Law has consisted in a great degree in declaring the scope and operation of sound reason, wherein the Common Law so largely consists." [Evidence at the Common Law, 207-8. Prof. Thayer speaks of 'the Common Law system of Evidence." But of course he does not mean the common custom of all England as to evidence. He says "We have generated and evolved this large, elaborate and difficult doctrine. We have done it not by direct legislation, but almost wholly by the slowly accumulated rulings of judges made in the trying of cases during the last two or three centuries. (p. 2; & see 207-8).]

Lord Bowen declared that the Common Law is an "arsenal of common-sense principles." And Maine if asked for a rough definition would say that "Law is common sense."[Village Communities, 258.]

This Common Law of England is the most impudent pretender of all these phantom laws. For unquestionably a very large part of it was not law of England at all (common or special) but simply Roman law, smuggled in by Bracton [Maine's Ancient Law, 82], openly introduced by Holt, [Law of Bailments in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), Ld. Raymond, 909.] consciously and unconsciously adopted by many others. And perhaps the idea that the Common Law of England was "the law of the royal court," as opposed to the local laws of the old seigniorial courts - a sort of jus gentium imposed by a Praetor Peregrinus - is the real meaning of the term. [Jenk's Law 3 & Pol. Of the Middle Ages, 35-6.] Maine thinks that by its earliest expositors "it was regarded as existing somewhere in the form of a symmetrical body of express rules, adjusted to definite principles. The knowledge of the system however in its full amplitude and proportions was supposed to be confined to the breasts of the judges; and the lay public and the mass of the legal profession were only permitted to discern its canons intertwined with the facts of the adjudged cases. Many traces of this ancient theory remain in the language of our judgments and forensic arguments." [Village Communities, 335.]

Equity has never had such a concrete look as this Common Law (the adjective of which might have kept us right if we had not forgotten its significance). Equity, we admit, is an unwritten and inexpressible aspiration. But have you observed (as hinted at above) that as the Roman Civil law, built of common sense, became caked and afterwards yielded to a new infusion of more common sense (insidiously introduced under the name of the Law of Nations); so the Common Law of England, builded of reason and caked by custom (precedents and forms) [ Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. 697.], succumbed to more reason through the fiction of the King's conscience ["It is the special business of Equity to reintroduce those considerations which have been dropped in arriving at the rules of law," Lightwood's The Nature of Positive law, 40; and see p. 300.]

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

'State of War', Flagrant War--Flagrante Bello, Non-Flagrant War-- Non Flagrante Bello

"War was continued in those States until the President's [Johnson] proclamation of August 20, 1866, proclaimed 'the insurrection at an end.' A 'state of war' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater--'non flagrante bello sed nondum cessante bello.' [Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419.]

"A state of war does not cease with actual hostilities. 'Military government may legally be continued bello nondum cessante [non ceasing war-non flagrante bello], as well as flagrante bello.'It is easier to provoke a civil war than to restore the confidence without which peace returns but by name. Under these circumstances the reasons which justify martial law subsist.' [Hare's Constitutional Law, p. 938].

"The existence of what is called 'a state of war' after flagrant war has ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack; but so long as the purpose of renewing it remains --the animus revertendi--so long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed [the bondholder or his debtor] may employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable him until the danger is past [non flagrante bello], and in doing this and judging of its necessity precise accuracy as to the means is not required, but only the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances. [1 Bish.Crim.Law, (5th ed.) secs. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited. See Stewart v. State, 1 OhioSt.Rep. 66-71.]

"If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April, 1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.

"It was upon this theory, coupled with the constitutional duty of Congress to 'guarantee to each State a republican form of government,' [a ruse] that the reconstruction acts were passed, and military as well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them." Report No. 262, House of Representatives, 43d Congress, 1st Session, March 26, 1874. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Invitation to the Tempted and Backslider

Yes, O, Christian, whoever you are, however tempted and distressed; however languishing and despairing you may be, the Master is come and calleth for thee. He does, as it were, call thee by name, for He knows the name of His sheep, they are engraven on the palms of His hands, and He cannot forget them. His language is, "Where is this, and that, and the other one of my flock, who used to watch for the tokens of my approach and come at the sound of my voice? Why do they not come to welcome my return, and rejoice in my presence? Have they backslidden and wandered from my fold? Go and tell them that their High Priest and Intercessor, one who has been tempted in all points as they are, and therefore can be touched with the feeling of their infirmities, is come, and calleth for them to spread their temptations and afflictions before Him. Are they born down with a load of guilt, and the weight of their sins against me, so that they are ashamed to look me in the face? Tell them that I will receive them graciously, and love them freely. Are they carried away by their spiritual enemies, and bound in the fetters of vice, so that they cannot come to welcome me? Tell them that I am come to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to rescue the lambs of my flock from the paw of the lion, and the jaws of the bear. Are they oppressed by fears that they shall one day perish by the hand of their enemies? Go and tell them that my sheep never perish, and that none shall finally pluck them out of my hand. Are they slumbering and sleeping, insensible of my approach? Go, and awaken them with the cry, 'Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet Him.'"

The Sins of our Youth

Two aged disciples, one eighty-seven years old, one day met. "Well," inquired the younger to his fellow-pilgram, "how long have you been interested in religion?" "Fifty years," was the old man's reply. "Well, have you ever regretted that you began so young to devote yourself to religion?" "O no," said he; and the tears trickled down his furrowed cheeks. "I weep when I think of the sins of my youth. It is this that makes me weep now."

Another man of eighty, who had been a Christian fifty or sixty years, was asked if he was grieved that he had become a disciple of Christ. "O no," said he, "If I grieve for any thing, it is that I did not become a Christian before."

We visited a woman of ninety, as she lay on her last bed of sickness. She had been hoping in Christ a half century. In the course of conversation she said, "Tell all the children, that an old woman, who is just on the border of eternity is very much grieved that she did not begin to love the Savior when she was a child. Tell them, 'youth is the time to serve the Lord.'"

Said an old man of seventy-six, "I did not become interested in religion, till I was forty-five; and I have often to tell God, I have nothing to bring Him but the dregs of old age."

Said another man, between sixty and seventy years of age, "I hope I became a disciple of the Lord Jesus, when I was seventeen;" and he burst into a flood of tears as he added, "and there is nothing that causes me so much distress as to think of those seventeen years--some of the very best portion of my life--which I devoted to sin and the world."

And the penitent, broken hearted David, as he looked back and thought of his early days, exclaimed, "Remember not, O Lord, the sins of my youth."

Issue the Twenty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part one...

Land by Inheritance...

Obscure Fallacies of American Politics...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part three...

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War, Part Two...

Aaron's Golden Calf...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

by John Quade

It was Christians who opposed abortion in ancient Rome. They made a nuisance of themselves by recovering aborted babies from the trash dumps of Rome, where they were cast, still alive, by the Roman garbage collectors. The Roman Imperial Government took this form of Christian work very seriously and, at one point, passed a law against Christians recovering babies. The Christians ignored the law because it was contrary to God's Law.

The law was passed because, even though abortion was illegal in Rome, the practice was nevertheless widespread, especially among the Roman upper class. Thus, while Rome said one thing, everyone, including the common people, knew the opposite was taking place. Rome justified its law by asserting that Christians used live babies in sacrificial rites. But the

Roman people knew better; they knew Christians recovered the babies to raise them as Christians. Thus, Rome suffered great embarrassment over this law as the Roman common people made jokes about it and one year later, the law was repealed.

For modern Christians, the circumstances around abortion appear to be entirely different. We disagree with this view and, in part, this essay's purpose is to explain why.

In fact, Christians today are dealing with the same old Roman Imperial law that Christians in ancient Rome dealt with. The one difference: Christians of ancient Rome knew they were dealing with a system of law that was contrary to God's Law.

The modern Christians do not yet know that 20th Century America has rejected its original Christian system of Law and re-adopted the old Roman system.

"The crisis of the Western legal tradition is not merely a crisis in legal philosophy, but also a crisis in law itself. Legal philosophers have always debated, and presumably will debate, whether law is founded in reason and morality or whether it is only the will of the political ruler. It is not necessary to resolve that debate in order to conclude that as a matter of historical fact the legal systems of all the nations that are heirs to the Western legal tradition have been rooted in certain beliefs or postulates: that is, the legal systems themselves have presupposed the validity of those beliefs. Today those beliefs or postulates are rapidly disappearing; its religious roots, its transcendent qualities are rapidly disappearing, not only from the minds of philosophers, not only from the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, law teachers, and other members of the legal profession, but from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality, concerned more with immediate consequences and less with consistency or continuity. Thus the historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away in the twentieth century, and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."
"With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state, the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected. Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), p. 39.

This vital factor is the key to understanding why the modern pro-life movement has failed in its attempts to abolish abortion.

Thus, the form and content, if any, of law has dramatically changed and made it impossible for the Christian agenda to get a hearing as a brief overview of the Christian attempts to abolish the heinous and brutal scheme of baby murder, will show. Today's policy is mere expediency, the same tactic that put Christ on the Cross. As then, so also now, real law had nothing to do with it.

The pro-life movement which began after the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade is one of those movements whose motives are unquestioned as morally right by Christians. Non-christians may hold a different view of what is morally right.The movement is thus one that is right for the Christian to be involved in and for all Christians to support, prayerfully, financially, and by personal involvement.

As far as Roe v. Wade itself is concerned, the Court's ruling was a foregone conclusion, since all the necessary pre-conditions for it to come about had already been put in place, nearly a century before. On this, we will have more to say later.

Recently, frustration in the pro-life movement as a result of its failure to stop the baby murders has begun to take some serious side-turns into violence. Frustration is further aggravated by court decisions and actions in Congress, which limit the right of pro-lifers to protest the practice of abortion and picket abortion mills. Many incidents have been well publicized on national and local television, including those of police brutality towards pro-life picketers outside of abortion mills.

All this is rather surprising considering the fact that the pro-life movement is well organized, and has a following that numbers in the millions among both Christians and Non-christians. The movement is well funded, and it has not hesitated to go to court at the drop of a hat to fight for the rights of the baby in the womb. It is also politically active and will not hesitate to make its views felt in the media and at the polls, although this has had little effect on the overall outcome of the abortion issue.

If all these pluses existed in any other movement, especially on the left, there would have been major changes in the policies of the government.

But, abortion continues unabated and all the pro-life movement has to show for its nearly three decade effort, is a handful of court decisions that really say nothing and do nothing to stop abortion. When we couple repeated failures to elect a majority of politicians at the top levels of government who will legislate against abortion, with its court failures, we can see why the pro-life movement appears to be losing its strength in some places and in many cases, its followers are simply giving up the fight as membership in local organizations falls.

Perhaps, it is time for the pro-life movement to realize that its past strategy and tactics of protest, political influence at the Federal level, and spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars on high-priced lawyers, simply will not work, and cannot work. The reason is, the pro-life movement has the deck stacked against it precisely because of the tactics it has chosen. To be blunt about it, the pro-life movement has adopted the tactics of its opposition and is playing by the abortionists rules, not by the rules of God's Law, and thus, they have played into the hands of their opponents. Worse yet, pro-lifer's do not know it.

Has it not occurred to anyone that the minute one goes into the oppositions courts that one automatically loses the ground of one's own law?

This idea must be depressing to the pro-lifer, and yet we must say that it is obvious, given the current political structure, that a political solution at the Federal or State level is not the answer.

The bottom line is, the government and system of law that the pro-life movement thinks it's dealing with and the government and law that actually exist are two entirely different things as this essay will demonstrate, in brief.

In simple terms, given the current Federal government and its law, the pro-life movement cannot and will not succeed so long as it continues to pursue the same strategy it has pursued for the last thirty years.

But, the real shocker about the pro-life movement is: not one writer, to the best of Our knowledge, has ever asked the most fundamental questions of all about abortion:

First, is abortion against the Law?
Answer: Yes, it is.
Second, Is there a court in which this Law can convict abortionists?
Answer: Yes, there is.
Third, is there a specific form of action whereby a case against abortionists can be made?
Answer: Yes, there is.

One would have thought that with all the hundreds of thousands of dollars the movement has spent on legal research over the last thirty years or so, that someone would have discovered this.

The point is, the only possible way in which the pro-life movement can be successful is by using real Law--not Codes, Ordinances, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations. And, it will most certainly not be successful by using politics at the Federal and State levels.

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

[Codes, edicts, proclamations, decisions are not Law which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Christian Man.]

Further, the Law we will recommend to the pro-life movement, does not require any legislature to enact it at the Federal or State level. Indeed, the Law is already in place and needs only to be implemented and enforced, and when this is done, abortion will disappear.

"When a law is suspended, the law continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation." Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505. Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98.

Implementing this law does not require lawyers or attorneys because it can be used and put into full force and effect by anyone with the proper standing, even government school graduates. Nor will it be expensive. This law has been carried on the books for over three hundred years and is still valid, today.

But, to use this law effectively will require study for the pro-life leaders, at all levels of the movement. They in turn, can teach the use of the law to their constituents. Implementing the program suggested herein will mean the end of abortion through the law, but, this law cannot be applied to the nation as a whole or to the States. It can only be applied on a county by county basis. And, once abortion is ended in a county, the abortionists will never return, because the Law will be waiting for them elsewhere, only so long as the Christians remain vigilant.

First, we must know what the current law in America really is, as opposed to what we think it is. If one understands the current system, he will then understand why the pro-life movement cannot use the existing political or legal system at the Federal and State levels.

Second, pro-lifers must realize that the lawyers and attorneys that they have spent so much time and money with, are a major part of the reason why abortion still exists in America. This is so, because the lawyers cannot bring the proper Law against the abortionists, for the reason: they, themselves, practice in a jurisdiction and venue which does not permit the use of real Law.

Third, we will introduce the solution by stating what the real Law has to say about abortion, and by this means, we will show how this Law can be implemented and what will be required of the pro-life advocate to end abortion.

The Current Political Situation

It has been well documented in the public record, especially at the Federal level, that Lincoln's War wrought profound changes in the American political landscape. The problem is, Christians do not yet know or even suspect that these changes have taken place, much less do they realize the significance of the changes.

"Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-Four, each of which has assumed that the States had general supervisory powers over state elections, are express limitations on the power of the States to govern themselves." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260, 27 L.Ed.2d 272. [From the above, the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution has been perverted and extended to objects which were never intended by its framers. This is achieved through merging the enforcement clauses of the post bellum amendments with it.]

The so-called Civil Rights Acts, the 14th Amendment, and the Suffrage Acts are principal methods whereby these changes were made.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (an implementation of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation) created a new class of citizen, i.e., citizens of the United States. Prior to these acts, one was only a State citizen and had no Federal citizenship. After these acts, there was the possibility that one could have a dual citizenship, in the United States and in a State.

"The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state." United States v. Susan B. Anthony, supra, p. 830. See also Mills v. Breen, 67 F. 818, 828.

Originally, these acts gave black people rights similar to those of white persons. But, the point that has always been over-looked by subsequent legal historians is, free people of color (which included all non-white races) always had the same rights as white people and did not need the "benefit" of the Civil Rights Act.

Indeed, all the black soldiers in the North that joined Lincoln's Army were "free people of color," and thus, did not need the benefits bestowed by the later acts of Federal government. But, these acts nevertheless, treated these black soldiers as if they were persons who needed the benefits even though everyone knew that free people of color were already free men. In simple language, the black soldiers that fought, bled, and died for Lincoln were betrayed by the infidel and his successors by having their standing in law reduced to that of men who were former slaves, so that they too, could become surety for the national debt.

The important thing to note about these Acts is, they did not really create a right, but a benefit.

"The civil rights bill ... was to become [in futuro] the archetype of the Fourteenth Amendment, its provisions were also more far-reaching. For the first time, American citizenship was defined by federal law, and the government's right to intervene in the protection of a [its] citizen's civil rights was specifically asserted. Persons defined as citizens had the right to sue, testify in court, acquire and sell property [emphyteusis], and enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws without regard to race or color." Wood, The Era of Reconstruction, 1863-1877 (1975), pp. 34-35.

Note that this "benefit" is commercial, and thus, Roe v. Wade was not decided on the basis of Law, but on the basis of a Federally granted 'benefit' of abortion.

Thus, in the Civil Rights Acts, as with the 14th Amendment and the changes in the voting laws found in the Suffrage Acts, were a hidden agenda designed by Lincoln and his followers to create a new class of Federal citizens that would be bound to the Federal government in such a way that they could be used as surety for the national debt.

The first of these Acts, The Emancipation Proclamation, bestowed the temporary benefit of Federal citizenship and provided the bondholders of Lincoln's war debt with the surety they needed in order to buy the bonds.

The point of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was not to set the slaves free, but to extend a benefit [privilege] to the slaves, disguised as a 'right,' which was taxable. In fact all that really happened to the slaves is that jurisdiction over them was moved from Southern plantations to the Federal plantation, as surety for Lincoln's debt.

Thus, by the end of Lincoln's War, the new government now known as "The United States," was in debt to the tune of some 2.7 billion dollars. This debt was owed to those who bought the Federal governments bonds that were sold to fight Lincoln's War. But, the Federal government had at that time limited assets to guarantee the safety of the bonds to the bondholders.

Contrast Civil Rights with God-given Rights and one will see that God-given Rights are not taxable, but Civil Rights are. Thus, since all benefits, privileges, and opportunities offered by government are taxable as a rule of law (policy), then the benefit bestowed upon the slaves was taxable as well. And, anyone who took advantage of these Acts was thus taxable.

Thus, in 1862, Lincoln created the Bureau of Internal Revenue to collect taxes on the benefits offered in the Civil Rights Acts, and this further assured the bondholders that they would get the interest on their money for many years to come. To this day, however, the debt incurred by Lincoln in his war is yet to be paid off.

Further, the debt was not then, nor is it now, a sinking fund--that is, the principal is never reduced and always remains as the basis for the interest payments to the bondholders. Every dime of debt accumulated by the United States government from 1861 to the present has been built up using this same funding scheme.

Thus, any idea that the Civil Rights Acts were a great boon and gift to minorities in America is a flat lie--a propaganda ploy--to hide the fact that the Federal government was using those who took advantage of the Civil Rights Acts as surety for the national debt. To this day, the situation has not changed.

But, it gets worse. The genius of the Civil Rights Acts was, that they were put into effect by a government that had no real standing in Law. Thus, one had to voluntarily register to receive the benefits of the new government, and hence pay the taxes through the Civil Rights Acts.

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions about registering to vote, let it be made clear that prior to Lincoln's War, all people who were eligible to vote had their names enrolled on the Great Roll of the County. In other words, electors were enrolled, not registered. Voter registration was created in the aftermath of Lincoln's War and was an entirely new scheme.

Today, everyone takes for granted that they're a United States citizen, but prior to Lincoln this was not the case. At any rate, no one considers for a moment the very first qualification to register as a voter that is listed on the back of all Voter Registration forms. In simple terms, unless one agrees that he is a "citizen of the United States," he cannot register to vote and thus submit himself as a voluntary surety for the national debt.

The point about the Civil Rights Acts is, the United States government had no lawful authority to pass such Acts, because at the time these Acts were passed, the Federal government was no longer a lawful civil authority, but a military authority and the nation was still under qualified martial law, as it is to this day.

The only difference between the martial law of 1867 and 1997 is--martial law in 1867 was flagrant, while the martial law of today is not flagrant.

This point is made in Part One of the heavily documented treatise in "The Book of the Hundreds," where we have shown that the United States government that came out of Lincoln's War is not the same government that went into the War, in so far as its law and form is concerned.

To describe this in terms of law, we say that the government which existed in 'Washington City' and 'The District of Columbia' before 1860 was a government in fact (de facto) and a government in law (de jure). But, the government after the war was merely a government in fact, and not a government in law. Today, this is the situation in 'Washington, D. C.'

By the way, since Lincoln's War ended, a host of works have been published which say, in different ways, what "The Book of the Hundreds" says in its Part One, "A Prolegomena to Current American Law." Its just that Christians have not been paying attention, or simply didn't care.

In recent years, Christians have begun to feel uneasy about Birth Certificates for a variety of reasons. At one time, the record of a Christian birth was kept in the family Bible, which thus constituted a Lawful record and was admissible in court. This is still true today.

But, after Lincoln's War, all levels of government began to promote and then to insist upon Birth Certificates. The same took place in corporations, small business, the military, in educational institutions, and in hospitals. In hospitals, for example, one can have great difficulty getting their baby out of a hospital after it's born. The reason is that the hospital receives (in addition to the money paid by the baby's father and mother) a cash payment for every live birth recorded in its facility - from the Federal government. And, while the hospital does this for reasons of profit, the government does it in order to certify that another of those "all persons born" is now on the record and more surety is added for the national debt.

The public schools require a Birth Certificate because they cannot claim payments for each child in school, unless that child has documentary proof that he is a 'citizen of the United States.'

In other words, the so-called "cradle to grave security" that was so heavily promoted by the Liberal Democrats and Republicans in F.D. Roosevelt's administration and the Great Society of L.B.J. is really an anachronism for "cradle to grave surety."

At any rate, the Civil Rights Acts were the cornerstone of the new government's power over minorities, but, it took the 14th Amendment to create the extension of this power to eventually include all people born in America.

Racial minorities simply didn't have the assets to allow the new Federal government to go into debt very far. The goal was to get at the assets and property of white people. This was done by the simple expedient of a Birth Certificate to lay the basis for jurisdiction, and when the child is older, he can confirm the receipt of Federal benefits as a United States citizen by volunteering again, for Social Security, registering to vote, etc.

Still, and more to Our point, it was the 14th Amendment which was necessary to lay the foundation of a woman's 'right' to do that which was unlawful, i.e., to murder her own baby, which, thanks to the Civil Rights Acts, suddenly became a new civil right in America.

Next month, more on Abortion under the common law, and the remedies thereof.

Land by Inheritance

by John Joseph

The purpose of this short article is to aid You in getting Land and placing it under Your Christian Dominion under God. There is no other possible way for Man to exist without Land inherited from God.

"Nulle terre sans seigneur --No land without a lord." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

This is a first imperative, because it is written,

"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

In other words, without Good and Lawful Christians holding the Land under God there is no Law of the Land. This then leads to the decay of Christian nations,

"Legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt --Those who do not preserve the law of the land, then justly incur the ineffaceable brand of infamy." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

First I must define a few terms for You so you can understand the nature of what you have done in the past, which placed you in the situation you now find your Self.

You probably followed the "American Dream" of obtaining a mortgage from a lending institution (bank, thrift, savings and loan, credit union, ad nauseam) so you could afford to buy that dream. Unfortunately, that is all you bought--the dream, vaporware. This sounds harsh, but it is never the less true.

In looking at the mortgage papers from whatever lending institution you obtained your mortgage, you entered into an equitable relationship in commerce with that lending institution, which clouded your relationship with God, i.e., You lost your unalienable rights:

"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable.The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3350.

Property is not unalienable, but is alienable and therefore, negotiable. The name given on the papers is, in Law, a nom de guerre--a misnomer--because it does not follow the Law composed of the customs and usages of English Grammar:

"NOM DE GUERRE--a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.
"MISNOMER.--I. Nouns. misnomer, misnaming; lucus a non lucendo (L.); malapropism, Mrs. Malaprop
"nickname, sobriquet (F.), or soubriquet, by-name, pet name, assumed name, pseudonym, alias, nom de guerre (F.), nom de plume (English formation), pen name, stage name, nom de theatre (F.).
"II. Verbs. misname, miscall, misterm, nickname, take an assumed name.
"III. Adjectives. misnamed, miscalled, nicknamed; soi-disant (F.), self-styled, pseudonymous, so-called, quasi.
"nameless, anonymous (abbr. Anon.), innominate, unnamed, unknown, unacknowledged; pseudo.
"Antonyms. See NOMENCLATURE." Roget's Thesaurus of the English Language in Dictionary Form (1936), p. 310. [A nom de guerre, a war name, is a misnomer.]

Thus, in obtaining the "loan" from the institution, you never entered and took possession in your Christian character, which had been clouded by the equities of the mortgage. The institution, because it is not established by God, is a fiction and can only concern itself with fictions.

"Disparata non debent jungi --Unequal things ought not to be joined." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), "Maxim," vol. 2, p. 127.

All this sounds too technical and boring. Isn't there an "easier way?" If God wanted it any easier, then it would be more difficult for Good and Lawful Christians to take, hold and occupy their Dominions under God.

We must now examine the meaning of the word "title" for it is probably the most misunderstood word in the vernacular, as well as the legal language.

"250. Title is the means by which the ownership of real property [or land] is acquired and held. This is either:
"(a) By descent, or
"(b) By purchase.
"The fact which in any case gives or creates ownership over real property [or land] is called title. Title signifies the manner in which estates and interests in land are acquired. At the beginning of real property law in any country there must be an original acquisition of title to land. After title has been thus acquired all subsequent acquisitions of title to the same land must be by transfer of the title.
"Descent and Purchase.
"All titles are said to be acquired by descent or by purchase. Purchase means more than mere buying, it includes acquisition of title by devise or by gift. In short title by purchase means title acquired in all ways except by descent." Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 399. [Emphasis in italics added.]

Notice the distinction between "land" and "real property." "Real property" has limitations on it described in the deed of conveyance, such as loss of mineral rights. But the term "land" is different:

"Land in its legal signification has an indefinite extent upward." Lux v. Haggin, 69 C. 255, 392, 4 P. 919, 10 P. 674.
"Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum --He who owns the soil owns it up to the sky." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.
"Land" also extends downward to the center of the earth, thereby taking in all mineral wealth to be discovered by the occupant at the surface. Were you ever aware of this? Notice the words "means" and "manner" in the definition of "title." "Title" is not the piece of paper, but the method and manner by, or under, which You obtained, hold, and subject the land under You to the Law of God. In other words, did you obtain the land by descent or purchase? The highest title is by descent through inheritance. The word "purchase" from the above includes "gift" and therefore is not limited to an exchange of money for land. Accordingly, then, the lending institution does not have the "title" either, because it never made entry. It has a lien on the "persona"--nom de guerre--but not "title." So who does?

This might come as a shock to You, but only God has the real title, and He may give it for an inheritance to whomsoever He wills. But,

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9-10.

In other words none of those who engage in the aforementioned practices can take Dominion under God, for they deny His Power.

"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Eph. 4:3-5. [Emphasis added.]

Illustrating the

Obscure Fallacies of American Politics

by Michael Paul

An Admission of a Historian Revisionist

Seeking the Truth in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is God's Blessing that has brought me in to His garden of Life and Liberty. In the past, I have been deluded with false dogmas and corrupt thoughts of reality, bringing hatred and frustration--including fear. Today I realized the truth why the humanist created the Civil War against the Christians and their governments. And, today, I now know how to protect myself with Lawful means by standing in proper law venue founded by our fathers of 1776. I hope one day many will do the same venturing into the history of Law as I did to learn the Truth.

Too many are still caught up in the world of lies and wasting valuable time engaging in silly arguments and sometimes meaningless fights of selfishness. I don't have patience with those minds, but I can only try witnessing the truth to them. But my greatest enemies are the 501(c)3 not-for-profit religious (apostate churches) organizations that choose not to offend anyone with the truth, and yet, would rather engage themselves in the venue of commercial interest and benefits from government rather than enjoy the fruits blessed from Our Most High.

Many so-called Christians don't know the difference of being "in the world" and being 'of the world." Out of ignorance of the Scriptures and the Law, or perhaps due to their laziness, most gullible Christians tend to believe whatever the establishment media says--especially the de facto government. The majority of Christians know only the First and the Sixteenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights. And common law to them means something about an unmarried couple "living together"....?

It is sad to see how the Christians think the way the humanist deluded them with its propaganda in media and government. Don't get me wrong here; I was like that for a long time. But you will change your attitude quickly once you observe the Law by research in your county law library. Then, watch how the Scriptures become alive with power for the first time in your life.

From what you have read here in this newsletter from Maj. General Birkhimer's Introduction and from the Opinion of Attorney General's writings on the matter of "new jurisdiction," may open your eyes. The following is a written "admission" of that fact in excerpts from George P. Fletcher, a law professor from Columbia Law School in an article Unsound Constitution, published in the New Republic magazine, June 23, 1997, p. 18:

"The fourteenth Amendment further confirms the new sense of the United States as a national community with its clause prohibiting the states from 'depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [or denying] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' The clauses account for the enormous expansion of judge-made constitutional law in the past fifty years."

If you remember, "person" is in the same legal definition as "natural man" created by and for the humanist with its Fourteenth Amendment and the "new jurisdiction." (Remember what Scripture says about a "natural man"? Read First Corinthians, Chapter two, verse 14.) The writer is clearly in a secular mode and distorts the facts when stating:

"...According to the official story [fairy tale?], we correct- ed the racist mistakes of 1789 and got the Constitution on the right track. 'We the people' are still in power." [Insert added]

In power? Hey! Wait a minute here. Previously in that article, he stated:

"...the Fourteenth Amendment contains its own grant of legislative authority to Congress to implement its principles by appropriate legislation." [Emphasis added ].

Hmmm, sounds like the Congress may grant man certain rights rather than acknowledge that they are a gift from God. And, funny how indirectly he is calling those who believe in God a "Racist" by ignoring the fact in law that all the states, but two, passed their own laws abolishing slavery before the War. But, it is expected now to see how those humanists behave. They go out of the way to lie--to be godlike for power...Like unrepentant monsters for creating all wars and rumors of wars...Ah, the lies, deceit and greed is really what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about.

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance'

Part Three

by Randy Lee

(continued from Issue the Twentieth)

In the first flood, God determined that Noah and all that were with him on the ark were the only creatures on earth that were worthy of life:

"Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6:9

Those left beneath in the ebb and flow of equity and iniquity were the sons of Adam--the secular, mundane, unregenerate natural man--those that put God behind them. For Noah and his ark, no matter how high that water of equity and iniquity rose, the Law prevailed. Noah had 'exercised his right of avoidance' and God's grace was upon him.

There is again a flood upon the land. This new flood manifests itself in codes, rules, regulations, licenses, etc.--taxing and regulating natural persons and their privileges, private rights, ownership, class, negotiable instruments, property, contracts, etc., ad nauseam. Not Law.

The waters are rapidly rising in this new flood, with more and more codes, rules and regulations of the ungodly raining down everyday in a torrent. Through "Exercising Your Right of Avoidance," an ark, floating above those troubled waters, is always available by the grace of God.

Peter, when walking on the water with Our Lord, feared the wind and began to sink. At that moment, Peter was no longer walking with God, but instead believed that a fiction of nature could harm him, in spite of being in the presence and under the protection of his Shield and Buckler, his Refuge and Fortress. A simple, but sincere pleading of "Lord, save me," saved him.

"Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, He it is that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." Deut. 31:6

As in the times of Noah and Peter, we must rise and remain above the fictitious equitable ebb and flow of the ungodly, by walking with God and never doubting.

Avoiding Legal Personality

Please read 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being' in Issue the Sixth, for further study of 'person,' 'natural person' and 'human being.'

Personality. In modern civil law.
"The incidence of a law or statute upon persons, or that quality which makes it a personal law rather than a real law. By the personality of laws, foreign jurists generally mean all laws which concern the condition, state, and capacity of persons." Story, Confl. Laws, 16.

Your 'condition, state (status), and capacity (Powers, Obligations, Rights)' above mentioned, is evidenced by the walk you take (by their fruits you will know them...). The question of these 'foreign jurists' (the agents, judges, and magistrates of The District of Chaldea) is--who is your Master--God or man?

And who's court are you found in (the lex fori):

'Lex Fori: The law of the forum, or court; that is the positive law of the state, country, or jurisdiction of whose judicial system the court where the action is brought or remedy sought is an integral part." 2 Kent, Comm. 462.

"A member of a State may be either a citizen, occupying the status entitled 'citizenship,' or he may be a resident alien, occupying the status designated by the title 'residence.' A citizen is a permanent member of the State, owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection whether he is at home or abroad. The status of his membership ('citizen- ship') is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth (jus soli), by the nationality of his parents (jus sanguinis), by his election, or by some form of naturalization ["All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside."--Fourteenth Amendment, section one.]." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 12-13.

A citizen is a pagan (see Etymologicum Angicanum, page eleven), giving allegiance and looking to the State for its protection, not to God. There is the rub. There is the election. Citizenship, residence, ownership, naturalization, nationality, a name, birth date and birthplace--these are the marks which give you 'legal personality,' and are the worldly indicators of the natural man:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corintians 2:14-15

Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. --Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona), of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), 'Maxim of Law,' page 2136.

Avoiding the attachment of a 'legal personality' to oneself is paramount in avoiding the world of the ungodly. The following is a sample of how one can avoid the trappings of 'legal personality':

Christian response(s) at the traffic stop, or at other places of interest

Question: "Let me see your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance."
Response: "I have something better. I have the Law of My Father and Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." and hand him your Bible; and ask, "I am a Good and Lawful Christian Man, are you? I send you greetings from My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to exercise Ministerial powers in this matter." If he begs the question then declare that "The maxims of Law state that the cause of the church is a public cause, and private interpretation is irrelevant."

Question: "What is your name?"
Response: "I don't have a name. Names are the notes, symbols or marks of things, given by only those in Authority to those in subjection. No man has authority over Good and Lawful Christians, for it is written in the Law of my Father that, 'Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.' I have a name known only by my Father, written in His Book of Life."

Question: "Do you own this vehicle?"
Response: "I can't own anything. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. I am a joint heir with My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is a maxim of law that 'No one can be owner and heir at the same time.'

Question: "Do you have any identification?"
Response: "My Father has numbered the very hairs on my head, and I am more valuable to him than the birds of the air. Therefore He knows Me. In His Law there is no requirement for identification, because I am sealed by His Holy Spirit, which marks and separates me from natural persons, and I am known."

Question: "That is all well and good. But you have to understand, you must have a license or some form of identification when you are out here on the roads."
Response: "By the Law of My Father, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me, and I am not out here hurting any body, and I have not hurt any body. I understand only (choose one): One, lawless forms of humanity; or, Two, natural persons --must have some sort of identification."

Question: "Where do you live?"
Response: "Wherever I happen to be at the time, because by the Law of My Father, I am a transient and sojourner with Him."

Question: "Where is your home, residence, abode, domicile, or dwelling?"
Response: "I am homeless."

Question: "Where do you receive your mail?"
Response: "I do not receive mail. I call for my First-Class matter posted to Me at general delivery only."

Question: "When were you born? --What's your birth date?"
Response: "I don't know. I was not conscious at the time. Only my Father knows that and He has never told me. It is hearsay only, and irrelevant to a Good and Lawful Christian."

Question: "How old are you?"
Response: "I do not know. And to venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based on hearsay."

Question: "Where were you born?"
Response: "I don't know. I was not conscious at the time. My Father has never told me. Again that is hearsay."

Question: "Where do you plan to return?"
Response: "I do not know. I follow my Shepherd wherever He leads me. I will follow him because I hear His Voice, and a stranger's voice I do not hear. My Father directs my comings and goings during My sojourn here with Him."

Question: "Please sign the ticket."
Response: "I cannot sign that paper, because I am a bondservant of My Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By Law, all that I have belongs to Him, and therefore, I cannot make engagements which either obligate Him or Myself."

The preceding is simply an overview of the perspective from which you must speak and the attitude you must take when dealing with those that wish to pillage and plunder your life. The questions will never be the same and the answers must always come from the heart through The Holy Spirit, not from the reasoning brain.

Driver's License

In addition to this section, please read 'Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways' in Issue the Fourteenth.

With the volumes of court cases in existence on the subject of the Driver's License and Registration, one could fill a book. Therefore, for space-sake, we will only cover a few cases which spell out who are, and who are not required to hold a driver's licence and registration.

"The Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1913, p. 639) is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all other operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation." In re Stork (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A chauffeur within the sense defined in Veh. C. 71, is one who is paid compensation for his services." Hunton v. California Portland Cement Co. (1942), 50 C.A.2d 684, 123 P.2d 947.
"The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise." In re Stork (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A 'license' is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or a corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal.App.2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
"A licence is a permit, granted by the sovereign, generally for a consideration (Smith v. Commonwealth, 175 Ky. 286, 194 S.W. 367, 370), to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power." State ex rel. Guillot v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 143 La. 1053, 79 So. 857,858.

There is but one sovereign in heaven and earth--The One True Living God. When you take a license or registration, you take a new fictional sovereign/master. That 'master of persons' is a military master wielding the police power -- that is your new master.

Unlicensed Nonresident

Sec. 12503. "A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for not to exceed 30 days without obtaining a license under this code." State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

In Sec. 12503, the 'home state' for Christians is Christendom. Also, note that the 30 day limit is for owners of the vehicle. 'Owner' is a commercial term. With Christians being joint heirs with Christ, Christians don't own anything. Claiming ownership removes the ability to be heir, for:

Nemo ejusdem tenementi simul potest esse haeres et dominus --No man can at the same time be the heir and the owner of the same tenement. 'Maxim,' Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 1190.

All that one need have is his Bible, which is his Law, when 'Exercising his Christian Liberty on the Common Ways.' Again, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

Automobile Registration

"The same principles of law are applicable to them as to other vehicles upon the highway. It is therefore, the adaptation and use, rather than the form or kind of conveyance that concerns the courts." Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown (1905) 165 Ind. 465, 74 N. E. 615
"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Moore v. Roddie (1919) 106 Wash. 518, 180 P. 879; Cohens v. Meador (1916) 119 Va. 429, 89 S.E. 876; Blair v. Broadmore (1917) 121 Va. 301, 93 S.E. 632.
"Section 260 of the Vehicle Code provides in part: "(a) A 'commercial vehicle' is a vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. [P] (b) Passenger vehicles which are not used for the transportation of person for hire, compensation, or profit and house cars are not commercial vehicles."
"Furthermore, the trial court said,. 'Vehicle Code Section 260, subdivision (a) encompasses vehicles used for carrying persons for hire and the transportation of property'."
"We conclude that the lower court's construction of Vehicle Code section 260 more reasonably conforms to the legislative intent and that the term "for hire" modifies the term "transport- ation," so that a commercial vehicle is one in which persons or property are transported for hire. Thus, "commercial vehicles" are of two types: (1) those put to the use of transporting persons for hire, and (2) those designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. In other words, vehicles used for the traditional purposes of public livery or conveyance, such as buses, taxicabs or other vehicles functioning as common carriers or otherwise, operate for profit. Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Carrier Ins. Co. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 223, 227-228, 119 Cal.Rptr. 116.

Foreign Vehicle Registration

Sec. 4152.5 "When California registration is required of a vehicle last registered in a foreign jurisdiction, an application for registration shall be made to the department within 20 days following the date registration became due. The application shall be deemed an original application. State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

"Became due," are the key words in this section. To avoid registration coming due, you must put the car into a foreign jurisdiction that does not have a due date for re-registration. This is done by first 'junking the title' of the car. This removes it from the jurisdiction of 'the State':

Total Loss Salvage Vehicles

Sec. 11515 (c). "Whenever a total loss salvage vehicle is not the subject of an insurance settlement, the owner shall, within 10 days from the loss, forward the properly endorsed certificate of ownership or other evidence of ownership acceptable to the department, the license plates, and a three (3) dollar fee to the department. State of California, 1995 Motor Vehicle Code.

This simple act removes the car from the regulations of commerce. 'The total loss' is the loss of commercial ownership and the gain of being joint heir with Christ. The question is: Now what do I do?

Due to lack of space this month and further research to be done, I will go into extensive detail next month on putting your car under the jurisdiction of Christendom.

Use of a Social Security Number

Social Security Administration: "An agency of The Department of Health and Human Services under the direction of the Commissioner of Social Security which administers a national program of contributory social insurance whereby employees, employers, and the self-employed pay contributions which are pooled in special trust funds. When earnings are stopped or reduced because the worker retires, dies, or becomes disabled, monthly cash benefits are paid to replace part of the earnings the person or family has lost. In addition to administering the various retirement, survivors, disability, and supplemental security income (SSI) benefit programs, the SSA oversees the administrative hearing and appeals process involving benefit claims." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1390.

In other words, one who remains attached to a Social Security Number is a 'human' (see 'To Be or Not to Be a Human Being,' in Issue the Sixth) and receives 'benefits' from a 'national program,' under administrative 'law.' Sounds like a 'creature' of the corporate State.

The sad part is that this whole 'social program' came about through voluntarily submitting to the conquerors, as admitted by the IRS in their 1962 'Personal Letter to Taxpayers,' to wit:

"The Internal Revenue Service is gradually installing modern high-speed electronic equipment which will improve and strengthen tax administration.
Because many names are alike, it is necessary to use numbers, in addition to names, to identify taxpayers in our electronic and other records. Since 130 million Americans already have Social Security numbers, it was decided to use these numbers for tax purposes to save them the inconvenience of obtaining other numbers. Most taxpayers have been putting these numbers on their tax returns for many years, and will need only to continue this practice."

In other words, "no Social Security Number, no taxable income." The problem is, "How do I earn a living without a Social Security Number? All employers require a number before they'll hire me." The answer, as always, is found in Scripture:

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16

How did the fathers work without being raped of their earnings? They stayed out of the 'business world' and worked only within their Christian community, where there was protection from foreign outsiders. That is the place where you must return to. Finding and working for or with those of like mind is the tack one must take to get out from underneath the beast.

Which will it be? To see, and ask for the old paths, or turn a blind eye to The Word of God? Will it be, "I can make the changes and sacrifices necessary,"-- or will it be, "I can't change and give up all that I have worked for all of my life. I'm too comfortable. I think it's easier and more convenient to keep things the way they are."

There are no gray areas available. The choice--serving The One True Living God--or Baal.

In Issue the Twenty-second, we will examine ways of removing your car from underneath the beast of commerce and bringing it back under the Dominions of Christ. In addition, we'll explore alternatives to corporate employment, court appearance, and property registration under the state.

Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War

The Story of Mrs. Mary Brady

This month we introduce you to Mrs. Mary Brady. Her story is most remarkable and we hope very uplifting and edifying for all of you. It has always been traditional among historians to shove women in the background somewhere, out of the way, so that they can write about the great battles of war from the mouths of those who fought them. Little do these historians know the valuable contributions that dedicated Good and Lawful Christian Women make in sustaining the morale and character of those engaged on the front lines of a battle. A soft voice with comforting words of resolution and firmness in support of her husband's or her community's Christian execution of Christ's Testament go along way in providing sorely needed calmness in the face of battle. Mrs. Brady showed such courage out on the front lines when the Union armies were engaged with the Confederate armies.

We personally believe the carnage, misery and mutilation described here would never had taken place had Good and Lawful Christians occupied the positions in government. Lincoln was a practicing infidel who sacrificed the Saints both North and South, on the altar of communism, to achieve the misery in which we now find ourselves. Let us pray that God will be merciful to us repenting sinners, and show us the paths to reformation, and reconstruction in the Light and Life of His Word. Without our Repentance there is no Christian Reformation and no Christian Reconstruction. Without loving and supporting Good and Lawful Christian Wives our house cannot stand.

Mrs. Mary A. Brady{1}

{1} The text of this story is taken from Frank Moore's "Women of the War" published in 1866.

An old Greek writer, in reflecting how his nation had been roused from luxury and stimulated to actions that made Greece heroic by the stress of the Persian invasion, exclaimed, in his enthusiasm, "War is the father of all things."

In like manner, we of America, looking at all the latent heroism that was developed during those four years of national agony and national glory, may, in no accommodated sense, hail our great war as the father of a great national peace, before impossible, and the nurse of magnanimous acts, and lives of saint-like devotion to the good of others.

While, among those who composed our armies, there were men who fought from very different motives and incitements,--some for love of glory, some from hatred of national injustice, some for a splendid name, and some for an undivided nation,--so, among the heroines, some followed their husbands, and were ready to dare everything and suffer everything for them and their cause; others sought the field out of a generous rivalry not to be outdone in sacrifices by the sterner sex; others were incited by pure patriotism; while a few moved and acted from motives rarer and purer, perhaps, that all these--a simple and unmixed desire to alleviate human suffering, a philanthropic kindness of soul, and the swelling of a large-hearted charity, that was willing to labor anywhere, and in any manner, to relieve the wants of those who were suffering pain and privations in a worthy cause.

Prominent among this numerous class must be placed the record of a lady whose name is written at the head of this memoir.

Mrs. Brady was not an American by birth. She had no son, or brother, or husband in the war. Born in Ireland, in 1821, and having married, in 1846, an English lawyer, twelve years of quiet residence in this country had, no doubt, sufficed to impress her with American love and pride; but she had no such stake in the issue, no such incentives to do all and suffer all that woman can in such a struggle, as might hae impelled the exertions of the thousands who did far less than she.

What demand of mere patriotism could have made it her duty, as an American citizen merely, to forego all the comforts of her home in Philadelphia, leave a family of five little children, push her way through all embarrassments and delays, through all the army lines, and sometimes in spite of general orders, to the very front, or to those hospitals where the men were brought in with clothing red with the fresh-flowing gore of battle, and spend days and weeks at the field hospitals just in the rear of the great battle-fields, and return home only to restore her wasted energies, and start out again on her errands of tireless philanthropy? Yet such is the outline of Mrs. Brady's life, and such the summary of her charities from the summer of 1862, when the sick and wounded from McClellan's peninsular army were brought to the northern hospitals, till the summer of 1864, when, by reason of her exertions, exposures, and excitements, the silver cord of life was strung too tightly, and in the midst of her labors, while planning fresh sacrifices and new fields of exertion, it snapped, and she ceased to live, except in the hearts of survivors, and in the memory of thousands of soldiers who "Shall tell their little children, with their rhymes, Of the sweet saint who blessed the old war-times."

Up to the summer of 1862 the life of Mrs. Brady was unmarked by other than the domestic virtues and the charities of home. Her life was that of an industrious, kind-hearted woman, finding her chosen and happy sphere in the duties of wife and mother. She merited the eulogy which the Greek orator bestowed on that woman, who, most intent upon home duties, was least talked of abroad, whether for praise or blame.

It was on the 28th of July, 1862, that Mrs. Brady and a few others met at her husband's law office, to take into consideration the condition of the soldiers who had been brought from James River, and were then languishing in various hospitals in and around Philadelphia, but principally at the Satterlee Hospital, in West Philadelphia, not far from Mrs. Brady's home.

There alone was an ample field for their labors, and objects to absorb all the contributions of charity and patriotism that could be made to pass through their organization as a channel of sanitary relief. Here were three thousand soldiers, a mutilated fragment of the grand army with which McClellan had advanced up the peninsula, and which had floundered in the mud and rain, and through the battles of the Chickahominy, had been reduced by the six hard fights of that terrible campaign. True, the worst cases of the wounded were in hospitals nearer the front, at Washington, or Norfolk, or on James River; but here were hundreds and hundreds languishing with that low, dull fever that overcame so many who shared in that campaign, and which was called in the army the "James River fever." Here, too, were the mutilated men, nursing the painful stumps from which an arm or a leg had been amputated. The absolute physical necessities of these patients were, to a reasonable degree, met by the customary appliances of an army hospital. The patient had a bed, narrow and hard, indeed, but clean. His food was such as the hospital surgeon prescribed--now a plate of boiled rice, now a slice of beef, or a dish of soup. But moral and social restoratives he had none. To wrestle in grim patience with unceasing pain; to lie weak and helpless, thinking of the loved ones on the far-off hill-side, or thirsty with unspeakable longing for one draught of cold water from the spring by the big rock at the old homestead; to yearn, through long, hot nights, for one touch of the cool, soft hand of a sister or a wife on the throbbing temples,--this was the dreary routine of suffering and cheerlessness in the great hospital before Mrs. Brady and her associates commenced their labors of wise and systematic kindness.

The object of their organization was declared to be to create committees, who, in turn, should visit the different wards of the United States Hospital, for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the sick and wounded soldiers, and to establish a depot of sanitary supplies, whose location should be generally known; to have their organization officially recognized by the governor and the military and medical authorities of the United States; and eventually, that members of the association should visit the hospitals at Washington and the army in the field, to learn the wants of sick soldiers, and do all in their power to relieve them.

Mrs. Brady was elected president of the association; and from that day to the hour of her death--not quite two years after--her labors were unceasing, her devotion unbounded, and her discretion unerring in the great enterprise of the sanitary well-being of the soldiers of the republic.

For some months their labors were confined to the hospital at West Philadelphia. A committee of these ladies regularly, each day, went the round of the hospital wards, distributing the delicacies and the various articles of comfort that were now daily arriving in a steady stream at the depot for their hospital supplies on Fifth Street.

But the ministries of Mrs. Brady and her corps were not confined to the mere distribution of currant jelly, preserved peaches, flannel shirts, and woolen socks. They carried with them a moral cheer and soothing that were more salutary and healing than any of the creature comforts. The patient, suffering hero of Williamsburg or Malvern Hill was assured, in tones to whose pleasant, home-like accents his ear had long been a stranger, that his efforts in behalf of his country were not ignored or forgotten; that they too had a son, a brother, a father, or a husband in the field. Then the pallid face and the bony fingers were bathed in cool water, and sometimes a chapter in the New Testament, or paragraph from the morning papers, read, in tones low, but distinct, and in such grateful contrast to those hoarse battle-shouts that had been for weeks, perhaps, ringing through his feverish brain--"Column, forward--dress on the colors--aim low--make your shots tell--file right, march! "

Then the painful and inflamed stump was lifted, and a pad of soft, cool lint fitted under it; and the thin, chalky lips would move slowly, and say that he "felt easier."

Here a poor fellow, who had an armless sleeve, was enjoying the services of a fair amanuensis, who in graceful chirography wrote down, for loving eyes and heavy hearts, in some distant village of Vermont or Michigan, the same old soldier's story, told a thousand times, by a thousand firesides, but always more charming than any story in the Arabian Nights--how, on that great day, he stood with his company on a hill-side, and saw the long gray line of the enemy come rolling across the valley; how, when the cannon opened up on them, he could see the rough, ragged gaps opening in the line; how they closed up and moved on; how their general came along, and made a little speech, and told them to aim low and then give them the bayonet; how he rushed on at the command to "charge;" how this friend fell on one side, and poor Jimmy on the other; and then he felt a general crash, and a burning pain, and the musket dropped out of his hand; then the ambulance and the amputation, and what the surgeon said about his pluck; and then the weakness, and the pain, and the hunger; and how much better he was now; and how kind the ladies in Philadelphia had been to him; that he didn't care much about the loss of his arm, so far as he was concerned, only he couldn't do as much for his father and mother as he had hoped; but he lost it in the line of his duty, and would lose the other one rather than have the government broken up.

Who would not sew, knit, make currant jelly, write letters for a hospital full of brave, patient heroes like that?

After their recovery and return, Mrs. Brady received numerous letters from those she had visited in the hospitals, thanking her and blessing her for her good deeds.

The following, from a Pennsylvania volunteer, is selected from a score equally interesting:

CAMP NEAR BELLE PLAIN, VIRGINIA,

January 19, 1863.

MRS. MARY A. BRADY,
Dear Friend: There is one of my comrades in the West Philadelphia Hospital (Ward H) by the name of Harry Griffin. I wish you would be so kind as to call and see him as you make your daily rounds.
You are engaged in a good work in visiting the afflicted, and by contributing to their wants; and surely you will reap your reward in good season, and God will bless you. Every true soldier you have helped shall remember you with respect and gratitude. I shall always remember you myself with deep feelings gratitude, and I shall never forget the kindness bestowed on me by the ladies. "A friend in need is a friend in deed." My arm is still sore.
Believe me to be, madam, yours truly,
JOSEPH A. WINTERS,
Co. B, 7th Reg. Pa. Vol.

Late in the fall, at the time of the annual Thanksgiving, Mrs. Brady and the others determined that those who still remained--some sixteen hundred--should not lack the material supplies on which to celebrate the day.

Mrs. Brady and Miss Lydie C. Price were the efficient committee on Thanksgiving Dinner. They appealed to the cities and towns around Philadelphia in behalf of the brave fellows, and Mrs. Brady showed her characteristic kindness and thoughtfulness by applying to Dr. Hayes for the release on that day of all the boys who for any indiscretion had found their way to the guard-house. The good surgeon granted her request, and Mrs. Brady had ready for them, at the appointed dinner hour, seventy-five turkeys, one hundred chickens, twenty geese, sixty ducks, eight hundred and fifty pies, eighty-five rice puddings, and fifteen barrels of eating apples. Two bakers' establishments were placed at their disposal, and the food brought up warm to the hospital in covered wagons.

The number of patients in this hospital now rapidly diminished, and, in December Mrs. Brady began to arrange plans for more extended and arduous labors for the soldier. At their depot there was a constantly increasing supply of various articles, such as the soldiers were supposed most to need.

Soldiers' aid societies had sprung up all over the state, and Mrs. Brady was widely known as president of the mother society in Philadelphia.

Numerous boxes had been sent to her care, and she regarded herself as the authorized trustee of the charities of large communities.

She determined not to trust the distribution of these goods to careless or unknown agents, but after consultation with others of the association, it was decided that Mrs. Brady was to go to the field in person, and distribute the contents of the boxes from tent to tent, as she found the men in camp who most required them.

While at Alexandria she prepared and sent home to the association in Philadelphia a charming narrative of her journey and all its incidents, and how the contents of the boxes were given out, and how the boys received them, and how she could have distributed twenty times as much without giving to any who did not require aid.

When she went to Fairfax and the camps between the Potomac and the Rapidan our national fortunes were at ebb tide. It was the Valley Forge of the war. The Peninsular campaign had been magnificent, but a failure. Then Jackson, and soon after Lee with him, had advanced to the Potomac, driving Pope before him into Washington city. Then at South Mountain and Antietam the invading tide had been met and rolled back; but Lee was not pursued. Then Burnside had taken the army across the Rappahannock, and fought a superior force under able generals, on the worst ground he could have chosen, with such results as might have been expected. The army was greatly used up and demoralized, and the sick list was fearful.

Beyond Alexandria, in the direction of Falmouth, where the army lay, Mrs. Brady came upon one camp of twelve thousand six hundred convalescents; a little beyond, a sick camp of eight thousand, and in the forty military hospitals in and around Washington she visited thirty thousand sick and wounded. Of course the sixty boxes she took from Philadelphia were but a mouthful to a hungry man; but she gave out the articles herself, with true English thoroughness and perseverance, making numerous inquiries, and faithfully striving to give to those who were most in need.

While travelling among this army of the sick, she was overtaken one evening by a snow storm, and was obliged to fare like the soldiers, shivering all night under one gray blanket, in a tent without a fire, and listening to a dreary chorus of coughing, which suggested all the grades and varieties of pulmonary disease. But her thoughts were not on her personal discomforts, rather on the twelve thousand sick soldiers, in the midst of whom she was passing but a single cheerless night; and she hurried home to ply her needle, and stimulate by her pen the activities of others, and collect as soon as possible additional supplies. She only stopped to pay a flying visit to the sick in Washington, and describes, in affecting language, how, in every ward she entered, all who were not too sick or badly wounded would rise up in their beds in astonishment at seeing a lady visitor.

At several of the Alexandria hospitals the doctors and nurses told her no other lady had ever called before.

In about a month Mrs. Brady, and the other ladies of the association, had sixty large boxes full of flannel shirts, socks, butter, dried fruit, wine, jelly, preserves, farina, soap, towels, combs, and several packages of smoking tobacco, apples, and onions. Her second trip was much like the first, except that now she penetrated to the extreme front, and heard the rebel drums tattoo in the camps on the other side of the Rappahannock, and the church clocks striking in Fredricksburg.

Here she took a four-mule wagon, and went through the army, stopping wherever a little red flag indicated a sick tent. She saved a number of boxes for the Alexandria hospitals, and the convalescents would file by her stand, and receive each an apple, a lemon, a handful of smoking tobacco, or a pair of socks, and what was just about as good, and cost nothing, a cheerful word, a smile, a pleasant joke, or a wish that she had more for each.

Returning home, the month of April was passed in active preparations for another trip. Yet her family was not neglected. In camp or on the cars she was knitting for them or making a dress, and at home divided her time between the demands of her family and the army, working now on a child's frock and now on a soldier's shirt.

May came, and with it Chancellorsville and its ten thousand wounded. This time she took forty-five packages, and they were filled with articles suited to the sick and suffering. With a view to immediate and practical efficiency, she took two cooking stoves, and proceeded at once to the great field hospital of the sixth corps, where she soon had a tent pitched, her boxes piled around for a wall, her stoves up, and a little squad of the slightly wounded to get wood and water, open her boxes, and take her cooked articles to the different hospital tents.

Reporting to the division surgeons, and working under them, she received "requisitions" that looked almost appalling, as she saw the rapidly diminishing pile of boxes, and the two cooking stoves.

She writes to the association at Philadelphia that "fifty dozen cans of condensed milk, a hundred dozen fresh eggs, thirty boxes of lemons, ten boxes of oranges, one hundred and fifty pounds of white sugar, two hundred jars of jelly, and twelve dozen of sherry are needed. "Everything is wanted," she adds, earnestly. "Send us linen rags, towels, and some cologne; some red and gray flannel shirts, and limb pillows for the amputated."

But her labors were not confined to her little extemporized kitchen. At night she could hardly sleep for the groans from the tents where the worst cases lay, and she often passed several hours, moving softly through those tents of pain, going to those who seemed to suffer most, and soothing them by words, and by little acts of kindness; fitting a fresher or softer pad under some throbbing stump, talking with some poor fellow whose brain was full of fever, and who thought the battle was not yet over; moistening lips, stroking clammy foreheads, and helping another soldier to find his plug of tobacco.

Then, at five o'clock, she had the fires started, and honored as many requisitions for rice pudding, blane mange, custard, and milk punch, as the draught upon her boxes could supply. This life lasted till some time in June, when the rapid invasion of Lee required corresponding movements on the part of Hooker, and the hospitals on Potomac Creek were broken up. Mrs. Brady had barely reached her home, and resumed for a little time the old and sacred round of domestic life, when she felt herself summoned to sanitary and hospital labors by a voice louder and nearer than any before--by the thunder of those five hundred cannot at Gettysburg, that for three fearful days piled the ground with bleeding wrecks of manhood.

Operating in her usual homely but effective and most practical manner, she at once sought a camping ground near a great field hospital, reported for duty to the division surgeon, and had a squad of convalescents assigned to assist her. Her tents were erected, the empty boxes piled so as to wall her in on three sides, and the stoves setup and fuel prepared; so that in tow or three hours after reaching Gettysburg, the brigade and division surgeons were pouring in their "requisitions," and the nurses were soon passing from her tent to with tubs of lemonade, milk punch, green tea by the bucketful, chocolate, milk toast, arrowroot, rice puddings, and beef tea,--all of which were systematically dispensed in strict obedience to the instructions of the medical men. Whenever during the day she could, for a short time only, be relieved from these self-imposed kitchen duties, and for many hours after nightfall, she was sure to be among the cots, beside the weakest and those who suffered the most. Her frequent visits to the army had made her face familiar to a great number of the soldiers, so that she was often addressed by name, and warmly greeted by the brave fellows. "To see the face of a lady does us good, madam." "We are very glad you are come." "You cheer us up, Mrs. Brady."

When she remarked how grateful the stay-at-homes ought to feel to the brave hearts that fought so gallantly for them, and drove back the rebel hordes from the great cities along the border, simultaneously a chorus of voices exclaimed, "Why, Mrs. Brady, we would all have died, to the very last man, right here on the battle-field, before we would have let the Confederates win, or move on to Philadelphia."

There we find the true reason of the national success at Gettysburg. It was not the Lee's abilities were clouded; not that Stonewall Jackson was dead. The Confederate force was never greater, never more resolute, or wielded with more masterly vigour; but they had never before met an army that was raised to the heroism of martyrs by the determination to "die to the very last man right there," rather than let the rebels win.

Speaking of her first day at these hospitals, Mrs. Brady says, "We shortly found ourselves rubbing away the pain from mutilated limbs, and bathing the feet of others, speaking cheerful words to them all, which latter we believed to do good like a medicine. In the daytime we cook and fill requisitions for all sorts of things, and personally distribute our miscellaneous stores to the men with our own hands, conversing cheerfully with the patients. Thus we spend our days as well as our nights."

The labors continued till August, when the field hospitals at Gettysburg were mostly broken up. For the remaining portion of the year 1863, as there were no battles in Virginia, Mrs. Brady remained at home, and continued her hospitals labors in Philadelphia, and in receiving and preparing supplies for the approaching winter. She was now well known in Philadelphia, and became the almoner of numerous but private charities, funds being placed in her hands to be used according to her discretion in aiding soldiers or their families. The most of this money she gave in a private manner, but regularly, to the widows of those who had fallen in the great battles. On one occasion, as we entered a street car, crowded with passengers, she noticed that a soldier was looking very steadily in her face. His sleeve was empty. Presently the maimed warrior called out, with some emotion, "Don't you know me, Mrs. Brady?" "Really," she replied, "I can't quite recollect you, I see so many of Uncle Sam's brave boys." "Not recollect me, Mrs. Brady?" said the soldier, his eyes now filling with tears: "don't you remember the day you held my hand while the doctors cut my arm off? You told me to put my trust in God, and that I should get well over it. You said I was to recover; and here I am, madam, thank God!"

It seems that he had felt a natural revulsion when the amputation was suggested, but asked to the surgeons to send for Mrs. Brady, and he would do just as Mrs. Brady said. She came, took the poor fellow's hand, and spoke a few low, kind words: "Now put up the sponge," said he to the surgeon; and the chloroform reduced him to insensibility as his pallid, bloodless hand still lay in hers. But, with the sensibility of her sex, she was obliged to turn away just as the operator took up the long, glittering knife.

Early in the year 1864, when Meade, in command, was maneuvering unsuccessfully against Lee for the occupation of the south bank of the Rapidan, in what is known as the Mine Run campaign, Mrs. Brady made her fifth and last visit to the front. She was now so well and so favorably known, that every facility was afforded her in the transportation of her boxes, and she penetrated to the front, and made herself useful in the primary field hospital that was established in consequence of the action at Morton's Ford, on the 6th of February. Her ministrations were of the same nature with those described above, except that here she saw the wounded just as they were brought from the field, and shared in the deep excitements and agitations of battle. She was just in the rear of an engagement that threatened at one time to become general and bloody. Most of the time she could secure no better than a bundle of wet straw. As a natural consequence of such hardships and exposures, we find her reaching home on the 15th of February, "completely worn out." An examination of her condition by physicians revealed the grave fact that rest and quiet alone could never restore her. An affection of the heart, which had existed for some time, but which, on account of her strong health and fine powers of constitution, had never before caused any uneasiness, had been rapidly developed by the last few weeks of uncommon excitement and fatigue.

Yet in March and April her health rallied somewhat, and she continued to collect and prepare the stores for another mission to the camp.

May now came on, and with it the grand advance of the army of the Potomac, now strongly reinforced, and wielded by a fresh champion, just come from his great victories in the west; and the nation was tiptoe with expectation. Then followed the battles of the Wilderness and Spottsylvania, with their necessary and ghastly sequel, the long rows of hospital tents, acres of wounded, and suffering, and sick, with the demand for every thing that can assuage pain, and reinvigourate the languid or exhausted currents of life. But Mrs. Brady could not respond to this call, as she had done when other battles were fought. Disease had seated itself at the fountains of her life. The abnormal action of the heart grew worse and worse, causing now the most acute suffering. Skilful physicians were summoned; but science was baffled, and the appalling announcement fell with unexpected and crushing weight upon the inmates of that home of which she was the centre and sun, that no human skill could prolong that life, but within a few weeks those five little children must be motherless.

On the very day that sealed the fate of Virginia,--the 27th of May, 1864,--when Lee gave up the open contest with his too powerful antagonist, and fell sullenly back to his intrenchments at Petersburg and Richmond, she, whose mind even then was turned from the solemn surroundings of the death-bed, and the tearful faces of her children, to the suffering heroes of those great fights,--she was summoned away from all stormy scenes and arduous labors, into the kingdom of perpetual peace.

The burial of her remains took place on the 1st day of June. Hundreds of soldiers and officers of the army of the Potomac sent to the surviving members of the family their fervent tributes to the worth, beauty, and strength of her character, and expressions of gratitude for the kindness they had experienced at her hands.

A very large number of sorrowing friends, and poor people, and widows of soldiers, and five ministers of that religion of love and charity which she had so eminently practised, were in attendance at her funeral, and paid abundant, yet not undue, honor to the memory of the dead; for, during the forty-two years of her earthly existence, as long as life and strength remained to enable her to labor for the good of others, had she not followed closely in the steps of Him who always went about doing good, and reproduced the virtues of that Scripture heroine, the woman that was "full of good works and alms-deeds, which she did continually" See Acts 9:36.

More 'Heroine's' in a future Issue.

Aaron's Golden Calf

by Randy Lee

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Exodus 32:7-9

From 'Investor's Business Daily' September 15, 1997:

"The rich getting richer, huge CEO pay packages, insider trading, conspicuous consumption, merger mania, a nation awash in debt. No, not the 1980s. The '90s. Yes, the 'reasonable and 'sensible' '90s."
"In fact, by almost every measure, 'greed' is worse--or better, depending on which way you look at it--this decade than it was in the so-called 'Decade of Greed'."
"Get rich, borrow, spend, enjoy!!!"
"Luxury car sales--including luxury sport-utility vehicles--now account for 23% of all car and SUV's sold."
"Since 1989, money spent on gambling has climbed 57%."
"Nearly 25 million people play golf, beating the '80s peak by half a million."
"According to FBI data, arrests in 1995 for forgery, counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement rose 22% from 1986 and 8% from 1991."
'While federal and corporate debt is down from its '80s peak, personal debt isn't. Total household debt--including mortgages, credit cards and other loans--as a share of disposable income is now almost 99%."
"Consumer installment debt as a share of after-tax personal income is at a record level."
"The delinquency rate on bank credit cards has hit a record high."
"The number of people filing for bankruptcy shot up to more than 1.2 million in the year ending June 30. That's more than twice the figure in 1989--and a new record."

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

compiled by Randy Lee

Pagan, Gentile, Heathen

Pagan, pei-gcn - heathen XIV.- L. pâgânus--rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pâgus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, f. *pâg- *pc g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of pâgânus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christian calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of the militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen - OF. paien (mod. païen) = Pr. paian, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966).

The Jews comprehended all strangers under the name of Goim, nations or GENTILES; among the Greeks and Romans they were designated by the name of barbarians. By the name Gentile was understood especially those who were not of the Jewish religion, including, in the end, even the Christians. Some learned men pretend that the Gentiles were so named from their having only a natural law, and such as they imposed on themselves, in opposition to the Jews and Christians, who have a positive revealed law to which they are obliged to submit. Frisch and others derive the word HEATHEN from the Greek g2<0, g2<46@H, which is corroborated by the translation in the Anglo-Saxon law of the word haethne by the Greek g2<0. Adelung, however, thinks it to be more probably derived from the word heide, a field, for the same reason as PAGAN is derived from pagus, a village, because when Constantine banished idolaters from the towns they repaired to the villages, and secretly adhered to their religious worship, whence they were termed by the Christians of the fourth century Pagani, which, as he supposes, was translated literally in the German heidener, a villager or worshipper in the field. Be this as it may, it is evident that the word heathen is in our language more applicable than pagan to the Greeks, the Romans, and the cultivated nations who practiced idolatry; and, on the other hand, pagan is more properly employed for rude and uncivilized people who worship false gods.

The Gentile does not expressly believe in a Divine Revelation; but he either admits of the truth in part, or is ready to receive it: the heathen adopts a positively false system that is opposed to the true faith: the pagan is a species of heathen, who obstinately persists in a worship which is merely the fruit of his imagination. The heathens or pagans are Gentiles; but the Gentiles are not all either heathens or pagans. Confucius and Socrates, who rejected the plurality of gods, and the followers of Mohammed, who adore the true God, are, properly speaking, Gentiles. The worshippers of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and all the deities of the ancients, are termed heathens. The worshippers of Fo, Brahma, Xaca, and all the dieties of savage nations, are termed pagans.

The Gentiles were called to the true faith, and obeyed the call; many of the illustrious heathens would have doubtless done the same, had they enjoyed the same privilege: there are to this day many pagans who reject this advantage, to pursue their own blind imaginations. Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), page 467.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

A Straight Road to Heaven

It is stated, that, as an eloquent preacher delivered a discourse, in which he set forth the intense and eternal torments of the finally impenitent, one of the modern restorationists was present; and having a desire to show his knowledge, followed the preacher to the house, where he took tea after the exercises of the day were closed, and introduced himself by saying--

"Well, sir, I have been to hear you preach, and have come here to request you to prove your doctrine."

"I thought I had proved it, for I took the Bible for testimony," was the reply.

"Well, I do not find any thing in my Bible to prove that the sinner is eternally damned, and I do not believe any such thing."

"What do you believe?"

"Why, I believe that mankind will be judged according to the deeds done in the body; and those that deserve punishment will be sent to hell, and remain there until the debt is paid," &c.

Said the preacher, "I have but a word to say to you; and first, for what did Christ die? And lastly, there is a straight road to heaven; but if you are determined to go round hell to get there, I cannot help it."

The man took his leave, but his mind was "ill at ease." There is a straight road to heaven still rang in his ears; he went home, read his Bible attentively, and was soon convinced of, and acknowledged his error, and after a suitable time united with the followers of the Lamb.

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation

A Roman Catholic gentlemen in England being engaged to marry a Protestant lady, it was mutually agreed that there should be no contests on the subject of religion. For some years after their union, this agreement was scrupulously observed; but in the course of time, the priest, who had paid them frequent visits, expecting to find no difficulty in making a convert of the lady, began to talk upon the peculiarities of his religion. He particularly insisted upon the doctrine of transubstantiation, and grew troublesome by his importunity. To avoid being farther teased by him, she one day seemed to be overcome by his arguments, and agreed to attend at mass with her husband the following Sabbath, provided she might be allowed to prepare the wafer herself. The priest not suspecting any thing, and glad on any terms to secure such a convert, gave his consent. The lady accordingly appeared at the Chapel with her husband, and after the consecration of the wafers, which she had brought with her, she solemnly demanded of the priest, whether it was really converted in the body of Christ? To which question he without hesitation replied, That there was a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and that there remained no more of its form or substance.

"If this be really the case," said she, "you may eat the wafer without any danger; but as for myself, I should be afraid to touch it, as it is mixed with arsenic. The priest was overwhelmed by a discovery so unexpected, and was too wise to hazard his life upon a doctrine, for which he had, however, contended with all the earnestness of perfect assurance. The lady's husband was so struck by this practical confutation of a doctrine which he had before implicitly believed, that he never afterwards appeared at the mass.

Issue the Twenty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part One ...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Two...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Four...

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath...

Etymologicum Anglicanum

Remembering the Old Ways

The county clerk -

The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain

Part One

by John Joseph

Many of you have kept in good contact with us, and we thank you for your fellowship. Many of you have called and have heard us talk about the 'county clerk' (Note the lack of capitalization on both of these words. It is important!). Note well: We are not talking about the County Assessor, County Recorder or other Roman civil offices. In Part One of this article we will be concerned with an issue which has presented itself many times over the telephone. This concerns the clerk asking about whether your action is a 'civil action.' These words always meant one thing before Lincoln's War and something completely different after it. We have always told you to reply "no" to this question, without giving a thorough background in Law for the answer. We don't want to hold this information back, but as you will begin to see, this issue is really the only issue which must be overcome.

The bolded words and phrases in this article are those with which you should become very familiar.

Let me first state, for the record, that we will not put the words in your mouth for you to say to your county clerk. That is for the righteous Office of the Holy Spirit, and for us to do so is to trespass into His Realm wherein we have no authority. The burden is for you to prove the contrary. We believe in edification--not incantation.

Let us begin with that form of law which concerns itself with 'civil actions.' That quite obviously would be 'civil law.'

"Civil law: (a) the Roman law, especially the part that applied to Roman citizenship; (b) the body of law having to do with private rights: it developed from Roman law..... Roman law: same as civil law." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1028. [Emphasis added.]

Did you notice what form of law that is? Roman!! Did you notice the subject matter of Roman law? Roman law concerns itself with private rights, not Rights in common vested by God through Jesus, the Christ, in all Good and Lawful Christians for as long as they execute His Testament. (It was this Roman law which put our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, on the cross. The private rights of the Pharisees, a separate class, meant more to them than their own salvation.) These Rights vested by God are the "common wealth" of all Good and Lawful Christians, being joint heirs in and through Christ which is always recognized in Law:

"Plures participes sunt quasi unum corpus, in eo quod unum jus habent --Several parceners are as one body, in that they have one right." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957, & 1968), p. 1314. [A 501(c)-3 corporation is not an heir in Christ.]
"PARCENER. A joint heir; one who, with others, holds an estate in co-parcenary, (q.v.). Gibson v. Johnson, 331 Mo. 1198, 56 S.W.2d 783, 88 A.L.R. 369." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1268.
"RIGHT HEIRS. The heirs of the testator at common law, who, if more than one, take as tenants in common. 47 L. J. Ch. 714; 35 W.R. 356." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2962. [Emphasis added.]

This establishes in Law "common right":

"Kent says: "Corporations or bodies politic are the most usual franchises known in our law." 3 Kent Comm. 459. It is true that the privileges so granted by the government do not pertain to the citizens of the state by common right. But what is the "common right" here referred to? Is it not [*common right is] a right which pertains to the citizens by the common law, the investiture of which is not to be looked for in any special law whether established by the Constitution or an act of the Legislature? Coke says: "De commun adroit--of common right--that is, by the common law, because the common law is the best and most common birthright that the subject hath for the safeguard and defense not only of his goods, lands, and revenues, but of his wife and children.This common law of England is sometimes called 'right,' sometimes 'common right,' and sometimes 'communis justitia.'" Spring Valley Waterworks v. Schottler, 62 C. 69. (*Insertion added.)

This removes the question of the 'private' 'ownership' of a 'right' and places the issue solely in the hands of God, "[Whose] hand is not shortened that it cannot save":

"Nemo potest esse dominus et haeres --No man can be both owner and heir." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1190.
"Nemo ejusdem tenementi simul potest esse haeres et dominus --No one can at the same time be the heir and the owner of the same tenement." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1190.

Note the above maxims. 'Ownership' is separate and distinct from 'inheritance.' We must then inquire into what the word 'private' means as this is the subject matter of which Roman law concerns itself. 'Private' implies and speaks of 'ownership'--a pagan concept.

"PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), p. 1358. [Emphasis added.]

Note carefully the words 'not official.' When looked at from God's perspective in His Law, all Good and Lawful Christians are officials--'executors'--of Christ's estate being vested by the Testament of Christ:

"Testament is an appointment of some person [*a Good and Lawful Christian], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), pp. 167-168.
"EXECUTOR. A person named in a last will and testament and charged with carrying out its terms. The executor is not a trustee and does not get the title to the estate, but merely possession. He is, however, a fiduciary and held to the same accountability as a trustee. He may not enter on the duties of his office till he has qualified, which ordinarily requires approval of a probate court, and he is subject to removal by the court at any time." Matter of Burr, 48 Misc.(N.Y.) 56; Austin v. Munro, 47 N.Y. 360." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 118. [Emphasis added. An executor is under the Law expressed in the testament appointing him to the office.]
"An executor is a person to whom the deceased has by his last will duly committed the execution or putting in force of that last will and testament." Croswell on Executors and Administrators, 1.
"[*The executor] cannot assign his executorship, but at common law, when a sole executor [*our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] dies testate [*by appointing His disciples in the Divine Commission], his executor [*His church and state] becomes ex officio the executor of the first will [*Old Testament], also.The rule never applied to administrators." Croswell on Executors and Administrators, 20. [*Insertions added]
"VESTED ESTATE. A vested estate, whether present or future, may be absolutely or defeasibly vested." L'Etourneau v. Henquenet, 89 Mich. 428, 50 N.W. 1077, 28 Am.St.Rep. 310." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3397.

All executorships are offices created and established by the Testament; and, the acts done by Good and Lawful Christians pursuant to the Testament of Christ, are official acts which concern the estate of Christ--His church and state. God Himself testifies to this fact:

"Therefore say, Thus saith the LORD GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the LORD GOD." Ezekiel 11:17-21.

This passage of Scripture is directed to the church only--not to those impostors in the 'State of Israel.' Did you notice the words 'statutes' and 'ordinances?' By what or whose authority, then, did Christ do the things He did? By His Almighty Father!! According to Law, then, His acts were official, not by color of office or legalism.

Just how important are 'vested rights?' How does 'modern' law treat 'vested rights?' Read on:

"A vested right is an immediate fixed [non-negotiable] right of present or future enjoyment." Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. (2 Cushm.) 85. [Emphasis and insertion added]
"No statute can constitutionally derogate a vested right." Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 Cal. 1.

And now for the clincher:

"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property [*the offices they established by covenant among themselves], which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.

Is there any law man can create which sets the bounds of God's Law? Only God's Justice is eternal justice. God is recognized in these decisions. You must understand and have the knowledge tempered with God's wisdom to know and understand what is being said by these courts. Your vested right to regulate the office of county clerk is not found in constitutions, codes, rules and regulations--but is common with all Good and Lawful Christians--the Body of Christ--not the 501(c)-3 corporation. It is found in the sustaining Law of God--pursuant to the execution of Christ's Testament. The courts did recognize true Law before Lincoln's War. This was one reason why the Pharisees had such difficulties with Christ. He had true Law He was executing--they had none. His acts were official--theirs were private, under color of office, title, legalistic. The acts or deeds they did were to preserve their private class--not preserve the church. Therefore, the action you bring to the county clerk must be an action which springs from the Law separate and distinct from Roman law, not involving private rights. The only Law separate and distinct from Roman law is Christian Law:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9.

Never ask the clerk whether he or she understands any of this--presume it--for no man is ignorant of God and His Law-- "they are without excuse" and it is said elsewhere:

"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

Having one heart is the basis of your community in and under Christ. When you establish with the county clerk that you have that 'one heart' 'having all things common' with all other Good and Lawful Christians, you have the Lawful standing to move the clerk. There is no other possible way to move the clerk.

The county clerk has two sides to his office, and depending on your mode and character, will determine which side you access. He is not deceiving you--he reacts to your acts. The two sides are: One. Administrative (commercial) for civil actions, and; Two: Ministerial (Constitutional) for true actions at Law not involving 'private rights.' The former always involves discretion, and where discretion may be used, mandamus will not lie:

"a public officer, invested with certain discretionary powers, never has been, and never should be, made answerable for any injury when acting within the scope of his authority, and not influenced by malice, corruption, or cruelty. See the cases hereafter cited.
"Nor will a mandamus issue to such an officer, if he is intrusted [*by statute, code, rule, or regulation] with discretion over the subject matter. Paulding v. Decatur, 14 Peters, 497; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 102." Wilkes v. Dinsman (1849), 7 Wall. 89. [*Insertion added]

Mandamus will lie for compelling purely ministerial acts only.

"MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill." State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477; Blalock v. Johnston, 180 S.C. 40, 185 S.E. 51, 54, 105 A.L.R. 1115; First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 So. 204, 207, 87 A.L.R. 267. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
"MINISTERIAL ACT. One which a person performs in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety of the act being done. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.
'MINISTERIAL OFFICE. One which gives the officer no discretion as to the matter to be done, and requires him to obey mandates of a superior. Vose v. Deane, 7 Mass. 280; Savacol v. Boughton, 5 Wend.(N.Y.) 170, 21 Am.Dec. 181; Waldo v. Wallace, 12 Ind. 569. It is a general rule that a judicial office cannot be exercised by a deputy, while a ministerial office may." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1234.
"MINISTERIAL OFFICER. One whose duties are purely ministerial, as distinguished from executive, legislative, or judicial functions, requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. U.S. to Use of Kinney v. Bell, C.C.Pa., 127 F. 1002; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N.W. 874, 59 L.R.A. 915; Reid v. Hood, 2 Nott & McC., S.C., 169, 10 Am.Dec. 582." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.

The words that come out of your mouth whenever talking to any government official or agent determine on which side of the fence they will sit. It is not enough to merely walk in and say, "I wish to address the constitutional side of your office." That is insufficient. In the mind of the clerk, "I need to see if you even have what it takes to move me there." To make this a little simpler, let us suppose you discover what appears to be gold. How do you know it is gold? You will test it with specific tests to determine the metal. The same with the county clerk. He knows you, like he knows any other person. You need to direct him to the constitutional-ministerial side of his office by using proper words which have a specific meaning in Law and leave no room for discretion:

"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Mt 17:20. See also Mt 21:21.

This is fully recognized in modern Law:

"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278.
"Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso--That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouviers Law Dictionary (1914), 'Maxim,' p. 2166.

That this is an important doctrine in Law is discussed by Professor Holland:

"A Right varies with a variation in any one of the series of its constituent elements. The possible variations in the two extreme terms of the series are, however, far fewer than in the two intermediate terms. This is the case, first, because both of the extreme terms are Persons, so that they are subject to the same sets of variations; and secondly, because as a matter of fact the possible varieties in juristic personality are far fewer than those in the juristic character of objects or acts.
"The Law of Persons, as a source of variety in rights, is therefore distinct from and much smaller than the residue of the Law, which is generally called the Law of Things. The jurist may make either one or the other species of characteristics his starting-point in considering the aggregate of rights which make up the whole field of Law. He may consider seriatim the possible varieties in the persons with whom rights may be connected; [*140] treating under each personality of the various objects and acts with which it may be combined: or, he may start from the variations in the objects and acts; considering by way of supplement the modifications which the rights connected with these undergo in each case from varieties in personality. Thus the aggregate of rights may be likened to a figure of two dimensions: the shorter of these dimensions representing the Law of Persons; the longer the Law of Things. And the figure may be supposed to be marked off into squares, like a chessboard, by the intersection of a few horizontal lines expressing the possible varieties of personality, and of a multitude of vertical lines expressing the possible varieties of object or act." Holland, Jurisprudence, pp. 139-140.

Thus, "personhood" is determined by the character of the right claimed or exercised. If the right claimed is a "civil right" then that "person" described in the "civil rights acts" must do "civil actions," solely because of his incompetency (non compos mentis) to execute Christ's Testament.

Next month, we will discuss the 'executorship of Christ's Testament,' 'common law actions,' 'civil actions,' and 'the police power,' and their relationship to the county clerk.

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

Part Two

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Twenty-first)

The 14th Amendment

As we began to point out in last month's Part One, the 14th Amendment must be seen in its true light relative to the entire abortion question.

Another indication that the Federal government after Lincoln's War was not the government that existed before the War, is seen in the 14th Amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified according to the rules prescribed in the Constitution for the united States of America; that is, it failed to get the required number of States it needed for passage. But, this amendment was so important to the agenda of the so-called Reconstructionists and the new Federal government, that Secretary of State Knox simply "declared" its ratification and it passed into de facto law, anyway.

Another new idea that followed the Lincoln administration was voting in secret. Prior to Lincoln, all voting in all elections was done by an open and public ballot. Thus, everyone in a community knew how everyone else voted. But, with Lincoln and the Reconstructionists came the secret ballot, which made ballot stuffing a very real possibility, for the first time.

The key point to understand is, voting in secret is not permitted in any system of Rules of Order, whether we look at Robert's or Sturgis' Rules of Parliamentary Law, because there is no way to know just what the total vote was for all candidates, nor is there anyway for the voters to know if more votes were cast in a precinct, than were actually eligible to vote.

The bottom line is, a secret ballot has no force and effect in Law, and thus, a vote in secret can at best, merely express a preference or an indication of what the voters may or may not like. No vote can, therefore, bind any politician, and thus, campaign promises really mean nothing. This is also the reason why no politician has to worry about the voters holding his feet to the fire.

At any rate, the key clause in the 14th Amendment that we want to call attention to, and which also sparked the early abortion movements in America is; "All persons born ..."

The legal reasoning relative to this clause was, and still is: until a baby is actually born alive it cannot be classified as a citizen of the United States and thus could not and can not be protected by the laws of the United States and the Constitution as used by the new Federal government.

Many in the pro-life movement know this. What the pro-life attorneys have not bothered to tell the movement is: whether or not this Amendment really embodies Law or does it merely express "public policy?" The question is important because Law is superior to public policy.

Is it possible to change the 14th Amendment and its wording to block the pro-death argument? Yes, it is possible for this Amendment to be amended, but it will not happen for the simple reason that, if amended, the amending process may expose Section Four of the Amendment as well, and this the Federal government could not permit.

This is so, because Section Four prohibits all questions relative to the national debt, which was one of the hidden purposes of the Amendment. Since the current United States government is in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, any change in Section Four of the Amendment could mean the end of the current government because such changes could permit anyone to challenge the debt of the Federal government under the maxim of law which says that: "no government can make law while in bankruptcy." This is the real reason for the existence of Section Four.

The United States government has always had limited assets, and could not go into a long-term debt without posting the surety of real property and the bodies and labor of real, substantive, flesh and blood people. The 14th Amendment not only created the jurisdiction over live bodies, but, when used in conjunction with other Acts, it made the debt possible and created a Funding System for the Federal government, which has been the basis for all Federal debt from that day to this.

Section Four of the 14th Amendment prohibits inquiries into that debt by those who accept the benefits of the Amendment, i.e., the citizens of the United States that are created in the opening sections of the Amendment. This gives added security to those who buy the bonded debt of the United States and guarantees to the bondholders that their money tree will not be chopped down.

Of course, when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Roe v. Wade [93 S.Ct. 705], the 14th Amendment was dredged up, to prop up the Court's decisions, where it said at page 706, that:

"The word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." U.S.C.A., Amend., 14.

The Court states in the Roe v. Wade Syllabus at page 707, that:

"Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

Further, the Court says on page 708, that:

"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Again, with reference to the 14th Amendment, the Court says on page 729, that:

"All this, ... persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

The plaintiffs in this decision, asked for both declaratory and injunctive relief. In the first, the court merely states its findings and declares what the law will be from that time on. With injunctive relief, the Court could have issued an injunction against the State of Texas to block the enforcement of all its statutes relative to abortion, but it did not.

The Court gives its reasons for not granting an injunction by saying, at page 708:

"5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional."

Thus, to summarize the Court's reasoning, we can say that, based upon the 14th Amendment, the unborn have no right to protection in current Federal or State law, because the the word 'person' in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn. The privacy argument raised by the court from which the feminists get the idea that a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases, is really just thrown in for good measure, as an extension of the 14th Amendment's reach.

Thus, the entire abortion argument hangs entirely on an Amendment to the Constitution that is merely a War measure, since at the time it was passed, the entire nation was under martial law, and would continue to remain so, to the present day.

It is for this reason that the Court was sure that Texas would comply with the Court's ruling, because the State of Texas is a municipal corporation authorized under the War Powers of the Federal government. In a word, Texas was and still is, along with every other State and Territory, a lackey of the Federal government.

We would like to call attention here to one other point that is most interesting and very revealing as to how modern politics is easily mobilized by various groups to do the government's bidding.

The Supreme Court mentions on page 722-23, the history of the American Medical Association involvement in the abortion controversy and how, until just before Roe v. Wade, the A.M.A. had always opposed abortion. Again, just before the Roe decision, the American Bar Association in its February, 1972, meeting, adopted the Uniform Abortion Act which had been previously drafted and approved by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

For those who don't know, the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, is a group of men which represent the States that draws up the laws for all States, such that, all State laws are consistent, one with another. This same Commission, also provides the vast majority of input to the House and Senate of the United States government, on all legislative matters.

Then, we have the Roe decision, published in 1973.

Does this strike the Reader as odd, that the A.M.A., A.B.A., C.C.U.S.L. and the Supreme Court, all come to the same conclusion within six months of each other??? Is this just some coincidence, or was it planned??? Surely, the A.M.A., A.B.A., and C.C.U.S.L. knew in advance what the Court's decision would be in Roe!!!

Then if we factor in several official reports on the population bomb (which never exploded), all of which received major publicity in the media that peaked at about the same time as the Court's decision, one has to wonder exactly what is going on???

When we look at the problems inherent in funding Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the welfare system, and countless others, a light begins to come on. Remember, all of these programs and countless others, are funded in proportion to population and the projections of population growth, and the demand that this will place on Federal spending.

It doesn't take a Harvard Business School graduate to figure out that spending on social programs was far out-stripping the ability of the taxpayers to pay for them. The only practical solution was to reduce the future population of the country, otherwise the Federal government and the States would soon go belly-up and the bondholders of the nations debt would then step in and seize the assets of the United States government and the nation.

Does anyone need more explanation, or can the Reader read between the lines???

Now we know why the Federal government funds nearly 108,000 separate foundations and organizations all over this land. At a moment's call, they can be mobilized to mold and shape public opinion and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

But, is it really possible that the Supreme Court of the United States could be buffaloed and manipulated by powerful pressure groups such as those that are listed above? It wouldn't be the first time!!

In speaking of the period following Lincoln's War, Claude G. Bowers said in his 1929 work, "The Tragic Era: The Revolution After Lincoln," that:

"Never have American public men in responsible positions, directing the destiny of the Nation, been so brutal, hypocritical, and corrupt. The Constitution was treated as a door mat on which politicians and army officers wiped their feet after wading in the muck. Never has the Supreme Court been treated with such ineffable contempt, and never has that tribunal so often cringed before the clamor of the mob."

The Common Law Answer

It is important at the outset to define which common law we are talking about, for there is a new version of common law that has been enacted that is overwhelmingly commercial.

Thus, when we say Christian common law, we mean that form of common law that was composed of the accumulated customs and usages of the English and American Christians prior to 1933. In Latin, the common law is referred to as the lex non scripta, that is, the law not written or created by the acts of judges, legislatures, kings, or presidents.

The common law existed prior to the Constitution for the united States of America, which, in it original version, embodied a good many precepts of Christian common law. Thus, it was a law common to Christians that embodied a good deal of God's Law. It was developed through, and actions in common law were tried in, At-law courts.

The distinction between true Christian common law is that it is Lawful because it embodies the customs and usages of God's people, while the current common law is purely commercial, and for this reason, commercial common law is inferior and foreign to the Christian common law.

Where a conflict in our thinking may exist, between the two forms of common law, we must distinguish the two forms by qualifying true common law with the word 'Christian.'

At the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, this did not mean that it removed protection for the baby in the womb, because one could still bring an action in courts At-law, i.e., through common law, in which abortion was, and still is, a crime. And the punishment for acts of abortion varied, depending on the stage of the pregnancy at the time of the abortion.

Further, the crime of an accessory to abortion can be charged against all parties to the abortion, and may be punishable by imprisonment or by fine, or by both, especially if the offense is repeated. Both a mother and the abortionist can be prosecuted at common law, and if there was evidence that the husband or father of the baby knew the abortion was going to be done and did nothing to stop it, the father could be charged as an accessory, along with anyone else who had prior knowledge and did nothing to stop it.

There was no provision in the common law for punishing the commercial exploitation of abortion for profit, such as that which takes place today, because such a thing had never happened in the history of common law.

At any rate, so long as courts At-law existed, the practice of abortion could not gain a foothold in America. Then, in 1933, the Supreme Court was given the power by Congress to make its own rules of procedure, with the understanding that common law procedure and its rules, and hence courts At-law in which common law actions are tried, would be abolished at the Federal level.

When Roosevelt packed the Supreme Court it was with the clear intent to embark upon a massive re-structuring of law in America, which would not otherwise be possible with a hostile court.

The Supreme Court went to work, and soon published its new rules, and courts At-law were gone from the Federal jurisdiction by the simple expedient of merging the rules of procedure for Law (At-law) and equity. The States quickly followed suit and within a very few years all had done away with common law procedure and courts At-law.

Some may wonder why the Supreme Court abolished courts At-law and common law process. There are many reasons for this, but some of the most important follow.

First, common law was the domain of Christians and embodied a largely Godly system of Law. But, by the 1930's, Christians allowed their courts to fall into disuse. There was simply no demand for actions At-law, in part, because everyone was turning to lawyers to fight the case for them.

Also, a new common law was about to be introduced which was in fact, not Lawful, but commercial. This new common law was more acceptable to Roosevelt.

Second, F.D. Roosevelt had substantial plans to expand the reach of the Federal government, by creating quasi-judicial administrative bodies to regulate virtually every facet of American life. But, in order to do this, he had to first eliminate the potential stumbling block of At-law courts, because the new policy he wanted to implement was contrary to common law. If common law actions were brought against these forms of law, the common law would win, because administrative law is not recognized in the common law.

The reason is, administrative law is almost entirely discretionary, while common law is ministerial and for the most part, prohibits discretion on the part of the ministerial officer. Thus, so long as At-law courts existed, there was a powerful tool that stood in the way of The New Deal.

Third, attorneys pushed for the abolition of At-law courts because all fees they could charge in common actions were severely limited by the common law and precedent. Simply put, the practice of common law was a ministry, and thus was not a means to wealth, power and subversion.

There is also the fact that members of the Bar associations, under the new government, could not practice in At-law courts because their membership in the Bar itself, changed their standing. Thus, by eliminating courts At-law, attorneys could force all clients to have their case heard in the new commercial and military courts where there were no limitations on fees, capriciousness, or arbitrariness.

Also, trials in Christian common law were normally very short and were usually over and done with in a matter of days or a few weeks. Today's court cases, as we all know, can take years. The kind of shenanigans that took place in the O.J. Simpson trial would never have happened if murder and other felonies were still tried at Christian common law.

If At-law courts existed in America, Christians could effectively block the implementation of all Federal programs within the counties and the impact of this would bring the Federal government to its knees.

If Christians had insisted that true At-law courts must be maintained in the counties and parishes, there would have been nothing that Roosevelt and subsequent Presidents and Congresses could have done to prevent it and the so-called New Deal would never have gotten off the ground, nor L.B.J.'s Great Society, nor abortion either.

And, with a concerted effort, Christians can once again restore these courts and begin to roll back the Federal encroachments within the counties (and eventually in the States) to such an extent that, every Federal program which runs counter to Christian common law could be stopped dead in its tracks.

Of course, neither the Federal government nor the States, being in an inferior jurisdiction and venue relative to Christian common law, can abolish the Christian's Right to re-form and use courts At-law and common law process. And so long as At-law courts exist in the counties across the land, the people will always have a voice in whatever happens in that county.

This explains why the Federal and State powers let courts At-law die and withdrew funding for them. Neither the Federal government nor the States, being de facto and not de jure governments, had the power to abolish Christian common law in America. They simply made no provision for it--in their system--and hence, courts At-law died an ignominious death, not from attack by a superior jurisdiction, but from neglect.

As we have pointed out in this newsletter and in countless other places the last three years, the country has been under a military government since March/April, 1861. It was a form of military government that emerged after Lincoln's War. The Constitution for the united States of America has not been abolished, it is simply no longer used by the new Federal government, just like courts At-law.

Thus, in 1867 the Attorney General of the United States could say in his opinion (12 Ops. Att'y-Gen. 182), concerning the meaning of the Reconstruction Acts:

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed."

Can this be any clearer???

Under this military power sits a government of Civil Affairs known as the United States. It handles the actual civil affairs of the Nation. This is the Federal, commercial corporation established in 1872 by an act of Congress. This new Federal government, however, sits in a jurisdiction inferior to common law, and thus, since the inferior cannot touch or have standing equal to the superior, common law process and procedure which stand in real Law, is still available for those who have standing to use it.

But, if this is the case, why do we hear about "constitutional questions" in the courts?

For the answer to this we must look to the example of the British constitutional system in which there never was a written document called a Constitution. The British constitution is actually the whole body of law and acts passed by Parliament and kings and the decisions of courts, which have accumulated over the last eight hundred years or so. When politicians and lawyers refer to the British constitution, they mean a body of law and 'public policy', not a formal, single document.

After Lincoln's War the same thing took place in America. Today, the Constitution of the United States (not the same as the Constitution for the united States of America) is actually a reference to a body of legislation and a massive collection of Executive Orders created by the President as war measures, and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

This idea may be difficult for most people to understand, but it is nevertheless the real state of things. As George P. Fletcher, Professor of Law at Columbia University has recently said:

"The 'original republic'--the one for which our 'forefathers' fought 'face to face, hand to hand'--exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalists patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War. That conflict decided once and forever that the People and the States do not have the power to govern their local lives apart from the nation as a whole. The People have no power either to secede as states or to abolish the national government.
The new constitution - the one that shapes and guides the national government and disturbs the new patriots to their core - begins to take hold in the Gettysburg Address, in which Lincoln skips over the original Constitution and reconstitutes it according to the principles of equality articulated in the Declaration of Independence. This short speech functions as the Preamble to a new charter that crystallizes after the war in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Gettysburg Address signals the beginning of a new Constitution. The language is so familiar that we do not realize the implicit transformation."

Next month we will discuss how 'The Lawyer Game' and 'De Facto and De Jure Government' pertain to how we get 'Back to Square One' on the abortion issue.

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance'

Part Four

by Randy Lee

(continued from Issue the Twenty-first)

The Arminian doctrine of 'free will,' which began to take hold of the church in the 17th century, gave rise to State power. Much of today's apostate 'church' continues to feed this doctrine to its sheep, which in turn continues to feed the Stately beast.

The power of the State is fed by the notion that, 'I have free will, therefore I need not do the will of The Father. I can do all things within myself.' Due to this humanistic reasoning, one automatically becomes a full fledged member of the humanist State. You join them as one of their bondservant 'human beings,' or for statute purposes, a 'natural person.' In their eyes, you do everything 'willfully,' and therefore, with evil and malicious intent (see Etymologicum Anglicanum in this Issue).

But when you do the will of The Father only, there can not be that intent, because evil and malice is not of the will of God.

It is an established truth that each man and each woman on earth are either a Christian or a pagan. There is no in-between. There are no gray areas. You are either in Christ, with Christ, and for Christ,--or you are anti-Christ, outside of Christ, and against Christ. You are either a Christian or a pagan/natural person.

With Christians being in Christ, we are bondservants of and co-heirs with Him, and are to worship Our Father in spirit and truth, and are to do His perfect will only, just as Our Blessed Saviour did:

"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans12:2
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work." John 4:34
"I can of Mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and My judgment is just; because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent Me. If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." John 5:30-31
"And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:" Eph 6:5-7
"For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:" Acts 13:36
"Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry." Hebrews 10:35-37

If you aim at pleasing, or obeying His will, without first seeking justification by Christ's precious blood and righteousness, and santification by His Holy Spirit, you will find all earthly powers against you. But, when Christ is for you, nothing can be against you. Without this, Satan's power and malice will certainly bring to naught all of your purposes and attempts to love The Father, to continually serve Him, and to do His perfect will in sincerity and truth.

When we do the will of Our Father, in this way only, we avoid the pitfalls of 'the human species' and its vain imaginations. This is truly, "Exercising Your Right of Avoidance."

It is important to note here, that you, when 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance,' are assayed by the government. Not in the monetary sense, but in the personal sense. For instance, when one brings freshly mined gold to the assayers office, the assayer will test, examine, and evaluate the gold to determine its authenticity and purity. In the same manner, government evaluates those who claim to answer to and do the will another Master. They test you, examine you, and analyze you to find out your true composition. Their question is: are you the real item, or are you pyrite--or a mixture of the two? Their determination of the content, or purity, is based on three major factors:

One.

two

Issue the Seventeenth

Issue the Eighteenth

Two. Where does the access to you take place? Are you a resident, do you have a commercial domicile?; do you have a 'home' (tax home)?; are you an 'owner'?, etc. Or, are you truly a sojourner with Christ, able to be accessed only through 'The Door' (a foreign door to them), which is Christ Jesus?

Three. Are you genuine? Will you see the wolf coming and leave the sheepfold because of fear (lack of Faith and Knowledge) and hearken to the voice of the wolf?

Before you 'Exercise Your Right of Avoidance,' you must take these questions into consideration, and determine whether or not you will 'pass muster' in the eyes of the military beast or will you be seen as an 'enemy in the field'?

What are the indicators of residency?

The following definitions are from Div. I, Secs. 435 and 516, of The State of California Motor Vehicle Code:

Nonresident
435. "'Nonresident' is a person who is not a resident of this state."
Resident
516. "'Resident' means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
"The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:
Address where registered to vote.
Location of employment or place of business.
Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption.
Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.
Possession of a California driver's license.
Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient."

Note: The 'rebuttable presumption of residency' is easily rebutted by not admitting to, or having, any of the listed requisites.

"The fact that a nonresident is exempt from registering his car or obtaining a license in the state in which he is operating it does not relieve him from the duty of complying with local traffic regulations, or from being punished for negligence or other infractions of the law." King v. District of Columbia, 277 F. 562, 51 App.D.C. 160.

Automobile Registration

This is a continuation from Part Three.

The steps for removing your car from State jurisdiction and bringing it under Christendom are as follows:

One. Junk the Title.
Two. Remove all 'corporate brand names' from the interior and exterior.
Three. Make 'identification plates' for the front and rear.
Four. Photograph the car and plates.
Five. Create the proper paperwork for deposit with the county clerk.

One. Junking the Title

A variety of terms are used in the several States for this. Some are 'scrapped title,' 'junk title certificate,' 'destroying the title,' etc. It is best to acquire a 'Motor Vehicle Code Manual' from your local department to determine which term your State uses. Then take your 'Certificate of Title' into the department and proceed to remove it from their system. Do not remove the 'Vehicle Identification Number' (VIN) from the car. You will find that there are particular statute penalties for doing so. This number does not give the State jurisdiction of the car, once the title has been junked and removed from there records.

Two. Remove all 'corporate brand names' from the interior and exterior.

Removing the brand names helps remove the commercial character of the car. In addition, you can replace the brand names with your personal or church seal, such as a non-501(c)3 church seal or your Family Coat-of-Arms. The idea is to make it distinguishable from the corporate world.

Three. Make 'identification plates' for the front and rear.

The standard size for State plates is 6"x12". It is suggested that your plates should be a different size, to avoid any perception that you are trying to counterfeit plates. It also conveys a foreign jurisdiction. For instance, you will find that plates from England, Japan, Italy, etc., are not the same size as each other or the same as the States.

Sizes suggested are 5"x13", 7"x13, etc.

It is also suggested that a metal or plastic frame be made and put around the plate for appearance of permanence.

The following are samples of two different layouts that can be used:

Ways of making the plates will not be suggested here. That will be left to you.

Four. Photograph the car and plates.

Photograph the car from two different angles, and the front and rear plates. Make two sets, keeping one set with the car and the other is to be deposited with the county clerk.

Five. Create the proper paperwork for deposit with the county clerk.

The paperwork necessary for acceptance by the Constitutional/de jure side of the county clerk will not be available from The Christian Jural Society Press. Due to the past abuse of the Non-Statutory Abatement process, it will be left up to each Christian to develop their own process for the county clerk. It would be in the nature of At-Law process to be structured of the same substance as the following public notice:

Public Notice by: <Christian Appellation>, suae potestate esse, <*et uxor>

To all whom these presents come and do concern: Ye be witnesses, before God, and His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and all men, of having knowledge of this matter, and ye know that:

On this <day> day of <month> month, in the <year> Year of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, I, <Christian Appellation>, suae potestate esse, <*et uxor>, one of several joint-heirs in Christ and co-executor of His Testament common in and with all other Good and Lawful Christians in this state, do, in His Name, by His Authority vested in me through His Testament, claiming all that He has given me; and repudiating and renouncing all not originating through, in, or with Him; take Dominion of all that part of Inheritance given me of Him, through and from Brother/Sister <Christian Appellation>, My Brother in the LORD, that being the following below:

<here describe what is being given you as part of your dominion in the inheritance of Jesus Christ. [*Example. One-two door coupe, green in color, with sun roof and rear hatchback door; with front and rear identification plate number ISA 9 6-7 and identified with the Heraldry of the Family <family appellation> enrolled in the <county name> county clerk's office on roll number 236754.] Use no commercial descriptors (brand names [i.e., Chevrolet], words such as "goods," "party," "purchase," "owner," "vehicle," etc.)--these are terms of art which do not apply to Good and Lawful Christians.> to have and to hold the same in His Name, subject always to the terms, conditions, caveats, and provisos, contained in His Testament given Me, by the Grace of God, and bestowed upon Me by and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

I have the Blessed Honor, solely by the Grace of God, of Being a Good and Lawful Christian man:

sign manual

L.S.

Additionally, there are many indications that the above will need to be done in each of the counties on whose roads you plan to use. It is suggested that you try it out first in a different county than where you are commonly located.

It is also suggested that before attempting any of the above or before writing your process, you should become very familiar with the workings of the Constitutional/de jure side of the county clerk (see 'county clerk' on Page one), study and become very knowledgeable of 'your' State Code sections concerning nonresidents, and understand absolutely the concept of Christendom being a foreign jurisdiction to the State. Without the above understanding, you may end up 'spinning your wheels' on this whole issue.

There is also the very real possibility that you will not be successful the first, second or third time.

This will be a battle of wills, so be sure you're ready for it. It took many decades for the humanists to encroach on and subvert Christian Law and it will take much time and effort to regain what is rightfully ours. But, it is either, 'draw the line in the sand, now,' or 'let the beast continue to encroach.' And remember, "The cause of the church is a public cause," not a private one. Therefore you are not, and cannot be, alone in any of this. Always do any of this with one, two, or many fellow-Christians. In addition, our telephone is always open for guidance and fellowship on these subjects.

Court Appearance

With the 'justice' system having been changed from one of 'Biblical Justice' to that of 'commercial necessity' and 'judge-made law,' you must look at the current system very carefully before entering into that jurisdiction and venue.

"91. Legal remedies are remedies which are administered only by governmental agencies, and are either penal or civil.
"Penal remedies consist of the punishment inflicted by state agencies upon persons convicted of crimes, and include fines [commercial term], terms of imprisonment, and capital punishment or death. The degree and severity of a penal remedy depends upon, and is correlative to, the degree and severity of the crime [not moral turpitude] committed by the person subject to it.
"Civil Remedies consist of those which are administered by the courts in civil proceedings, as distinguished from criminal proceedings, and subdivide into the following general classes: (1) Remedies which were administered only by the common-law [adjective] courts; and, (2) Remedies which were administered only by courts of equity prior to the fusion of equity and common law [two mutually exclusive systems]. Of course, in those jurisdictions where equity and common law are still administered as separate systems, the division still technically exists. As has been indicated, one of the principal reasons for the development of the English equity system was the inadequacy of common-law [adjective] remedies to meet the needs of growing society [To the ungodly, God's Word was inadequate for all situations.] In the ordinary case at common law [noun] the only remedy obtainable was a judgment requiring the unsuccessful litigant to pay the successful litigant a certain sum of money [substance, not paper fictions], and as the equity system evolved to correct this inflexibility by directing specifically whatever seemed necessary [military rule-- necessity] to do justice between the parties, the equitable remedies are naturally greater in number than the common-law [adjective] remedies." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), p. 349. [Insertions and emphasis added]

The non-statutory abatement process should be used in situations where you are summoned by a 'court' or a governmental agency is asking for your voluntary joinder in one of their self-made imaginary 'controversies.'

In a situation where you have been brought into the 'court' involuntarily, always remember the basic defense of a Good and Lawful Christian, "I could not possibly have been 'willful' in this thing that I am accused of, for I do only the will of God, and there is no evil or malice in His will."

And, always remember what Our Lord has taught us:

"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12

Corporate and State Employment

When working for a State or any of its chartered/licensed corporations and companies, the most important thing you must ask yourself and pray about is, "Am I doing the will of God and honoring Him by continuing to contribute and support Commercial Babylon through working for them."

For those who believe that their contribution and support is a Godly calling, the answer is easy. But for those who recognize the un-Godly character of those venues and are seeking repentance thereof, or do not exactly feel comfortable in their current situation, will have to do much thinking and praying on this.

Consider the following, which is from Richard Steel's 1747 book, 'The Religious Tradesman':

"Both the disposed and the disposers must agree to choose a calling that is lawful. To do a sinful act is bad enough, but to make a trade of sin, and employ our lives in one continued scene of disobedience to God, is a condition that cannot be thought of without the utmost abhorrence, by anyone in whom the principles of virtue and religion are not wholly extinguished; as the continual curse of God must necessarily be attendant upon them. The prospect of gain may blind the eyes of men, and carry them on in such a course without reflecting; but it is often seen that the divine resentment follows them, even in this life, by blasting their hopes and aims, and causing wealth thus gotten by vanity to be diminished; but should this not be the case, God does not forget, nor lose the right to punish, those crimes on which He does not animadvert in this world. It is a plain, yet lamentable case, that men are now disposed to take great liberties with their consciences, and make a light matter of religion, as if it was confined to a few outward acts of piety, without having any thing to do with their general conduct; in such an age it would be difficult to point out those callings that come under the character of criminal, without censure: yet everyone must acknowledge that those employments are certainly evil, that tend to lessen the reverence and duty we owe to Almighty God; or obstruct the general good of mankind; that are either the necessary occasions of sin to ourselves, or the certain incentives to it in others. Those only are lawful in which we can reasonably ask for the blessing of God, and expect His favour and acceptance. This, indeed, is the best rule we can form to ourselves by which to judge of every doubtful action."

Next month, we will conclude this subject with 'property registration' and some other less obvious things we should avoid in order to main our Christian standing and status.

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath

A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver

Pastor John Weaver, an expositor of God's whole Word, and who's preaching style is in the tradition of those early American patriot pastors whose pulpits were the cradle of America's Christian Liberty, delivered the following sermon on October 5th, 1997, at 'The Old Paths Christian History Conference' held at The church at Kaweah. Information appears at the end of this text on how to acquire the audio tape set of that conference, and in addition, how to acquire Pastor Weaver's excellent 24 hour, 15 part audio tape set titled, 'The Christian Doctrine of Biblical Warfare.'

The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
'Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily My Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
"Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
" It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed." Exodus 31:12-17

"Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
"Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.
And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 5:12-15

I've been asked to deal with the sabbath day and the principal of rest. Let me begin by saying that many individuals have misunderstood the sabbath on the one hand and have turned what is known as the sabbath into pure legalism and Phariseeism.

So many people today have their own personal list of do's and don't's and if they do this or if they don't do that, then they not only condemn themselves but others as well. The Pharisees perverted the sabbath day. In fact, many times in the Bible you will read the phrase, "a sabbath's day journey." But the Pharisee's took everything to such an extreme that many times they would not even walk on grass on the sabbath day, because they were afraid if their foot happened to hit a blade of grass that it would head it out and the seed fall to the ground, then they would be guilty of sowing on the sabbath. So, very obviously they took it to one extreme. On the other hand there were other groups that took the sabbath day and became very, very licentious. In Isaiah, Chapter 58, God talked about those people, if they would refrain their foot on His sabbath day from doing their pleasure and do what He commanded, then He would bless them, etc.

So you always have extremes one way or the other. And both of these extremes are condemned in Scripture.

The principle of the sabbath was rest. God said in it, "Thou shalt do no work." Now the main emphases of the sabbath was rest--not worship--but rest. Certainly worship could be done and should be done every day of the week. But certainly the principle was that of rest. And God said to Israel, "You were in Egypt and I brought you out by a mighty arm."

Remember that in Egypt, Israel was enslaved. They had no rest, they had no comfort. God delivered them. And so that sign then, was basically a sign demonstrating that salvation was by the mighty work of God. And on that day they were to rest, because it was a sign, says God, that He gave between Him and His people.

Note if you would, that the sabbath then was a type--it was an emblem--it was a symbol--of the true rest.

Before we continue on that, let me tell you about case law. Case law in the Bible deals with very broad principles. For instance, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it Holy." That's a very broad principle. Secondly, in case law, you always had a specific illustration or a specific case that would illustrate that broad principle. And then, thirdly, their was always an application. So, I want to follow that outline. I want to show you the broad principle, "Remember the sabbath, to keep it Holy." I'm going to show you a specific case that illustrates that, and then we're going to make some application.

The Hebrew sabbath and the modern day Saturday are not the same. I repeat, they are not the same. Saturday is not necessarily the sabbath. And I can explain it and show it to you in the Bible.

We now turn to Exodus, Chapter 12. But before we go there, I first want to explain something very important. The calendar of Israel was a solar calendar. Moreover, their religious, or their spiritual, year began on the same date every year. Let me show you the ramifications of that. Now, at Exodus 12:2:

"This month [which was the month, Abib] shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you."

Now, God is saying, 'Here is going to be the first month of your year, every year.' This month! Just like our year begins in January, Abib was to be the month for the beginning of the months in the Hebrew calendar. Now, at verse 6, He says concerning their lamb:

"And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."

So here is the Passover lamb, that was kept up until the fourteenth day of the month. Now, watch verse 14; God says:

"And this day [the fourteenth] shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever."

So, God has fixed the month, God has fixed the date. And at verses 17 and 18:

"And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread [or Passover]; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day [the fourteenth] in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."

Now, note if you will, the first month and the first day of that month is fixed. And the first day would be on the fourteenth.

Now, at Deuteronomy 16:1, you will see basically the same truth:

"Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night."

And, verse 3:

"Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life."

Now, verse 8:

"Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."

Now, God says, 'your first month is going to be the month of Abib--the first day of your month is going to be Abib fourteenth. That's how you're going to start your religious, or your sacred, or your spiritual year. So the fourteenth day of Abib, was in essence, the very first day of their year--every year. What does that mean? It means this. That if the date is constant, the day changes. It's just like your birth date. My birth date is September the Third. If September the Third fell on Tuesday this year, what day will September the Third fall on next year. Wednesday!--and the next year on Thursday--and the next year on Friday. So if the date is constant, that means the day changes. Was Saturday a sabbath? Yes! Every seventh year. So was Monday, so was Tuesday, etc. It's just like our New Year's Day or our Thanksgiving Day. Since the date is fixed, New Year's Day may be on Friday this year, Saturday next year, etc. Since the date is constant, then the day changes.

Now, every day of the week then would have been a sabbath once every seven years. I want you to understand that there was a weekly sabbath, but there was also monthly sabbaths. I find it absolutely amazing that there are so many people that are interested in keeping the weekly sabbath, but they're not interested in keeping the monthly sabbath. Numbers, Chapter 28, tells you that the monthly, or the new moon sabbath, was a sabbath just like the weekly sabbath. On the new moon sabbath work was allowed, but sacrifices were mandatory. So there was not only a weekly sabbath, but there was a monthly sabbath, and may I remind you that there was a sabbatical year--once every seven years. So, that seventh year, the land rested, debts were forgiven, and slaves were freed. It was called a sabbatical year. But not only did you have a weekly sabbath, and a monthly sabbath and a sabbatical year, you had two more sabbatical years. You had the forty-ninth year, which was 7x7, and you had the year of Jubilee, which was the fiftieth year. On Jubilee, the land went back to the original owners or to those whom God had given it to originally.

So, you have a weekly sabbath, a monthly sabbath, a yearly sabbath, and then on the forty-ninth and fiftieth year, you have two years of sabbath in a row. May I remind you that Passover, or The Feast of Unleavened Bread, according to the Book of Exodus, Chapter 12, lasted seven days and it also was counted as a sabbath. Also, if you'll read Leviticus, Chapter 23, you will find that the Feast of Weeks, or The Feast of Pentecost, was counted as a sabbath. Also, you will find there that The Feast of Tabernacles, which lasted seven days, was also counted as a sabbath. Each one of these was counted as sabbaths, in Israel. And each sabbath then, emphasized rest, and rejoicing, and faith. In these sabbaths, man ceased from his labor.

Has it ever occurred to you that there could be more than one sabbath in a week? Surely! Because Matthew 28:1 literally says, "Now in the end of the sabbath," and the word 'sabbath' there is plural. You could have a weekly sabbath, a new moon sabbath, and if the year fell right, the beginning of an annual sabbath, all in one week. So there was a possibility of having more than one sabbath a week.

The emphasis in the Bible, upon the sabbath, was rest. In other words, there were strict laws that enforced rest. For instance, the general law was that there was to be absolutely no work done on the sabbath. You'll find that in Exodus 34:21, Deuteronomy 5:12-15, Exodus 20:8-11, Leviticus 23:3, and Jeremiah 17:22. In Nehemiah 13:19, 'the gates were to be shut.' He said in Exodus 16:29, 'abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' In the Book of Nehemiah at 13:15, asses were not to be laden or nor sheaves be brought in on the sabbath day. At Jeremiah 17:21-22, no burdens were to be born on the sabbath day. At Exodus 35:3, no fires were to be kindled on the sabbath day. At Numbers 15:32 & 35, no sticks or firewood could be gathered on the sabbath day. At Nehemiah 10:31 and 13:15, no food could be bought or sold on the sabbath day and no wine could be treaded in the presses.

There were some things that could be done on the sabbath. For instance, life could be saved on the sabbath. But the whole emphasis on the sabbath day was-- it was to be a day of rest. There was to be absolutely no work done therein.

Now, here's the broad principle-- "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." It was a day of rest. That's why God said 'any soul that did any work therein should be cut off from his people. He will be put to death.' To show you what undergirds this broad principle, we go to Numbers 15:30-36, where God says:

"But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses."

Now, here is a man that goes out on the sabbath day to gather sticks. Maybe it was a cold day and he was cold. I don't know! Maybe it was a warm day and he was just hungry, and he needed them to build a fire so he could cook himself something to eat. And so, the man is just simply out gathering sticks. The children of Israel find him, they put him in a ward, and God says 'the man is to be put to death.' You and I would think, 'why in the world is a man to be put to death for gathering a few sticks?' Well, I think you shall see the impact and the importance of that in just a little while.

Let me ask another question. If the church does not have the power to execute the death penalty for anyone who violates the sabbath, does that mean therefore that the death penalty for sabbath desecration is done away with?

Don't answer that out loud, because I'm going to show you that the death penalty for sabbath violation is still in effect. You say, 'how can that be?' I'll explain it in just a moment. Remember please, the principle of the sabbath was rest. Look in your Bible's to the Book of Hebrews, Chapter 4, verse 1, and let me show you what God says about rest:

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

Note if will, the phrase 'His rest.' So we're talking about God's rest. And at verse 3:

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in My wrath, if they shall enter into My rest:...."

Again we're talking about God's rest. And verse 4 talks about creation rest:

"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Now, here a reference to creation rest. When God rested on the seventh day He was commemorating and celebrating creation. So verse 4 then deals with the creation rest. And at verses 5 and 6 you shall see the Hebrew rest:

"And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:"

Now, what did God do when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt? He delivered them! He brought them out from their bondage and their slavery. But, did many of those original individuals who were brought out of Egypt--did they enter in? No!! Because of their unbelief, they did not enter in. But, here was a Hebrew rest in that sense of the word when God was delivering--God was bringing the people out of Egypt.

The Exodus, or this Hebrew rest, then commemorates and celebrates deliverance from Egypt. And skipping down to verse 8, here is a Canaan rest. He says:

"For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."

May I ask, in this verse--who is Jesus? Joshua, Savior. The word Jesus and the word Joshua are basically the same. So, literally, he is talking about Joshua. If Joshua had given them rest--in other Joshua took them into the land, Joshua led them in dominion, he led them to conquer the land, he led them in victory, he divided the land--but what he is telling us is, that this Canaan rest was not the real, genuine rest. The Canaan rest celebrated the victory and the dominion exercised over their enemies. But look if you will at verse 9:

"There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."

Isn't that interesting? So, he's telling us that deliverance from Egypt was not the real rest. He's telling us that Canaan was not the real rest. No!!

Let me go a little bit further. The word 'rest' in the Greek language, is the Greek word 'sabbatismos.' So, in verse 9, he literally says that there remaineth therefore a sabbath for the people of God. And this sabbath is what you and I refer to as 'The Lord's Day.' Why? Because The Lord's Day commemorates and celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Have you ever wondered why, out of The Ten Commandments, the only one not repeated in the New Testament is the Fourth Commandment? Let me explain why. Because the Old Testament sabbath was a shadow and a type, and that now vanishes when the real sabbath is here--and the real substance and the real essence of the sabbath is Jesus Christ.

Let me show you that. Turn in your Bible to the Book of Matthew, Chapter 12, beginning at verse 1:

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and His disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat."

Now, here's a statement that, at that time, Jesus went on the sabbath day and He and His disciples began to eat corn. Now, watch verse 2:

"But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath [sabbaths] day."

The word 'sabbath' there is plural in the Greek. So, evidently it a habit of Christ and His disciples to eat and to pluck the grain on the sabbaths, or the only thing else you could say--it happens to be a week when there was not only a weekly sabbath but a new moon sabbath as well. There had to be at least two sabbaths in that week, or else He was doing it on a regular basis.

Now, at Matthew 28:1, I'm pointing out the importance of the plural words. Literally it says, "In the end of the sabbath[s]," (plural in the Greek). And by the way, the word 'end' is the Greek word 'opse,' which is translated as 'even' in Mark 11:19. You could read that, "in the evening of the sabbaths."

And at Luke 18:11-12:

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess."

The Greek word for 'week' there is the word 'sabbatismos.' He says, 'I fast twice on the sabbaths.' Now, in the Old Testament, the Hebrews normally only ate two meals a day. So, here's this Pharisee saying, 'Well, I don't even eat on the sabbath. I fast both meals. Look at me. I'm more spiritual than anyone else.' But, most importantly, the work 'week' is the word 'sabbaths.' I added that so that when you turn back to Matthew 28:1, watch carefully the literal translation: "In the end of the sabbath[s], as it began to dawn towards the first day of the [sabbaths]....' Wait a minute!! He's talking about ending sabbaths and now he's talking about the first day of the sabbaths. What in the world is he referring to?

May I remind you that the sabbath was a type, and an emblem, and a sign--that salvation is of The Lord. Now, at Ezekial 20:12, you will see the context is that of the deliverance of God:

"Moreover also I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them."

He says, 'I gave them My sabbaths, to be a sign.' That's what Deuteronomy 5:15 said that we read earlier. So, the sabbath basically taught the Sovereignty of God in Salvation.

Remember the essence of the sabbath was rest. Now, back to Matthew 28:1, watch closely, "In the end of the sabbath[s] [plural], as it began to dawn toward the first day of the [sabbaths]...." So actually, you could read Matthew 28:1 something similar to this: 'Now that the era of the Old Testament sabbaths had come to an end, in as much as Jesus, who was typified by those sabbaths, had finished His work and was now resting from His labors."

So, Matthew 28:1, then, is talking about a new era that is now inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact when you look at Matthew 28:1, the word 'first' in the Greek is the feminine word 'mia.' It means 'number one.' So literally what he was saying is this: 'In the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the number one day of the sabbaths...' So, here is a new era being instituted. Now, to Mark 16:2:

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week..."

The word 'week' there in the Greek is 'sabbatismos,' plural (sabbaths). So, we have 'the first day of the sabbaths.' The word 'first' here is not the feminine Greek 'mia.' The word 'first' here is the Greek word 'protos.' You say, 'Brother Weaver, what in the world does 'protos' mean?' It means 'prototype.' It's the first one of all those that are going to follow. So, literally what he says in verse 2 is this: 'And very early in the morning the prototype, the very first day of the sabbaths, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.' So Jesus Christ is inaugurating a new era.

Now, at John 19:30, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost." It is finished!! What was He saying? He's saying, 'the old has been done away with; I have finished salvation, and I am inaugurating the new.

And at Mark 16:9, he says, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week [sabbaths], He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." Again, 'the first day of the sabbaths.' And again at Luke 24:1, "Now upon the first day of the week [sabbaths], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Note, again 'upon the very first day of the sabbaths.' And again at John 20:1, he says, "The first day of the week [sabbaths] cometh Mary Magdalene early..." Over and over, in all of the Gospels, the Word of God is telling us that Jesus Christ inaugurated a new set, or different kind of sabbaths.

With that in mind, we now can understand why the apostle Paul wrote what he did in Colossians 2:16 & 17. What Paul is telling us is that the old order has passed away and a new order has been inaugurated by Jesus Christ. He says this:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Why would Paul say, 'don't let anyone judge you now in respect of a holyday, or a sabbath, or a new moon...'? All of these are sabbaths that he's talking about. He then says, 'I'll tell you why; because we now have the substance, of all of those Old Testament types and emblems, and that the substance is Jesus Christ, Himself. He is the reality. He is the essence.'

So--in Jesus Christ--the Passover ends, and The Lord's Supper begins. Because The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 5:7, "For even our passover is sacrificed for us:" In Christ, circumcision ends, and baptism begins. In Christ, The Old Testament sabbaths ended, and The New Testament sabbaths began.

Let's make some applications. Remember please, that the essence of the sabbath was rest. Remember what he said in Hebrews 4:9, 'there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God." Remember, the weekly cessation of man from his labors was not the true rest. It was to typify, emblify, and symbolize something. Remember, the Hebrew deliverance from Egypt was not the real rest; it was to typify and symbolize something. Remember, the Canaan rest was not the real rest; it was to typify and symbolize something. You say, "Brother Weaver, what is the real rest?" The answer: Jesus Christ said,

"Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

Jesus Christ is the true rest. Do you know what the apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 1:7? He says, "And to you who are troubled rest with us." Because Christ is the real rest. In Christ, we cease from all of our labors, we cease from all of our works, we cease from all of our efforts. Dear friends, we are not trying to be saved. We have been saved!!!; by the personal work of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said, "It is finished." And we rest in Him!!! Because Christ, and Christ alone, is salvation!!! And spiritual rest is the beginning of every kind of rest.

Now you say, "Brother Weaver, wait a minute. I heard you say something earlier about the death penalty for sabbath violation is still in effect." That's true!! It is. Just because the church does not have the power to execute the death penalty, does not mean that God has relinquished His power to execute the death penalty. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, we see the power:

"And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power;"

What is Christ going to do? Christ is going to execute the penalty for sabbath violation on all of those who do not rest in Him!!! And at Proverbs 8:35 & 36: Here is Jesus Christ, who is Wisdom personified, for 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, tells us that Jesus Christ is made unto us, Wisdom. Note what Wisdom personified says:

"For whoso findeth Me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
But he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate Me love death."

Is the death penalty still in effect? Yes!!! Oh, yes!!! For, all that hate Jesus Christ will have death.

I want you to understand that we, who are in Christ, keep the sabbath seven days a week. Not one day a week.

Now, look in Matthew 6:24-33, where Our Lord says:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
"Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
"Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
"And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
"And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
"Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
"Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
"(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

This is an excellent passage against anxiety. More specifically, against worry. You say, "What in the world does that have to do with the sabbath?" It has everything to do with the sabbath. Let me give you an illustration. Let us suppose that you have no food in your house. You're hungry. What in the world should you do? Very clearly, the very first thing you want to do is ask your Heavenly Father. The second thing you want to do is to get out and find you some work, or find some means or some way of making some money. Then, when you find that work, you are to do it to the best of your; for God's honor; for God's glory; in faith; and then rest. And wait for God to work it out where you can have everything that you need. What did He say?, "Your Heavenly Father knoweth what things you have need of." If I have a bill that's coming due in 30 days, what should I do? First of all, I should ask my Heavenly Father to supply that need. Secondly, I should do everything I can; save every penny I can; work as much as I can--for God's honor and for God's glory, in faith --and then rest. Why? Because I can't do anything about the future. I can't even control the present. Can I? No!! Neither can you!! What do you do? You rest! Why? Because Jesus Christ is our sabbath.

Do I continue to worry about it? No. There's nothing I can do. I can only wait until God works in His heart. What am I doing? I'm keeping the sabbath. Why? Because I'm resting in the only One who can work things out. I've fulfilled my responsibility. I've done all that I can do, in faith and obedience. Now it's up to Christ. Why? Because Christ is our sabbath.

All they that hate Him, love death. And all of those who refuse to rest in Him, will be executed, for their failure to rest in Christ.

An audio tape set of the conference, which includes this sermon, can be acquired by writing to The church at Kaweah, P. O. Box 75, Kaweah, California. For additional information call 209-561-0802. For information on Pastor Weaver's tape set on 'The Christian Doctrine of Biblical Warfare,' write to Dominion Tape Library, P. O. Box 684, Hephzibah, Ga. [30815].

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

compiled by Randy Lee

Willful

"Only want or defect of will, will protect the doer of a forbidden act from the punishment annexed thereto. An involuntary act induces no guilt; the concurrence of the will, when it has its choice to do or to avoid an act, being the only thing that renders human action either praiseworthy or culpable. To make a crime complete there must be both a will and an act. As no temporal tribunal can search the heart or fathom the intentions of the mind, otherwise than as demonstrated by outward actions, it cannot punish what it cannot know. To constitute a crime against human laws, there must be a vicious will and an unlawful act consequent thereon. 4 Bl. Com. 20-22, (1765).

"In common parlance 'willful' means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful." United States v. Three Railroad Cars, 1 Abb. U.S. 201 (1868).

"Referring to an act forbidden by law, [willful] means that the act must be done knowingly and intentionally--that with knowledge the will consented to, designed and directed the act." Woodhouse v. Rio Grande R. Co., 67 Tex. 419 (1887).

"Willful. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly; deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; purposeful; not accidental or involuntary.

"Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification.

"The power of the mind which directs the action of a man.

"The ordinary meaning of 'willful,' in statutes, is not merely 'voluntary,' but with a bad purpose." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition (1990), page 1599.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Beautiful Illustration

Some time ago, a few ladies were reading the third chapter of Malachi: "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me," &c. One of the ladies gave it as her opinion, that the fuller's soap, and the refiner of silver, were only the same image, intended to convey the same view of the sanctifying influences of the grace of Christ.

"No," said another, "they are not just the same image; there is something remarkable in the expression in the third verse: 'He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.'" They all said, that this might be so.

This lady was going into town, and she promised to see a silver-smith, and report to them what he said on the subject. She went, without telling him the object of her errand, and begged to know the process of refining silver; which he fully described to her.

"But do you sit, sir?"

"O, yes, madam, I must sit, with my eye steadily fixed on the furnace; since, if the silver remain too long, it is sure to be injured."

She at once saw the beauty, and the comfort, too, of the expression, "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver." Christ sees it needful to put his children into the furnace; but he is seated by the side of it. His eye is steadily intent on the work of purifying, and His wisdom and His love are both engaged to do all in the best manner for them. Their trials do not come at random; the very hairs of their head are all numbered.

As the lady was returning to tell her friends what she had heard, just as she turned from the shop door, the silversmith called her back, and said that he had forgotten to mention one thing; and that was, that he only knew that the process of purifying was complete by seeing his own image in the silver.

When Christ sees His image in His people, His work of purifying is accomplished.

Christ stilling the Tempest

It was the lone hour of the night. The disciples had entered into a ship with their Master, and were pleasantly sailing upon the sea of Tiberias. Jesus was asleep in the vessel. But suddenly the smooth water was changed into a wild waste of foaming surge. Clouds, black and heavy, came upon the sky, borne on the rising wind. Darkness threw a mantle of gloom over the moon and the stars. Billows, heaving, beat against the lowering sky. The wild whistle of the blast, the "voice of many waters," and the cries of the pale mariners answered to the rattling thunder. The creaking of the mast, the snapping of the whole ship, sounded like death-knells to the terrified fishermen. The spirit of destruction rode upon the tempest, hurling abroad red bolted terrors. The ship now rose upon the high waves, tossed into the clouds, then plunged into the yawning caverns of the deep. The disciples, trembling alive to their danger, ran with haste to Jesus, and, rousing Him from His sweet slumbers, said, "Lord save us, we perish?" Then He arose, and stood upon the prow of the sinking bark. Behold Him, as the lightning blazes, 'midst the furry and darkness of the storm, wet with the dashing spray, and His raven locks streaming in the fierce wind! With a loud voice He rebuked the raging tempest, and said to the mountain floods which were breaking over Him, "Peace, be still!" Then the proud thunder stole into the cave of silence, the lightning buried itself in the bosom of the dark clouds, and both fled on swift pinions. The foaming billows laid themselves down to rest, "and there was a great calm." Was He a mere man, whom the wind and the sea obeyed. No. "Thou, O Lord of Hosts, rulest the raging of the sea, when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them." God was there in the majesty of His power.

Issue the Twenty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Spin Doctors Strike Again...

The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part Two...

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Three...

Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Five...

Before the counsel of the ungodly!

Remembering the Old Ways...

The Spin Doctors Strike Again

by The King's Men

Over the course of the past four years, the media has put many-a-spin on what the Christian Jural Society is and may become. We have never made it a habit of answering these spin doctors and critics on this subject because it becomes a distraction from what our main purpose is. But it has come to our attention that a book published in 1997 has been filed with The Library of Congress, containing a section on Christian Jural Societies, titled "Christian Reconstruction," with our Christian appellations therein. A book so filed becomes a 'public record,' therefore we believe it our Christian duty to rebut it. It's also our hope that all jural society members that read the following will be edified by the rebuttal and commentary by The King's Men.

The title and author will remain unidentified for the reason: we do not wish to promote the sales of a book that spins demons.

That which follows this introduction is the full text from that section, which begins at page 209 of The Library of Congress catalog book #ISBN 0-8133-3292-3, and is subtitled, "WHY OKLAHOMA CITY IS ONLY THE BEGINNING." Its author claims to have written articles for The New York Times and that he is a "journalist" for a major midwest newspaper.

Our comments and rebuttal follow the book text.

Christian Reconstruction

A Jural Society is an organized political community and a synonym of "nation," "state," and "country." It is founded in the general sense on the Law of God from Whom it derives its authority and right to exist in the protection of life, liberty, and property, in the preservation of the Christian way of life.

--An Introduction to the Christian Jural Society in California.

"The loss of the American union of states based upon the Constitution for the United States took place on April 15, 1861. Since that date, there has been no legal government in the United States." That's the claim of the Christian Jural Society, one of the least-known yet most significant organizations in the antigovernment movement to date.

The Christian Jural Society is the logical end product of dominionist Christianity. It's an attempt by dominionist Christians to "reconstruct" a Christian government throughout the United States by creating small pockets of self-governing Christians who are tied to a national Christian government through their chosen representatives. Jural societies believe that they are the only legitimate form of government now operating in America. As the jural societies proliferate throughout the country, they are doing more to pull the 10 to 15 million soft-core, dominionist Christians deeper into the antigovernment funnel than any previous manifestation of the antigovernment movement. If they continue to grow--and all indications are that they will--they could become the most powerful force within the movement.

I first heard about the Christian Jural Society in late 1994, shortly after its formation, but I had rarely met anyone who claimed to be a part of the organization. By 1996, that had changed. Every sizable "anti" function I attended was increasingly made up of people in jural societies. By the time I reached the Third Continental Congress meeting in Kansas City in 1996, it had become clear that the Christian Jural Society was growing like a weed and had become a dominant force in the movement. Several of the delegates in Kansas City were the representatives of jural societies.

Jural societies have, to a large degree, been flying under the radar of those who monitor the radical Right. One reason is that, unlike militias, they shun publicity. Jural societies have a hard-and-fast rule: Don't talk to the press.

The Christian Jural Society is the brainchild of a religious Right think tank based in California and known as the "King's Men." The society's leaders are John Quade, Randy Lee, and John Joseph. John Quade, an actor whose film credits include Clint Eastwood's Every Which Way but Loose and Every Which Way You Can, as well as The Sting and the miniseries Roots, serves as the societies front man. He travels the country, holding well attended seminars on how to establish a jural society.

Regional jural societies are made up of approximately 100 families--that's the number recommended in the group's handbook, The Book of the Hundreds. Each society becomes a self-governing entity, based somewhat on an updated version of the Posse Comitatus model. Their seminar information states: "Since the existing governments are de facto and without true law, once the jural society is formed it becomes the ultimate civil authority in the county.... It is a Christian body, based on God's Law, the lex non scripta (common law)."

The jural societies are completely self-sufficient. Their court system includes an ecclesiastical court to handle interpretation of scripture, a court of assizes to handle civil matters under common law, and a grand jury to investigate charges brought before it. Each jural society has its own enforcement arm, referred to as the lawful Posse Comitatus. The Posse Comitatus serves the courts as needed by bringing in witnesses or by enforcing sentences.

Jural societies elect officers who serve as their representatives at the state and national level of the jural society. The local or county jural society is considered to be the most powerful level of government, with the national being the least powerful.

As the name would imply, the Christian Jural Society is designed to be exclusively for Christians--non-Christians are not allowed to join under any circumstances. To be a voting member of a jural society, a person must file papers terminating all other voter registration. Once a person joins a jural society, as thousands have, it becomes the only form of government in his or her life.

The ultimate goal of the jural society is to create a national government for all Christians, with Jesus at the head of that government. Jural societies believe that this must be accomplished before Jesus returns to earth. As with the other apocalyptic antigovernment movement, people in the jural society feel a sense of urgency to accomplish their goal before the year 2000.

Jural societies are driven largely by end-of the-world conspiracy theories. The mission statement for the American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, reads:

Our goal is to restore our Republic, as secured by the Constitution for the united states of America [sic] 1787, and the Bill of Rights of 1789, and the Ordinance of 1787, and the moral basis upon which these were founded, so that our children, and the generations not yet born, will know that they are the people of posterity, unencumbered by the oppression that is now at our front door. God bless the Republic. Death to the New World Order. We shall prevail!

Although it's still unclear just how violent the jural societies will become in their effort to be self-governed, there is evidence that the most radical forces in the antigovernment movement are already influencing them. Several of the jural society members I've met are Identity believers, whose concept of justice is a rope and a tree. When I telephoned the Cuyahoga Jural Society to follow up on an earlier interview, I was told that no one there could speak to me, and it was suggested that I direct my questions to Mark Koernke, one of the antigovernment movement's most radical leaders. Koernke was picked up by authorities immediately following the Oklahoma City bombing and is said to have ties to Timothy McVeigh. He was later released by authorities.

If the jural societies are being controlled by leaders like Koernke, who have long called for the execution of judges and other officials, then they may pose the greatest antigovernment threat to date.

---------------[end]---------------

Rebuttal and Comments

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." Proverbs 29:2

The deliberate effort on the part of the author to link the Christian Jural Societies to the lawless militias is a sad piece of writing. The spin fails if one analyzes the situation with a keen eye. The first half of the section covers "The Christian Jural Society" and he then ends with the secular "American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" and its purported connection to Mark Koernke. It soon becomes obvious that the main purpose for the authors coverage of The Christian Jural Society movement in his book was to fix in the reader's mind that Christian Jural Societies are "antigovernment" and a terrorist threat. We are unaware of a "Cuyahoga Jural Society," and we have never talked to, or been in contact, with Mark Koernke.

The facts of history bear out his ignorance--Christians love lawful governments, and shun unlawful governments. This is shown by the erection of Cromwell's Republic, whose Christian foundations were continued for the erection of the original Christian republics in America. And where did they find the model for the Cromwell Republic? In the Old Testament!

The weak window of opportunity he finds to link the militias to the Christian Jural Societies is probably found in The Book of the Hundreds on page 139 where it is stated, "Issue process or some formal procedure to provide the protection of Lawful civil process to local militia and posse comitatus (where Lawfully formed) in such a way as to provide them the protection of Lawful civil authority." To date we know of no militia or posse comitatus group that is Lawfully formed. Some groups probably believe they are, but until they come under a Lawful Christian government, they are utterly lawless and will be treated as such by the current de facto government. History shows that the only purpose of the militia is to protect the church.

In addition, we believe that 'The American Jural Society of Cuyahoga County, Ohio" is a literary creation of the author, based on the following: Earlier in his writing, he makes the statement that jural societies "...shun publicity. Jural societies have a hard-and-fast rule: Don't talk to the press." He then tells the reader that he called the Cuyahoga Jural Society "to follow up on an earlier interview."

So, you see that bearing false witness always creates contradictions that the humanist mind has not the ability to recognize or control.

The other important agenda for linking his Cuyahoga creation and "other jural society members I have met," to Christian Jural Societies, is the stigma of "Identity believers" with there 'rope and tree.' Those who have read the Christian Jural Society News article 'Venting the Spleen on Blue Widgets' from Issue the Eighth know that the position of The King's Men on Identity 'theology' is that 'it' should be shunned and avoided like the plague.

He also states that, "The ultimate goal of the jural society is to create a national government for all Christians, with Jesus at the head of that government. Jural societies believe that this must be accomplished before Jesus returns to earth. As with the other apocalyptic antigovernment movement, people in the jural society feel a sense of urgency to accomplish their goal before the year 2000."

Where the above convoluted diatribe came from we'll never know. First of all, Christ has been the head of His church from the beginning. We know of no 'rapture fever, scare and share' mentality or 'urgency', as above expressed, in any Christian Jural Society. He's probably a friend of Hal Lindsey and got his conversations mixed up.

It is also curious that out of the "10 to 15 million" Christian Recontructionists in America and their numerous organizations, the author would only include The Christian Jural Societies under that heading. Could it be that his intent was to steer these "dominionist Christians" away from the idea of Lawful government in Christian Jural Societies by demonizing them and making them appear to be linked with Identity 'theology,' 'end-of-the-worlders,' 'the militias,' 'the radical Right,' 'the religious Right,' 'the Posse Comitatus,' and other such, according to his spin, 'antigovernment' groups.

His agenda strives to demonize those who work toward true law reform, such as The King's Men and other Christian Reconstructionists, who seek to avoid chaos and anarchy. It appears to be very important to him to keep the 'war' going, for 'government' sake.

It is also curious that he is aware of The Book of the Hundreds (which of course he misquotes), but instead chooses to use earlier material long since rewritten and other 'stuff' written by who knows who.

And the spin just keeps on coming.

The reference that "Jural societies have, to a large degree, been flying under the radar of those who monitor the radical Right," is another subliminal attempt to make it appear that jural societies, in some way, are "radical." He expectedly, like all media, fails to define exactly what 'radical Right' and 'religious Right' mean. The author appears to have no clue about what Law is, Who brought it in to being and gave it to us, who is appointed to execute that Law, and what Blessings will flow when Lawfully executed. In other words, the author is not interested in Law, but is more interested in sowing seeds of discord wherever he might find fertile ground.

He calls the Christian Jural Society "the brainchild of a religious Right think tank based in California and known as the "King's Men" and that "the society's leaders are John Quade, Randy Lee, and John Joseph. Firstly, we are not the 'leaders,' and have always spoken against creating a hierarchy. Earthly hierarchies are for the natural man, and Christ is already the Head of the church from the beginning. Secondly, it is not the 'brainchild' of the King's Men, for that pre-supposes that the King's Men are non-Christians--a libel. We know that God alone has power to create and destroy at His good pleasure.

He of course doesn't bother to mention, as it is pointed out in The Book of the Hundreds, that the Christian Jural Societies are the same as The Hundreds of England and early America. A Christian Republic instead of a Marxist Democracy? Wow, that is really radical!! (and Right, too).

Christians have no problem with governments, lawfully formed, having a lineage traceable to the Tree of Life, and not to any other source. Christians, as a matter of Law, are the only ones who have warrant in Law to establish governments--natural persons are still in the cave, where the maxim of the lawless prevails--"might makes right; steal to get ahead; greed is love, peace and charity--as long as it's done equally, and democratically."

Evidently the author would rather wear those chaffing golden handcuffs fashioned by a Marxist Democracy than live in the Liberty of Christ.

The shortsightedness of the natural man is what has brought him to the chasm of disintegration he now faces. A decision must be made--can the natural man's 'reason' save him from the doom or chasm he created? The author appears to believe so. It is one thing to criticize others, but quite another to offer a truthful solution. Fear, natural reason, and apathy is all the author seems to offer. Why is that? Synaptic shorts? Epistemological myopia? He clearly tries to breed fear and scatter, where Christendom seeks to gather in the love of Christ and our Father.

In the first century A.D., in an attempt to subvert Christianity, Emperor Nero accused Christians of using babies in sacrificial rites that they had rescued from the abortion dumps of Rome. Because the Roman people knew the real truth--that they were rescuing them to raise them as Christians--Christianity flourished.

In the future as in the past, when the opportunity presents itself, humanistic writers, authors, and politicians will take every opportunity to demonize Christians and Christian Jural Societies, because it suits their purpose. It will probably happen in cases where one or two militia members run into trouble with the 'law,' and they will try to link them to a 'jural society' somewhere. Or, perhaps, a Christian Jural Society will take on a member whose main purpose is to subvert that society. That has already happened to a small degree in a few societies. As the Christian Jural Society movement continues to grow, problems will be brought into it from outside sources. That is a given.

Woe to those that seek to destroy what God has ordained in His Word, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it;...,"; and which the history of America verifies: America was built on Christian Law, and not on any earthly religion reasoned by the natural man. The natural man seeks to deny the Power and Peace of God's Word, and to set up his own private domain, which ends in blood and destruction of life, liberty, and property. Lincoln's War and his new democracy/new nation is a typical example of that. Perhaps the author never read the Fall of the Roman Empire, Greek Empire, Persian Empire, and other such wars of destruction by the natural man's propensity in this direction due to his natural mind. He seems to contact reality only when it fits his particular scheme--on an "as needed basis."

Therefore, always keep in mind that members should act just as Christ did. Whenever and wherever a minister does any thing instructed by his Sovereign, the person with whom he meets does not see the minister, but the Sovereign who sent him. In the same manner, whenever a Good and Lawful Christian greets another, he acts in such a way that he is not seen, but Christ in him is seen. "The disciple is not above his master..." is the phrase that is applicable here. A disciple is one who lives the discipline of his master, and exhibits it to the world at large. The same is said of Christians, "for one is your master, even Christ."

The county clerk -

The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain

Part Two

by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Twenty-second)

Executorship of Christ's Testament

"ADMINISTER. To manage the property of a person who dies intestate, i.e., without a will, or whose will incompletely disposes of his property, or whose will lacks a competent executor. [*"Faith without works is dead"] The purpose of administration is to distribute the property [*common wealth] to the persons entitled [*Good and Lawful Christians being joint-heirs in Christ]. The document granting the authority [*codes, rules, and regulations] under which this is done is called letters of administration." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"ADMINISTRATOR (m); ADMINISTRATRIX (f). One who administers.
"1. In the law of succession, the person appointed by a court to distribute the property of a deceased intestate, or of a testator whose will has not been carried out because of the absence, disqualification, or death of the executor named in the will. See Administer.
"2. An administrative official in charge of a public office. See Administration, 1." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 9. [Emphasis added.]
"ADMINISTRATOR CUM TESTAMENTO ANNEXO. Lat. One appointed to carry out the terms of the will in the absence of a qualified executor." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 9. [Emphasis added.]

"8. Civil Action. A civil action has been variously defined:
[Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. See also cases infra this note, and notes 12-17. (A) Definitions.--"It is variously defined to be: 'The rightful method of obtaining in court what is due to any one: the lawful demand of one's right in a court of justice; the lawful demand of one's rights in the form given by law; the form of a suit given by law for the recovery of that which is one's due; the lawful demand of one's rights; a remedial instrument of justice, whereby redress is obtained for any wrong committed or right withheld; any judicial proceeding which, conducted to a termination, will result in a judgment.'" Winfield Adj. Words & Phrases, p. 16 quot. Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. (2) "A civil action is defined to be 'the legal demand of one's right'" Pettis v. Pomfret, 28 Conn. 566, 570. (3) "A civil action is one prosecuted for the establishment or recovery of a right, or the prevention of a wrong, or the redress of an injury." 1 Wait Act. & Def. 10, quot. McPike v. McPike, 10 Ill.A. 332, 334; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Bemis, 64 Oh.St. 26, 30, 59 N.E. 745. (4) It is an action wherein an issue is presented for trial, formed by the averments of the complaint, and the denials of the answer, or the replication to new matter, and the trial takes place by the introduction of legal evidence to support the allegations of the pleadings, and a judgment in such an action is conclusive upon the rights of the parties, and could be plead in bar." Evans v. Evans, 105 Ind. 204, 210, 5 N.E. 24, 768; Deer Lodge County v. Kohrs, 2 Mont. 66, 70. To same effect Berry v. Berry, 147 Ind. 176, 179, 46 N.E. 470. (B) In the civil law.--"A personal action, which is instituted to compel payment, or the doing something which is purely civil." Bouv.L.D. quot. Iowa v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175, 186, 101 S.W. 567, 12 L.R.A.N.S. 900.]

as an action to enforce a private or civil right or to redress a private wrong;
[Rapalje & L. L. D. quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 317. Similar definitions.--(1) "An action is 'civil' when it lies to enforce a private right, or redress a private wrong." Rapalje & L. L. D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 181 Fed. 248, 251. (2) "The term 'civil action,' as used in statutes, has been held to be 'a proceeding in a court of justice by one party against another for the enforcement of a private right or the redress of a private wrong." Thrift v. Thrift, 30 R.I. 357, 363, 75 A. 484. (3) "A process for the recovery of individual right or redress of individual wrong." Standard Jud. D. 130 quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 317. (4) "An action is a demand of a right in a court of justice. A civil action is a like demand by a person of a civil right." State v. One Bottle of Brandy, 43 Vt. 297, 298.]

an action which has for its object the recovery of private or civil rights or compensation for their infraction;
[Bouv. L.D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 181 Fed. 248, 251; Iowa v. Chicago, tec., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; Capital City Water Co. v. State, 105 Ala. 406, 422, 18 S. 62, 29 L.R.A. 743; State v. Riley, 203 Mo. 175, 186, 101 S.W. 567, 12 L.R.A.N.S. 900 and note; In re Farnum, 51 N.H. 376, 383; Scott v. State, 6 Tex.Civ.A. 343, 344, 25 S.W. 337; State v. Schomber, 23 Wash. 573, 575, 63 P. 221; State v. Frost, 113 Wis. 623, 641, 88 N.W. 912, 89 N.W. 915; Standard Jud. D. quot. State v. Union Trust Co., 70 Mo.A. 311, 316.]

an action brought to recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some wrong, not being a crime or misdemeanor.
[Burrill L.D. quot. Gruetter v. Cumberland Tel., etc., Co., 1812 Fed. 248, 251; Iowa v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 37 Fed. 497, 498, 3 L.R.A. 554.]

In some jurisdictions the term has been defined by statute.
[(A) Statutory definitions.--"A civil action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by one party against another for the enforcement of a private right or the redress or prevention of a private wrong." Nelson v. Sowling, 89 Ark. 334, 116 S.W. 890; Jefferson County v. Philpot, 66 Ark. 243, 245, 50 S.W. 453. (2) "A civil action is one founded on private rights, arising from contract or tort." Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taylor, 84 Ga. 408, 418, 11 S.E. 396, 8 L.R.A. 189. (3) "A civil action is a proceeding in a court of justice in which one party known as the plaintiff demands against another party known as the defendant the enforcement or protection of a private right, or the prevention or redress of a private wrong." Whitney v. Atlantic Southern R. Co., 53 Iowa 651, 652, 6 N.W. 32; State v. Clarke, 46 Iowa 155, 158. See also In re Bresee, 82 Iowa 573, 577, 48 N.W. 991. (4) "A civil action is a demand by pleadings in a court of justice for the enforcement of an alleged right of a plaintiff against a defendant." Ames v. Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 460, 4 S.Ct. 437, 28 L.Ed. 482; Prentice v. Weston, 47 Hun.(N.Y.) 121, 124, aff'd 111 N.Y. 460, 18 N.E. 720; Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 598, 103 P. 674.]

The precise meaning and application of the term must sometimes be determined not by its general definition, but according to the manner in which it is used in the particular case,
[Howard v. Proprietors Merricmac River Locks, etc., 12 Cush.(Mass.) 259, 263. "It is in all cases dangerous, to take particular expressions, applicable to the subject under consideration, and to treat them, as general words, affording rules and definitions applicable to all cases. The precise meaning of the descriptive term 'civil actions,' must be judged by its connections and the manner in which it is used in the particular case." Howard v. Proprietors Merricmac River Locks, etc., 12 Cush.(Mass.) 259, 263.]

for a proceeding may be in a general civil, and yet not within the application of certain laws relating to civil actions.
[Lucas v. Lucas, 3 Gray(Mass.) 136, 138.]

As sometimes used the term 'civil action' is broader than 'civil case.'
[Powell v. Powell, 104 Ind. 18, 21, 3 N.E. 639.]

Ordinarily the term 'civil action' is used in contradistinction to 'criminal action,'
[Rison v. Cribbs, 20 F.Cas.No. 11,860, 1 Dill. 181, 184; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114, 118; Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456. "A civil action is brought to recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some wrong, not being a crime or misdemeanor, and is thus distinguished from a criminal action or prosecution." Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456. "A civil action is instituted for the purpose of enforcing a private or civil right, or to redress a private wrong, as distinguished from actions instituted to punish crimes which are known as 'criminal actions.'" Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142.]

'criminal cause,'
[Livingston v Story, 9 Pet.(U.S.) 632, 657, 9 L.Ed. 255.]

or 'prosecution,'
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Landers v. Staten Island R. Co., 53 N.Y. 450, 456; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142.]

in which sense it includes all actions which are not criminal,
[Curry v. Marvin, 2 Fla. 411, 417; Smith v. Burnet, 35 N.J.Eq. 314, 320. "The term civil actions would, from its natural import, embrace every species of suits which is not of a criminal kind." Curry v. Marvin, 2 Fla. 411, 417 quot Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall.(U.S.) 321, 328, 1 L.Ed. 619.]

and therefore in- [*931] cludes suits in equity as well as actions at law.
[Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet.(U.S.) 632, 656, 9 L.Ed. 255; Rison v. Cribbs, 20 F.Cas.No. 11,860, 1 Dill. 181, 184; Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa 114, 118; Smith v. Burnet, 35 N.J.Eq. 314, 320.]

In a general sense [Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245.] the phrase 'civil actions' includes actions at law, suits in chancery, proceedings in admiralty, and all other judicial controversies in which rights of property are involved,
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142. To same effect Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321, 323, 55 C.C.A. 245. "The words 'civil action,' as used in the statutes, include all legal proceedings partaking of the nature of a suit and designed to determine the rights of private parties." Bryant v. Glidden, 36 Me. 36, 44.]

whether between private parties, or such parties and the government.
[U.S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars, 28 F.Cas.No. 16,451, Woolw. 123, 125; Fenstermacher v. State, 19 Or. 504, 506, 25 P. 142. (A) Actions where the government is a party.--"The term 'civil action' is held to apply to actions in which the government is a party, as well as those between private persons." Green v. U.S., 9 Wall.(U.S.) 655, 658, 19 L.Ed. 806.]

The civil action of the code is a substitute for all such judicial proceedings as were previously known either as actions at law or suits in equity,
[Corry v. Lamb, 43 Oh.St. 390, 392, 2 N.E. 851; Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237; Larwell v. Burke, 19 Oh.Cir.Ct. 449, 473, 10 Oh.Cir.Dec. 605. See also Webb v. Stasel, 80 Oh.St. 122, 125, 88 N.E. 143.]

and includes all ordinary civil proceedings;
[Greeley v. Hamman, 12 Colo. 94, 99, 12 P. 1. "The term 'civil action' embraces every form and character of action at law, or suit in equity, that was known to legal jurisprudence prior to the enactment of the civil code. It embraces actions ex contractu, ex delicto, suits in equity, mixed actions, and all their various modifications." Hendrickson v. Brown, 11 Okl. 41, 43, 65 P. 935. "As used in the Practice Act, the term 'civil actions' is clearly intended to include actions demanding equitable or legal relief, or both." Ludington v. Merrill, 81 Conn. 400, 402, 72 A. 504.]

but not a proceeding which was never regarded either as an action at law or a suit in equity,
[Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237; Barger v. Cochran, 15 Oh.St. 460, 461.]

such as an extraordinary or supplementary remedy [Chinn v. Fayette, 32 Oh.St. 236, 237.]. Under the codes the term 'civil action' is ordinarily used in contradistinction to 'special proceeding'."1 C.J. 930-931 (1917).
[Roe v. Boyle, 81 N.Y. 305, 306; Matter of Rafferty, 14 App.Div. 55, 56, 43 N.Y.S. 760; Barger v. Cochran, 15 Oh.St. 460, 461. Actions and special proceedings distinguished and the terms considered with reference to particular actions and proceedings see infra 134.].

Take particular note of the terms "private," "civil law," "courts of justice," "property," and the like. These are key words with which you should become very familiar. These are all fictions from the Roman civil law, and not God's Law. I wish to distinguish at this time the difference between the common law stipulated to above and Christian common law. This distinction involves again the Source of the right exercised or claimed. The common law mentioned above was concerned with private rights involving property. This has numerous commercial overtones attached to it. It is so vague that I can tell you now to avoid it like the plague.

We can say with assurance that those actions which are not found in Roman civil law, i.e. the current statutory law, must be actions at Law, otherwise known as common law actions:

"9. Common-Law Action. A common-law action has been defined as an action allowed at common law and to bring which statutory authority is not necessary.
[English L.D. "Another definition.--"Common law actions are such as will lie, on the particular facts, at common law, without the aid of a statute." Black L.D. sub verb "Action."]

But the term is not always used in this sense.
[Kirby v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 106 Fed. 551, 555. Se also cases infra notes 34-36. (A) As otherwise defined.--"A civil suit, as distinguished from a criminal prosecution or a proceeding to enforce a penalty or a police regulation; not necessarily an action which would lie at common law." Black L.D. sub verb "Common Law."]

It is sometimes used merely in the sense of at law,
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732.]

in contradistinction to proceedings in equity and admiralty,
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732; Boyd v. Clark, 13 Fed. 908, 910; Bains v. The Schooner James, 2 F.Cas.No. 756, Baldw. 544; Baker v. Biddle, 2 F.Cas. 764, Baldw. 394; U.S. v. The Queen, 27 F.Cas.No. 16,107, 4 Ben. 237; Bradford v. Territory, 1 Okl. 366, 370, 34 P. 66. (A) The provision of the federal constitution in regard to the right of trial by jury in 'suits at common law" has reference not merely to suits which the common law recognizes among its old and settled proceedings, but to suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined in contradistinction to proceedings in equity and admiralty. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732.]

and in this sense is not limited to actions which could have been maintained at common law." 1 C.J. 931 (1917). [Emphasis added.]
[Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet.(U.S.) 433, 447, 7 L.Ed. 732; U.S. v. The Queen, 27 F.Cas.No. 16,107, 4 Ben. 237;]

We should distinguish between an "equitable action" and an action at Law:

"10. Equitable Action. An equitable action is an action founded on an equity or cognizable in a court of equity [Black L.D. sub verb "Equitable." (A) Legal action distinguished.--"Legal actions are designed to afford redress for injuries already inflicted and rights of persons or property actually invaded. Equitable actions, however, are not only remedial in their nature, but may also be brought for the purpose of restraining the infliction of contemplated wrongs or injuries and the prevention of threatened illegal action, which may be the occasion of serious injury to others." Thomas v. Musical Mut. Protective Union, 121 N.Y. 45, 51, 24 N.E. 24, 8 L.R.A. 175." 1 C.J. 931 (1917). [Emphasis added.]]

This certainly explains very little. But note, natural equity can be used to prevent or restrain--regardless of the Truth. Let's look closer at the word "equity" and see what this word actually means:

"EQUITY. A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, "law," properly so-called; the object of which is to render the administration of justice more complete, by affording relief where the courts of law are incompetent to give it, or to give it with effect, or by exercising certain branches of jurisdiction independently of them. This is equity in its proper sense; an elaborate system of rules and process, administered in many cases by distinct tribunals, (termed 'courts of chancery,') and with exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects. It is 'still distinguished by its original and animating principle that no right should be without a remedy,' and its doctrines are founded upon the same basis of natural justice; but its action has become systematized, deprived of any loose and arbitrary character which might have belonged to it, and be carefully regulated by fixed rules and precedents as the law itself.

"Equity is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction, differing in its origin, theory, and methods from the common law." Laird v. Unino Tractin Co., 208 Pa. 574, 57 A. 987." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 634. [Emphasis added.]

Still more vague except for one thing: the source and theory of equity is separate and distinct from actions at Law. Let us look a little further in to the nature of "equity jurisdiction":

"EQUITY JURISDICTION. 'Equity jurisdiction' in its ordinary acceptation, as distinguished on the one side from the generalpower to decide matters at all, and on the other from the jurisdiction 'at law' or 'common law jurisdiction,' is the power to hear certain kinds and classes of civil causes according to the principles of the method and procedure adopted by the court of chancery, and to decide them in accordance with the doctrines and rules of equity jurisprudence, which decision may involve either the determination of the equitable rights, estates, and interests of the parties to such causes, or the granting of equitable remedies. In order that a cause may come within the scope of the equity jurisdiction, one of two alternatives is essential: either the primary right, estate, or interest to be maintained, or the violation of which furnishes the cause of action, must be equitable rather than legal; or the remedy granted must be in its nature purely equitable, or if it be a remedy which may also be given by a court of law, it must be one which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be made complete and adequate through the equitable modes of procedure. Norback v. Board of Directors of Church Extension Society, 84 Utah 506, 27 P.2d 339." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 635.

It is founded on competing private interests or rights in a thing or res, and not necessarily founded on a mutual contract. The action is not the same, the process is not the same, and the procedure is not the same. This falls under the administrative side of the county clerk, because of the following:

"CAUSA. Lat. A cause, reason, occasion, motive, or inducement." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 277.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278.

Thus if the reason or motive stems from any civil rights statute, then the cause is a "civil cause" and the action instituted for remedy is a "civil action." This is not what you are looking for.

Now back to actions at Law. Take particular notice that actions at Law need no specific statutory enactment to be real actions. They are founded on Law antedating the creation of legislative bodies. Just where can we find such Law? Certainly not in constitutions. It is found in only one place: the Word of God, the Scriptures. The problem most Christians have is in procedural Law, not in substantive Law. The procedural Law has been developed over hundreds of years while the substantive Law has existed since Genesis 1:1. This Law is specifically recognized in 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867):

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed.
"The rule of construction to be applied to such a grant of power is thus stated in Dwarris on Statutes, p. 652: "A statute creating a new jurisdiction ought to be construed strictly." at page 187.

Notice, if you will, the limitation placed on the jurisdiction of the administrative side of the county clerk--"in certain particulars and for certain purposes." That does not say for all particulars and all purposes. We need to find the nature of this power granted and just described to us to determine the limits of its jurisdiction. This becomes very clear when we read the next page in the same opinion:

"To consider, then, in the first place, the terms of the grant. It is of a power to protect all persons in their rights of person and property [*this is the civil action]. It is not a power to create new rights, but only to protect those which exist and are established by the laws under which these people live [*thus we have the fact that if the people under Christian Law found in Scripture then the power must be exercised to protect those found in Scripture and vested in Christians]. It is a power to preserve, not to abrogate; to sustain the existing frame of social order and civil rule, and not a power to introduce military rule in its place; in effect, it is police power; and the protection here intended is protection of persons and property against violence, unlawful force, and criminal infraction [*thus we are back to Roman civil law protecting "persons" of its creation in the enjoyment of "property."]. It is given to meet the contingency recited in the preamble, of a want of "adequate protection for life and property" and the necessity also recited, "that peace and good order should be enforced." ibid., at page 188. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

That power is "police power," which necessarily governs all within the civil rights acts, and under which all actions are civil actions--administrative--not ministerial. This is easily seen in the following definition of police power:

"POLICE POWER. (bus) The authority of a state to legislate to protect public health, safety, morals [*religious and political question] and welfare [*benefits, privileges, and opportunities]--the constitutional basis for state labor legislation." A Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (2d. Ed., 1968), p. 322.

Notice, if you will, the police power affects business or commercial interests only. It does not affect those things which are not in commerce, which are inalienable and a perpetuity. Let us look into the restrictions on the police power:

"There are, of course, limitations upon the exercise of this power. The legislature cannot use it as a cover for withdrawing property [*vested rights of the Good and Lawful Christian] from the protection of the law, or arbitrarily, where no public right or interest is involved, declare [*that particular] property a nuisance for the purpose of devoting it to destruction." Lawton v. Steele (1890), 119 N.Y. 226, 23 N.E. 878, aff'd 152 U.S. 133.
"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right, and one carried on by government sufferance or permission. In the latter case, the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to condition and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former." Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43. [Emphasis added.]

Rights vested in Good and Lawful Christians by Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, are the only rights addressable in actions at Law, not involving any legislation creating any right, nor can they be legislated against. See Billings v. Hall, supra.

We can say with full assurance that no vested rights which have a political consequence may be legislated against by those who wield the "police power" by or under military occupation. This is easily seen as well:

"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 610.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613.

A word of caution is in order here about this police power which should and does concern all Good and Lawful Christians:

"So, while the police power is one whose proper use makes most potently for good, in its undefined scope and inordinate exercise lurks no small danger to the republic. For the difficulty which is experienced in defining its just limits and bounds, affords a temptation to the legislature to encroach upon the rights of citizens with experimental laws, none the less dangerous because well meant." Ex parte Jentzsch (1896) 112 Cal. 468, 473. [Emphasis added.]

In Truth, these vested rights haven't been legislated against--Christians need to remember the old ways and forget constitutions being the source of any thing for them:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not that what it is. It is not the beginning of a community [*the Scriptures are the beginning of a community--common unity in Christ], nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law [*God is the fountain of Law], nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom [*Jesus, the Christ, is the Cause and Origin of all Freedom and Liberty]; it grants no rights to the people [*they are vested by Almighty God through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ], but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [*originating in Scripture], rights [*originating in God and vested through Jesus, the Christ], habits [*customs and usages from Scripture], and modes of thought [*Christian v. pagan]. There is nothing primitive in it: it is all derived from a known source [*Christianity]. It presupposes an organized society, law, order, property, personal freedom, a love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13, per Bates, arguendo. And see Matter of Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank, 21 N.Y. 9. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

This becomes all the more evident when we look further in to the Law:

"Allegiance, as we understand that term, is due to no Government. It is due the power that can rightfully make or change Governments [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus, the Christ]. This is what is meant by the Paramount authority, or Sovereignty. Allegiance and Para- mount authority do go together; we agree in that. But there is a great difference between the supreme law of the land and the Paramount authority, in our system of government, as well as in all others. Obedience is due to the one, while allegiance is due to the other. Obedience to law, while it is law, or the Constitution, which is an organic law for the time being, and allegiance to the Paramount authority, which can set aside all existing laws, fundamental laws, Constitutions, as well as any others, are very different things." Alexander Stephens, Constitutional View of the War (1868), vol. I, p. 25. [Emphasis added.]

"Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." Dan 2:20-22. [Emphasis added.]
"For promotion cometh neither from the east nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another." Ps 75:6-7. [Emphasis added.]

The keys then are to:

One - Never look to constitutions, codes, rules, regulations, or statutes for any thing, including a right of action, such as Title 42 lawsuits which are dismissed by the wave of the wand or hand;
Two - Study the Scriptures to show your selves worthy and approved of God, not men;
Three - Always speak the Truth in Love to the county clerk and never show belligerency--after all the other hat on the rack looks very ragged and dusty in deed.

Until next month, may our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Bless, Comfort, and Keep you and yours in His Love and away from the Adversary, Amen.

Editor's Note: Those interested in further knowledge on the subject of the county clerk, there is now available from the Christian Jural Society Press a 33 page pamphlet written by John Joseph with a 90 minute audio tape covering the pamphlet recorded at Kaweah on November 7, 1997. The full set of audio tapes from this newest seminar are also available. See Page nine at "Newly Added Materials" or call: 818-347-7080 for further information.

Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion

Part Three

by John Quade

(continued from Issue the Twenty-second)

When Lincoln says in the Gettysburg Address: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom," he means that the social, political, and economic elite are forming a new government. Thus, the line "that government of the people, by the people, for he people," is a mere gratuitous sop thrown to the people to encourage them to believe that they will actually have a hand in this new 'birth of freedom.'

The Amendments passed since Lincoln's War form the basis of a radical new interpretation of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are the filters that discolor the light of the original Constitution and it is through these Amendments from the 14th on, that the original Constitution is systematically reinterp- reted and twisted to suit a world view and presuppositions that are at war with Christianity and God's Law.

On this topic alone we have dedicated many pages in Part One of the Third Edition of "The Book of the Hundreds." But, for the time being, the Reader must accept the premise just outlined, for it explains precisely why the Pro-life movement has failed to abolish abortion.

Since the original Constitution made specific provisions for courts at-Law and common law actions in at least two places, and if the original Constitution is still the law of the land, then why do we no longer have courts at-Law and remedies in common law and no amendment has been passed to do away with them?

How is it that the Supreme Court, without a Constitutional Amendment, does away with clearly Constitutional provisions, both in the main body and in the Bill of Rights, such as courts at-Law, and common law actions?

How is it that the Supreme Court can say in the noted Erie Railroad v. Thompkns case that there is no Federal common law if the original Constitution that embodies common law and courts at-Law, says otherwise?

How is it that the Supreme Court can do away with the very cornerstone of American and English common law by saying in the same case that there is no stare decisis, i.e. no precedents in law anymore?

How is it the President can create law in Executive Orders without Congressional approval?

And this in spite of a court decision in which the court says that the Constitution makes no provision for the President's use of Executive Orders!

How is it that Congress can pass legislation, as it has in the last century, that violates every single Article of the Bill of Rights?

The truth of the matter is, the courts, the Congress, the President, and the States can do all these things that are clearly contrary to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights simply because they are acting in a capacity that is not bound by the original Constitution, and are working with a new deck of cards that is still called a Constitution that, in fact, bears no relationship to the original Constitution.

The key to the solution of the abortion holocaust is, the pro-life movement must realize that we are no longer dealing with the real McCoy, but are instead dealing with a marked deck, and a counterfeit Constitution which embodies a different law than the Framers of the Constitution had originally conceived of.

This new constitutional law is ultimately military and commercial and it represents a significant step down from the original law of the land in terms of its standing, jurisdiction, and real authority. And, one can scream to high heaven about a conspiracy, but there is none, because the Federal government has made full disclosure of everything it has done in the last one hundred and thirty-six years, and it has done so thousands of times in the public record.

The bottom line is, the American people are utterly ignorant of their own political and legal history because they have relied on politicians, the lawyers, the government, and government schools to tell us the truth about what the government has done and continues to do in every session of Congress!

Thus, the very first, hard, fact that the pro-life movement must come to grips with is, that they are dealing with a government of illusions and that the pro-life movement has been hood-winked by the illusions of government. They are victims of smoke and mirrors manipulated by politicians, and lawyers who are part and parcel of the very system they are fighting. The government that pro-lifers think they are dealing with is not the government that can solve the pro-life movements political and legal problems in dealing with abortionists!

The Lawyer Game

The truth of the matter is, modern lawyers, attorneys-at-law, and members of the Bar associations are the agents of the very government the pro-life movement is trying to fight. How do we know this?

Many sources could be cited to make clear the attorney-client relationship, but in the final analysis, the client is deemed, in the first place to be non compos mentis, i.e., not mentally competent. Otherwise, if the client were mentally competent he would not need the attorney.

But, in modern law, the attorney has other obligations which come before his client and these are as follows.

The attorney's first obligation is to obey the rules of the court;

The attorney's second obligation is to uphold the public morality (which is, of course, never defined);

The attorney's third obligation is to his client.

All lawyers and attorneys are bound to both the law and the rules of procedure of the courts in which they practice. But, if the lawyer cannot bring an action At-Lawagainst the abortionist and can only practice in courts where there is no common law, then he is prohibited from bringing any effective case, based upon real Law, against the abortionist. In simple terms, the lawyers of America are a major part of the problem of abortion.

Thus, the second hard fact that the pro-life advocate must reckon with is, lawyers,

attorneys, judges, and the courts they practice in cannot provide the pro-life movement with the remedy it seeks. In simple terms, you can't get there from here!

The only alternative to the serious pro-life advocate is to be his own counsel in an at-Law court, and prosecute the abortionists personally and in his commercial capacity.

De Jure and De Facto

Next, we must realize the true significance of what it means to deal with a de facto, not a de jure, government.

This means that while the current governments actually exist and function with all the power of a civil government, they do not do so as a matter of real Law. This is the difference between fictions and substance. Lawful governments deal in substance, in real acts and actions involving real flesh and blood people. Military and commercial governments, on the other hand, may exist in fact, but not in law, and since they are deemed to be arbitrary and capricious, they are called 'fictions,' of law and fictitious governments.

Once upon a time, courts in America dealt principally in substance, i.e., in common law adjudicated in at-Law courts, and such courts were courts of substance. Today's courts, being fictitious, cannot deal in substance and deal only in cases involving fictitious entities.

Now, we come back to the 14th Amendment. Note again, the phrase, "All persons born...," that we referred to earlier. Here our attention is drawn to the word 'persons.' What are these persons and what is their relationship to law?

The persons in the 14th Amendment are fictitious entities created by the fictitious government. That is, they are not real. The typical fictitious person is designated by a fictitious name written in all capital letters. Such a name is called a nom de guerre, i.e., a name of war. The name of war stands for the man or woman of flesh and blood, but it is not the name of the flesh and blood man or woman who writes their appellation in upper and lower case letters according to the Rules of English.

Likewise, the name of a real man or woman of flesh and blood is never substituted by an initial to stand for a name in any case or action filed at-Law, for such is called a misnomer. That is, the party is mis-named and the process or action filed is in error and must be rejected, although it can be amended and re-submitted. Evidence for the government of fiction is seen in every tax return filed in America, for the I.R.S. never allows anyone to use anything but an initial for the middle name on its tax returns.

It is certain that every court case filed by the pro-life movement in the last thirty years has designated every party to a case as a nom de guerre. The names of all plaintiffs and defendants are thus written in capital letters. Thus, the parties were fictions which came under the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Acts and the 14th Amendment.

Further, the name of the court, the city and state in which the case is heard are also designated by a nom de guerre, i.e., are written in capital letters. Thus, the case was not a contest between real parties of substance, but a contest between fictions and that case was heard in a fictitious court with fictitious attorneys doing the argument on both sides.

Of course, most attorneys are either ignorant of these facts or simply do not care. And, with those that do know, they ignore the problem because they do not want to put their sources of income in jeopardy by making a disclosure of what is really going on.

Most attorneys use the nom de guerre for parties to the case and violate the rules of English simply because that's the way they were taught in law school and therefore, they will either consider the argument a moot point, or utterly ridiculous. Some, however, may see and may admit to the truth of the arguments above, but they will justify it by saying that, "That's the way its done and if you want your case prosecuted that's how it has to be done."

For the most part, the attorney is right. To practice in fictitious courts one must write a case as if it takes place between fictions, and that means using the nom de guerre, etc., and hearing the case in a fictitious court without any real law or authority. This means that the case against the abortionist cannot be brought into the proper court in which it must be bought into in order to get a decision that will rid us of abortionists!

Thus, the third hard fact that pro-life people must realize is, the existing courts, lawyers, and judges, and the existing law cannot bring the case that's necessary, under the right Law, to rid America of abortion. Something else must be done. Some other tack must be taken in some other court in order to reach that goal.

As God is not without a witness, so also has He left us a remedy to end abortion. But, this remedy will require a complete re-alignment of the pro-life effort and a complete re-thinking of pro-life strategy.

Back to Square One

The Scripture says: "Remember the old paths and walk therein." And, at bottom, the solution to the pro-life problem and the abolition of abortion is a matter of going back to the old ways, i.e., back to square one.

But, having said this, it remains for us to set forth the process to get back to square one. Earlier we stated that the process of abolishing abortion would not be an easy one and this is because the process of going back will involve a major change - intellectually and spiritually - for the pro-life movement. This process involves Law and a political solution, and a great deal of study and hard work.

The pro-life and all other Christian movements must know that simply because such and such is permitted and/or prohibited at the Federal or State level, this does not mean that such and such is real law, nor that the same thing can be permitted or prohibited at the county level.

The abortionists has won his right by keeping his argument within those venues, jurisdictions, and courts, where his argument is permitted. But, take him out of his courts and jurisdiction, and put him in a true court of Law with a different venue and jurisdiction, and the outcome can be an entirely different matter.

The political solution is a matter of re-forming the local government in the county or parish where the abortionists actually operates. It means virtually ignoring the political effort at the Federal and State levels, because that is not where the real power lies. In America, the real political power has always been at the local county level.

Sadly to say, most of the modern Christian political agenda has been focused on the Federal level and the battle has been, at that level, primarily defensive, trying to protect what is being taken away. This effort has created such groups as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, National Pro-Life, Gun Owners of America, and countless others, and it has largely failed in terms of bringing about real and genuine long-term change. We are not suggesting that a change has not been affected by these groups, nor are we saying that it has not mobilized a very large, previously asleep, body of Christians.

What we are saying is, it has failed to bring about long-term change and has succeeded only in slowly down the Neo-marxist onslaught. When the pro-life movement has made changes in laws, they have fought constantly to protect what little change results. In effect, they take two steps forward and one back.

Such tactics fly in the face of the fact that the entire American system - since 1620 - has been based on local self-government and that the power flowed from the bottom up, not the top down.

What we are suggesting, therefore, is that we go back to the old ways and focus our time, money, and efforts at the local, county level. We are not suggesting that anyone should abolish the nation-wide organizations that Christians have created, because such leadership is essential and experience is vital to coordinating county efforts, on a national scale.

Thus, the political solution can be summed up by saying that we must re-focus our political efforts at the local level, in the counties, not at the Federal or State level, because in the counties and parishes is the one location where courts at-Law and common law process still remains for us to use if we re-activate the system given to us by Our Christian forefathers.

Next, in what form will this solution manifest itself? And, the answer is, in several ways, depending on what form of local, county or parish government exists in a particular State.

Basically, the effort is aimed at;

b. re-establishing the Great Roll of the county,

c. re-establishing local courts at-Law,

d. re-forming the local civil government.

Now, the information and law that must be implemented by pro-lifers is not something that can be assimilated in a short article or pamphlet. Thus, we recommend that all of the above are initiated through local study groups, the purpose of which, is to provide the forum in which participating members can learn the right form of law in which to bring actions at the local county level to stop abortions.

These same groups would also study the correct way to write process, correctly use of the Rules of English in writing process and how to initiate an action in courts at-Law, and how to conduct the action once it goes to court. Let us be clear about this. Pro-life advocates must themselves know the law as it is stated in the Christian common law, and how to bring the proper action in a court at-Law.

"Can't we just hire a lawyer to do this?"

Answer: No!!!

In the first place common law has not been taught in law schools for over sixty years and most lawyers today view common law as an old, antiquated, and an out-dated system. Thus, today's lawyers are not equipped intellectually to handle such cases.

Second, today's lawyers are members of a Bar Association. In courts at-Law they cannot practice.

Third, the process for bringing an action against an abortionist is relatively simple and can be learned by almost anyone. Thus, the lawyer is really not needed, which greatly reduces the costs of fighting the case.

Fourth, when the case is heard, the only parties that appear in court are the demandant and defendant, and while they may have non-Bar association counsel, such counsel cannot speak, for, if he does, the demandant or defendant is forbidden to prosecute or defend the case from that point on.

Truly, in courts at-Law the trial is mano e' mano, one on one, and toe to toe between demandant and defendant. This puts the abortionist at a great disadvantage because he cannot rely on someone else's expertise to exonerate him.

In courts at-Law, the law is not on trial, the defendant is. The law is already known and all the jury need do is determine if the evidence says that so and so abortionist did the deed.

But, since the modern abortionists do their dirty little deeds for commercial gain, i.e., for profit, and since this factor has not been tried before at-Law, the jury may also revise the law and increase the punishment for abortion if the jury believes that such is warranted.

The last reason for local study groups is, in most cases, the local situation is such that the existing county government cannot be reformed in any reasonable amount of time and not without major changes in the moral, spiritual, and political views of those who live within the county.

Thus, it will be necessary for study groups to learn how to properly form their own local, Christian government which will exist side-by-side with the existing government. This may shock most Readers, that such a thing can not only be done, but in fact, this was the situation in America prior to the termination of the courts at-Law and the end of common law process in the counties. In those days, there was a county government, and a township government, which maintained the at-Law venues and jurisdictions.

The difference in the two forms of government in the county is the law upon which each is based. The existing government deals in fictions and commercial law and sits under the thumb of Federal funding and military law. When the Township government is restored to the county, it will, once again, deal with the law of substance and courts at-Law, and will receive no Federal or State funding because it is supported by the Christian executors the proper Lawful government.

Of course, it must occur to the Reader that at least in re-establishing local courts at-Law and in re-forming the local self-government, the existing powers may have something to say about it all. Does this present a problem for the new governments and courts?

To answer this question, we must first realize that, whether or not the existing government takes any action is determined by the legal relationship between the Christian and existing systems of law and government. Which is superior and which is inferior? Do they have an equal standing?

The answer is, courts at-Law have superior jurisdiction and standing relative to commercial courts in those areas that deal with the abortion question.The new Christian government will, because of its fundamental law and the standing of those who hold offices in it, have superior jurisdiction and standing to all existing governments in those areas the pro-life movement has an interest in!

The point is, since existing governments have an inferior standing relative to God's Law and Christian common law, they cannot bring any form of legal action against courts at-Law, nor against the newly formed Christian government in the county, that will have any real standing.

This is not to say that existing governments will not try, but, since they have no Lawful process, the case can be dispensed with by a simple, non-statutory abatement process, which has been used so successfully by Christians the last three years.

It is entirely conceivable that a solid pro-life group, working in conjunction with other Christian groups such as Homeschoolers, The Christian Coalition, Gun Owners, etc., could, in less than one Congressional election cycle, completely turn around a county and restore Lawful civil authority, and, at the same time, abolish abortion forever in that county.

This is reinforced by several court decisions in which courts have ruled that the current military governments will stay in place, only and until, the people reject them.

The first step for the pro-life advocate is, get in touch with his County or State leader in the Pro-life movement and send him a copy of this newsletter.

Then follow up and, in conjunction with the King's Men, set up a meeting between the county or state leader and the King's Men.

The King's Men will then set up a week-end seminar in which the entire program can be laid out in detail, and in the process, the King's Men will also provide all the documentation to each seminar attendee, so that he can read and see for him or herself precisely what the problems are and how they are solved.

After the seminar, the King's Men can assist the pro-life movement and its leaders in every possible way, to implement the program outlined above.

With God's help and a prayerful heart and mind, we can go forward, and bring the abortionists to the bar of real Law, and eradicate the blood guilt from the Land.

Exercising Your 'Right of Avoidance'

Part Five

by Randy Lee

"Crafty are the wiles of the enemy, and many foolish ones are ignorant of his devices. Tutored by the experience of ages, seducers and evil men not only wax worse and worse, but they grow more and more cunning. If it were possible, they would deceive even the very elect. Happy shall they be, who, being elect, are kept by the mighty power of God unto salvation, so that they are not carried away with an error." Charles Spurgeon, 'The Sieve.'

The humanist State believes that it can control the evil of the world, and make mankind good. It believes that through tyranny, dictatorship, and manipulation it will conquer all hate, famine, and war. That State professes those things, but in fact, practices and 'creates' another. There is but One who can conquer and control these things--Jesus, the Christ.

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Mat. 11:29. [Emphasis added.]

Take my yoke upon you. The rest He promises is a release from the works of sin, not from the service of God. "You are under a yoke which makes you weary: shake that off and try mine, which will make you easy," is the message from The Messenger. Christ's commands show His favor towards us: we must take His yoke.

The yoke represents diligence, submission, humility, patience and--being yoked together with our fellow-servants-- keeping up the communion of saints.

Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. He was eminently humble, and this is what we are peculiarly to learn of Him. Like-mindedness--if we are to be like Christ, we should be lowly-minded. We must walk in the same spirit and in the same steps with Him, who humbled Himself to sufferings and death for us; not only to satisfy God's justice, and pay the price of our redemption, but to set us an example, and that we might follow His steps.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." We must be of Christ's mind. We must bear a resemblance to His life, if we are to have the benefit of his death. If we have not the Spirit of Christ in truth, we are without Him.

"TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought [*the mind of Christ] and reality [*God's creation, both spiritual and physical]; eventual verification [*by the creation]; and consistency of thought with itself [*not self-contradictory]. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [*Insertions added.]

God never contradicts Himself. He has always kept His covenant with us. It is He who is The Truth.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

The two yokes cannot be taken on simultaneously, for that represents double mindedness. Exercising Your Right of Avoidance shakes off the burden of that heavier yoke so that the easy yoke can be taken on.

Avoiding Property Registration

The voluntary act of registering land in the County Recorder's Office changes the character of the land from that of inheritance under God to that of a commercial commodity. A 'purchased' deed is a commercial instrument representing 'ownership' in commerce. It then becomes taxable and seizable under the confiscation acts to support martial rule. It is strictly a plague of Babylon on the land brought about through the ignorance and neglect of the church. The fictitious layers that have been put over the land are, to a certain extent, the rebuilding of the Tower of Babel--layer, upon layer, upon layer.

There are numerous reasons for this, which will not be addressed here. But we will look into 'deforcement,' i.e., removing those fictitious layers and bringing the original character back to that of a Godly one.

It will require an ecclesiastical court to bring the land back. Until the church re-establishes its ecclesiastical character from that of a governmentally approved corporation under the 501(c)3, back to that of a Biblical one, the land will remain in commerce. The church is the only Lawful body that has standing to re-establish the land under its inheritance from God.

It will require the study and development of process concerning 'deforcement':

Deforcement

The fifth and last species of injuries by ouster or privation of the freehold, where the entry of the present tenant or possessor was originally lawful, but his detainer has now become unlawful, is that by deforcement. This, in its most extensive sense, is nomen generalissimum; a much larger and more comprehensive expression than any of the former: it then signifying the holding of any lands or tenements to which another person hath a right. [Co. Litt. 277.] So that this includes as well an abatement, an intrusion, a disseisin, or a discontinuance, as any other species of wrong whatsoever, whereby he that hath right to the freehold is kept out of possession. But as contradistinguished from the former, it is only such a detainer of the freehold, from him that hath the right of property, but never had any possession under that right, as falls within none of the injuries which we have before explained. As in case where a lord has a seignory, and lands escheat to him propter defectum sanguinis, but the seisin of the lands is withheld from him; here the injury is not abatement, for the right vests not in the lord as heir or devisee; nor is it intrusion, for it vests not in him who hath the remainder or reversion; nor is it disseisin, for the lord was never seised; nor does it at all bear the nature of any species of discontinuance; but, being neither of these four, it is therefore deforcement. [F. N. B. 143.] If a man marries a woman, and during the coverture is seised of lands, and alienes, and dies; is disseised, and dies; or dies in possession; and the alienee, disseisor, or heir, enters on the tenements and doth not assign the widow her dower; this is also a deforcement to the widow, by withholding lands to which she hath a right. [ibid. 8, 147.] In like manner, if a man lease lands to another for term of years, or for the life of a third person, and the term expires by surrender, efflux of time, or death of the cestui qui vie; and the lessee or any stranger, who was at the expiration of the term in possession, holds over, and refuses to deliver the possession to him in remainder or reversion, this is likewise a deforcement. [Finch, L. 163. F. N. B. 201, 205, 6, 7. See Book II, ch. 9, p. 151.] Deforcements may also arise upon the breach of a condition in law: as if a woman gives lands to a man by deed, to the intent that he marry her, and he will not when thereunto required, but continues to hold the lands: this is such a fraud on the man's part that the law will not allow it to devest the woman's right of possession; though, his entry being lawful, it does devest the actual possession, and thereby becomes a deforcement. Deforcements may also be grounded on the disability of the party deforced: as if an infant do make an alienation of his lands, and the alienee enters and keeps possession; now, as the alienation is voidable, this possession as against the infant (or, in case of his decease, as against his heir) is after avoidance wrongful, and, therefore, deforcement. [Finch, L. 264. F. N. B. 192.] The same happens, when one of non-sane memory alienes his lands or tenements, and the alienee enters and holds possession; this may also be a deforcement. [Finch, ibid. F. N. B. 202.] Another species of deforcement is, where two persons have the same title to land, and one of them enters and keeps possession against the other: as where the ancestor dies seised of an estate in fee-simple, which descends to two sisters as coparceners, and one of them enters before the other, and will not suffer her sister to enter and enjoy her moiety; this is also a deforcement. [Finch, L. 293, 294. F. N. B. 197.] Deforcement may also be grounded on the non-performance of a covenant real: as if a man, seised of lands, covenants to convey them to another, and neglects or refuses so to do, but continues possession against him; this possession, being wrongful, is a deforcement: [F. N. B. 146.] whence, in levying a fine of lands, the person against whom the fictitious action is brought upon a supposed breach of covenant, is called the deforciant. [This proceeding was abolished by statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 74.] And, lastly, by way of analogy, keeping a man by any means out of a freehold office is construed to be a deforcement; though, being an incorporeal heredita- [*171] ments, the deforciant has no corporeal possession. So that whatever injury (withholding the possession of a freehold) is not included under one of the four former heads, is comprised under this of deforcement.
"The several species and degrees of injury by ouster being thus ascertained and defined, the next consideration is the remedy; which is, universally, the restitution or delivery of possession to the right owner: and, in some cases, damages also for the unjust amotion. The methods whereby these remedies, or either of them, may be obtained, are various.
"1. The first is that extrajudicial and summary one, which we slightly touched in the first chapter of the present book, [see page 5.] of entry by the legal owner, when another person, who hath no right, hath previously taken possession of lands or tenements. In this case the party entitled may make a formal, but peaceable, entry thereon, declaring that thereby he takes possession; which notorious act of ownership is equivalent to a feudal investiture by the lord: [See book II, ch. 14, p. 209..] or he may enter on any part of it in the same county, declaring it to be in the name of the whole: [Litt. 417.] but if it lies in different counties he must make different entries; for the notoriety to the pares or freeholders of Westmoreland, is not any notoriety to the pares or freeholders of Sussex. Also if there be two disseisors, the party disseised must make his entry on both; or if one disseisor has conveyed the lands with livery to two distinct feoffees, entry must be made on both: [Co. Litt. 252.] for as their seisin is distinct, so also must be the act which devests that seisin. If the claimant be deterred from entering by menaces or bodily fear, he may make claim, as near to the estate as he can, with the like forms and solemnities: which claim is in force for only a year and day. [Litt. 422.] And if this claim, if it be repeated once in the space of every year and day (which is called continual claim), has the same effect with, and in all respects amounts to, a legal entry. [ibid. 419, 423.] Such an entry gives a man seisin, [Co. Litt. 15.] or puts into immediate possession him that hath right of entry on the estate, and thereby makes him complete owner, and capable of conveying it from himself by either descent or purchase. [But now by statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 27, s. 10, no person shall be deemed to have been in possession of any land within the meaning of that act, merely by reason of having made and entry thereon; and by section 11 no continual or other claim upon or near any land shall preserve any right of making an entry. The distinction between the law as laid down by Blackstone and the present law as to an entry is, that by the former a bare entry on land was attended with a certain effect in keeping a right alive, whereas by the latter it has no effect whatever unless there be a change of possession. When this takes place, the remedy by entry is still in operation; when not, an entry is of no avail, and this remedy no longer exists.]
"This remedy by entry takes place in three only of the five species of ouster, viz.: abatement, intrusion, and disseisin; [ibid. 237, 238.] for, as in these the original entry of the wrongdoer was unlawful, they may therefore be remedied by the mere entry of him who hath right. But, upon a discontinuance or deforcement, the owner of the estate cannot enter, but is driven to his action: for herein the original entry being lawful, and thereby an apparent right of possession being gained, the law will not suffer that right to be overthrown by the mere act or entry of the claimant. Yet a man may enter [see book II, p. 150.] on his tenant by sufferance: for such tenant hath no freehold, but only a bare possession; which may be defeated, like a tenancy at will, by the mere entry of the owner. But if the owner thinks it more expedient to suppose or admit [Co. Litt. 15.] such tenant to have gained a tortious freehold, he is then remediable by writ or entry, ad terminum qui praeterit. [The estate mentioned in the last note abolishes this proceeding.]
"On the other hand, in case of abatement, intrusion, or disseisin, where entries [*of him who hath right] are generally lawful, this right of entry may be tolled, that is, taken away by descent. Descents, which take away entries, [Litt. 385-413] [The right of entry is no longer taken away by descent. Statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV, c. 27, s. 39. This and the two following paragraphs are not applicable to the present state of the law.] are when any one, seised by [*175] any means whatsoever of the inheritance of a corporeal hereditament, dies; whereby the same descends to his heir: in this case, however feeble the right of the ancestor might be, the entry of any other person who claims title to the freehold is taken away; and he cannot recover possession against the heir by this summary method, but is driven to his action to gain a legal seisin of the estate. And this, first, because the heir comes to the estate by act of law, and not by his own act; the law therefore protects his title, and will not suffer his possession to be devested, till the claimant hath proved a better right. Secondly, because the heir may not suddenly know the true state of his title; and therefore the law, which is ever indulgent to heirs, takes away the entry of such claimant as neglected to enter on the ancestor who was well able to defend his title; and leaves the claimant only the remedy of an action against the heir. [Co. Litt. 237.] Thirdly, this was admirably adapted to the military spirit of the feudal tenures, and tended to make the feudatory bold in war; since his children could not, by any mere entry of another, be dispossessed of the lands whereof he died seised. And, lastly, it is agreeable to the dictates of reason and the general principles of law. Cooley's Blackstone (1872), vol. II, p. 167.

To those that are interested in re-establishing the land, it is suggested to study and research further information on 'deforcement' and 'ecclesiastical courts.' In the near future, God willing, we will further explore the land question in The News.

Miscellaneous Avoidance

The study of 'minimum contacts' is paramount in understanding what should be avoided concerning the ungodly. Always take into consideration the character of a particular activity that you may be involved in. Many times, something that may seem perfectly innocent can be quite devastating to your Good and Lawful Christian standing. 'Legal personality' is the most important thing to avoid. A standard rule to identify what may or may not constitute legal personality is whether or not the subject or activity was created by government through legislation. The question you must ask yourself is: "Is it 'manmade' or Biblical?"

This will end, for the time being, the series on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance.' I am currently working on a 100 page treatise on this subject, which with God's willing guidance, will be available in April of 1998. At this time, The Christian Jural Society Press has a 32 page pamphlet with 90 minute audio tape available on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance.'

Before the counsel of the ungodly!

by Michael Andrew

The blessings of standing with Christ. That is the message of the following article, resulting from encounters with the State of New Jersey 'road patrol' and their court. We salute Our Brother, Michael Andrew, for his faith, fortitude, and Christian witness 'before the counsel of the ungodly.'

-------------------------

To all my fellow brethren in Christ throughout the land. Greetings and salutations from Thee and may You all prosper from these writings in His Name.

The tribulation with the police was a frightening one, because it was a first time for Me, and secondly, they have the guns. I stood My guard with Christ and also with help from the King's Men. The time of suffering occurred while exercising My Christian liberty upon the common ways, here in the East. I was arrested and placed in vinculus for not complying with the current Military rule of the day. The following is an account of how it happened:

Once the red lights were placed on, I knew that I was arrested. The first policeman ['A'] was very confused. He had no idea what to do with Me. His main objective was to try and connect Me with a residence, of which he was unable to do. He was also confused with My proper Christian Appellation compared to a name, of which he was used to dealing with every day. Handing him My baptismal certificate totally threw him for a spin. He was unsuccessful at obtaining a residence until the other two vipers [Officer 'B' and Officer 'C'] showed up on the scene.

Now, with their arrival, things took a turn for the worse. I was asked to leave my vehicle and stand to the side (way off). I was also asked if they could search the vehicle and I 'complied'; and with that they turned into tornadoes going through everything. At first, they were getting nowhere, and the three of them came over to where I was and did the following:

Officer 'A' stated to Me that Officer 'B' over here swears that he knows Me and I better come clean, "or else." All the while, Officer 'B' had a smirk and grin of dung, nodding his head to confirm this. Next, Office 'C' said that he knew Me, and that I am involved in illegal activities, i.e., drugs, burglary, theft, etc., "and I have only one chance to come clean." I stood mute, because: "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord." II Chronicles 19:2b. Because I would not cooperate I was told that My vehicle will probably be impounded and I may go to jail. With no reply, they told Me to sit in their car while they continued to search the vehicle. With this, Officer 'B' decided to run the VIN number and they got what they wanted for the time being, because the vehicle wasn't Lawfully removed from their system.

Officer 'B' and 'C' then leave, and Office 'A' informed Me that the vehicle will be impounded and I am to go with him. He never informed Me of being arrested or read the private rights doctrine either. I complied and went along to the gray bar hotel. I was placed into holding for about an hour and a half, and he then came back to inform Me that I would be getting six bills of exchange (six traffic citations) in the mail, and he then left again. After an hour, he returned with the six bills and handed them to Me, and said "don't think I am a ball %&@*!~~*&%, but if you try to correct what is wrong, then see me before the trial and we can work something out with the prosecutor."--"Confidence in an unlawful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint." Proverbs 25:19. He gave Me only two days to appear. This was very strange because the norm is usually twelve to thirty days--I wouldn't know why until later.

Next, I was told that I was arrested, read the private right doctrine, and that I would be released pending...??? With this, I was requested to pose and give finger prints to them, and I complied (do not give them voluntarily, for they [photo and prints] are not Yours to give freely--they belong to Your Father). Although I was unaware of this at the time, this will not happen again.

Finally, I was able to walk out the front door without signing anything. This is strange, because later I found that to be released on OCR, you have to sign 'a promise to appear' paper. Usually, if the alleged fictitious fines are more than 1000 FRN's, a bail is to be posted or you sit in jail. The Lord takes care of His own. "But He knoweth the way that I take: when He hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold." Job 23:10, see also Psalm 17:3.

Once I had time to go through My possessions, I noticed that The Book of the Hundreds was missing from my briefcase. Where did it go? I remember it being on top of everything when the case was in the patrol car!! Could this have changed their ungodly minds, as far as only to provide Me with two days to appear? Maybe they only wanted to see how much Law I really knew? Only the Lord knows the answer!!

Now, placed into this tribulation of only having two days to appear and not enough time to have the defaults served for an abatement, I did two things. First, I prayed for the correct guidance and wisdom from My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in this matter. Secondly, I did what many fellow brethren would do. I dialed 818-347-7080 and sought the wisdom of brother John Joseph and The King's Men. Before I go any further, I would like to thank John and The King's Men for their time, advice, and guidance given to Me on how to deal with the ungodly.

Because this was a first time for Me going before a military tribunal, I was literally trembling in the boots. I explained to John what had happened and he proceeded to educate Me on what he would do in a like situation. His twenty-some years of standing up for The Lord provided Me with a basic understanding on what to expect. He explained the metaphysical, physical, and spiritual battle that would be taking place in the courtroom, and so on. John also provided Me with the following, which are transcribed out of My notes with him:

[This is talking to the prosecutor. You are setting a record, and You will stand on God's record only.]

2. Christ was an executor of the Old Testament. You therefore are standing there in a ministerial capacity by visitation, as an executor of your testator's testament.

3. My Testator did not use your codes, rules and regulations for the things He did, and neither do I use your codes, rules and regulations for the things that I do. You can not find My appellation in your codes, rules and regulations. You can find persons, human beings, partnerships, corporations and all other godless entities.

4. I am made in the image and likeness of God according to My Testament here, and I am sealed by the Holy Spirit, which means that I have a separate character than that of your seal. I am only to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and since I don't have anything of Caesar's to render, then what am I to render? I am to render to God the things that are God's. I am standing here on His Testament and I am going to render to Him what is justly His. I am part of His inheritance, because I am a member of the church, and the church is God's inheritance.

Therefore, for you to move then is to disturb the peace and safety of the church, which necessarily means that you are disturbing the peace and safety of the state.

[Now the shoe is on the other foot].

6. Further I stand mute!

Now with Myself trying to learn the above and literally burying My head into Scripture, I was a nervous wreck. But there was one thing that John knew that I didn't realize till after the encounter. The Lord will move Me on what to say at the time. "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12. This was true indeed, as the encounter with the wicked went as follows:

Two brethren in Christ and Myself made Our way into the courtroom. This was a sight of mass confusion and chaos, and once the judge entered he took on a cloak of evil. He intimidated every poor soul in that room and the amount of souls numbered a good hundred and thirty. His first cases were like a ritual of offerings, hanging innocent unknowing fables by their own ignorance of God's Law. They were begging for mercy from Baal and seeking counsel with the wicked in plea bargaining. The Counsel of wickedness was very precise on his procedure, not changing at all. Like clockwork, the people would bring their offering before the ungodly and reap his punishment by more labor to pay his demands. You could actually feel the level of fear in the courtroom. "His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity." Ps. 10:7.

Then finally, One was willing to do battle for the Lord. A name was called and I proceeded to advance from the back of the courtroom with My cloak of armor and My Law as My sword. I made My way through the bar, and the judge asked if I was MICHAEL A. URBAN. I proceeded with the following: "I am here to exercise Ministerial Powers given to Me by God through His Son, My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." The judge replied, "What," and I repeated Myself. His little teenybopper scribe immediately turned off the court transcriber, and after that he asked Me again if I was "MICHAEL A. URBAN." I informed him and the world that "My proper Christian appellation is as follows in upper and lower case," and proceeded to spell out My appellation according to the rules of proper English grammar. All the while, the judge's eyes were rolling about his head. Next, he asked, "if this isn't you then who and what are you." I replied, "I am a good and Lawful Christian Man." He and the rest of the courtroom laughed at Lord and I, sealing their own fate before judgment. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7. His face was filled with disbelief, and then he asked, "well if this isn't you, then what are you doing here?" This was a trick question, and he thought he had Me. I replied, "I was told to be here." At this point he gave an expression, like throwing his hands up in the air in retreat, not knowing what to say. He went on further to say that "you better get a good and Lawful Christian attorney, and how do you plead?" With the courtroom filled with the mockery towards The Lord, I replied, "further I stand mute." He asked again, and once again I repeated Myself, "further I stand mute." At this time, the court recorder was turned back on by his transcriber. He asked again, and said if I don't answer, then he would enter My plea for Me; which he did and then he said "I was free to go." Then I proceeded to walk out of the building.

Now, to the previous one hundred fables before Me, he had asked if the address on the process was correct, and everyone had to leave by going through the clerk. I was able to leave through the way I came in, and never once was asked about an address. Afterwards, I also found out that this wicked judge is known for his punctuality of checking for the proper address, and intimidation.

Why did the judge lose the battle? The only answer to this is the power of The Lord. "But Thou, O Lord, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head. I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill. Selah. I laid down and slept; I awaked; for the Lord sustained me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about. Arise, O Lord; save me, O my God: for Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; Thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly." Psalms 3:3-7. and also Psalms 1 and 23.

The King's Men asked Me to write this for the edification of all. If the encounter happens to you, and it may because the Lord will test everybody, don't be a robot and commit what is here to memory. Read Scripture, and learn on how to get it from the brain to the mouth. Ask your Wonderful Counselor Jesus Christ, and talk to Him and ask for the ways to be shown. I did not use any words that Brother John provided, and he knew it. John provided Me with the ability on how to make the words flow. It wasn't the judge that had a change of heart; it was the Almighty God working in the courtroom. Amen.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Half Ready

A mother was seated at a table with her little son, a child about eight years old. She had been reading the Bible to him for some time.--He had been very attentive to what she had said, and seeming a great deal impressed by it.

"It says in the Scripture," said she, "Therefore, be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of Man cometh!" now this may be said in respect to death, as well as to the coming of the Savior, for we cannot tell how suddenly we may be called away from the world. "Are you ready, my love, if it should please God to take you to Himself?"

The child remained silent for a little while, and then replied; "I think, mamma, that I am only about half ready.

How many thousands are there just in the same situation as this child? Are there not tens of thousands of professing Christians, who kneel at a throne of grace, who attend divine ordinances, who read the Word of God, and are edified by its doctrines and reproofs, and encouraged by its consolations who, were the same question put to them, must be constrained to give the same answer, "I am only half ready."

We may gain wisdom from the high and the low, the old and the young; we may gather it from the sayings of the wise man, and glean it from the lispings of the simple child; therefore, whether you are a youthful pilgrim in the road of life, or whether you have nearly reached the end of your journey, let much more of your thoughts be given to the subject of death and eternity, so that, should the question be put to you, "Are you prepared to die?" You may be able to give a satisfactory answer, and not be compelled to reply, "Alas I am only about half ready."

The Young Convert

The young convert may be compared to a child, whom his father is leading over a rugged and uneven path. After proceeding for sometime without much difficulty, he forgets that it has been owing to his father's assistance--begins to think that he may now venture to walk by himself, and consequently falls. Humbled and rejected, he then feels his own weakness, and clings to his father for support. Soon, however, elated with his progress, he again forgets the kind hand which sustains him, fancies he needs no more assistance, and again falls. This process is repeated a thousand times in the course of the Christian's experience, till he learns, at length, that his own strength is perfect weakness, and that he must depend solely on his heavenly Father.

A good reason for not going to War

Frederic, Elector of Saxony, intending to war against the Archbishop of Magdeburg, sent a spy to inquire into his preparations; and being informed that he gave himself up to prayer and fasting, committed his cause to God alone. "Let him fight that will," said he; "I am not mad enough to fight with the man, who makes God his refuge and defence."

Issue the Twenty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Christian Liberty Library...

Consent: Implied and Express...

In Vinculis - Revisited...

Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part Two...

Agitprop and The New Republic...

Abatement Update...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

The Christian Liberty Library

by John Quade

As many of the Patrons of The News know, we believe that the most economical way to get the works and information to you that are important for Christian Reconstruction is to provide it in electronic form, i.e., on computer. Early on, we believed that the best way to do this would be to set up a Web Page on the World Wide Web via the Internet. This would have eliminated the need for long distance telephone calls for those who had Internet access.

But, as time went on and we investigated the legal questions involved in using the Internet, we discovered certain things which gave us pause to reconsider the Internet approach. First, we were bothered by the fact that none of the Internet sources seemed to have any definitive information on the legal status of one who used the Net, other than the fact that the Net was originally started as The ARPANET, by the Advanced Research Projects Agency, a government funded arm of the Defense Department. Thus, the ARPANET, being government sponsored, had to have been, legally speaking, a military/commercial entity, which was, and is, one of the things we want to avoid.

Granted, ARPANET no longer exists, officially, but the backbone of the Internet is still a project of the United States Government. Further investigation made it clear that all possible Web Site classifications (.com, .net, .org, etc.) were not defined in a legal sense. Yes, .com stands for

commercial and .net stands for a sub-net, and .org is supposed to cover all other entities not covered by the net designations. But, since there was no 'legal' definition, and no case law extant, the whole picture looked very muddy. This, of course, would be a dangerous place to go.

Thus, it became clear that the Internet was not the place for us to post the works and information we have available.

Accordingly, we announced in a previous Issue of the The News that we would not put up an Internet site. We have thus taken an alternate means of providing the information to Patrons.

Ideally, what is needed, is a nation-wide, high speed (fiber-optic) network, for Christians and Christian works, that would function as a ministry not within a 501(c)3 corporation. With a fiber optic system, this would mean a backbone speed of greater that 100 megabits per second. This is not likely to come into existence in the very near future.

Thus, we go back to square one and create a stand-alone dial-up system. Most would classify the new system as a bulletin board service (BBS). But, it is not a bulletin board service. It is an electronic library available free to Patrons of The Christian Jural Society News, only.

This new computer library system is called, The Christian Liberty Library, and it will not confine itself solely to topics involving law, though law will form a major subject area of the library - in its initial form at startup. It is scheduled to go on-line and be ready for Patron access and downloading of files, at the end of January, 1998. The system is already under-going on-line testing, file loading, and system configuration.

The Library will be developed in Phases, each involving a significant advance on the previous Phase. The system, as configured in its initial form will be called, The Phase One Library.

The interface to the system that all Patrons will use, that is, the visual look and feel of the system, will not change, except in the number of functions offered and the amount of files available. It is simple and intuitive. The Patron will not need any special software, such as Netscape, or other HTML interfaces.

In Phase One, the Patron will be able to access the library through almost any of the commonly available dial-up software packages, such as: Telix, ProComm, Qmodem, etc., or the Microsoft Windows interface in the Windows program. It can also be accessed by the MacIntosh, Amiga, and Atari families of computers so long as the Terminal Emulation on the Patron's end is set up to use the VT100 type of terminals.

Thus, the Patron will have to tinker a bit to find the right Terminal look and feel that's satisfactory to the Patron's existing software. Initially, set your terminal emulation to vt100, vt102, etc., with ANSI color graphics.

Access speed will be 38,400 bps, and on one dial-up line. The dial-up telephone number will be 818-313-8814. The Patron will pay for his or her own telephone calls, whether long distance or local.

Functions permitted will be the usual e-mail, messaging, and file downloading. No 'file' uploading to the system is permitted for security reasons. Patrons who wish to post files on the system must forward them to Randy Lee on 3.5" floppy discs, in an IBM compatible format, for off-line checking and formatting before they can be posted in the Library. Thus, do not try to upload to the Library, directly, because the upload function does not exist.

The total of all files in the Library at this time is approximately 100 megabytes. The following list is a Sample of Files On-line in Phase One:

1. "Legcites," which is a 5.1 megabite file of legal citations compiled by John Joseph over the past 15 years.
2. More than 1,000 Court Cases.
3. "Democracy in America," by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835).
4. The Journal of Columbus, (1492).
5. "Give me Liberty or Give me Death," by Patrick Henry (1775).
6. A Collection of State Bills of Rights.
7. James Madison's Notes on the Federal Convention.
8. Military Government and Martial Law, by Birkheimer (1914).
9. The Presidency in the Courts.
10. The Opinion of the Attorney General on the Reconstruction Acts (12 Ops. 182).
11. The Book of the Hundreds, Part One, (The Prolegomena).
12. "The History of America," by Jackson.
13. Two Works by St. Augustine.
14. The Complete Works of Shakespeare.
15. Sermons from the Colonial War Era.
16. The Law of Names.

In addition, Patrons will be able send e-mail to the staff at the The Christian Jural Society Press.

Those who are not Patrons of The Christian Jural Society News will only be permitted access to the system for purposes of reading or download information on what is available in The Library and how to become a Patron of The News, etc.

Each Patron of The News must request access to The Library by posting First- Class Matter to Randy Lee at his location found in this Issue of The News. Patrons will then be assigned a login name, and initial password to get into the Library. On their first login, Patrons must change their password to one of their own choosing. The first login procedure is admittedly inconvenient, but this is purely a security measure to protect the Patron.

The Phase Two Library, beginning in the Fall of 1998, will provide Patrons with several new on-line tools to assist them in their studies, higher access speed (56k), more telephone lines, and other features.

The look and feel of the interface will not change, but there will be several additions to Menu choices. The total number of files available in the Library in this Phase will exceed 300 megabytes on-line for download by Patrons.

One unique Menu item to be added in this Phase, is the Composite Law Dictionary. This on-line dictionary combines the complete texts of: Webster's (1828) Dictionary, Holthouse Dictionary of Law (1847), Bouvier's Dictionary of Law (1856), Anderson's Dictionary of Law (1897), and Black's Dictionary of Law, in one computer file. When the Patron accesses the Composite Dictionary, a separate window will open on the Patron's computer in which the Patron can select any word and have the definition of that word from each of these dictionaries displayed on his own computer, all at the same time. Each source will be displayed in its historical order and one will see the development of the use of words in law over an extended period of time, as well as where the dictionaries agree, or disagree, on the use of a word.

A second feature to be added in this Phase is Cite Linking. In this feature, the Patron may read a file on-line that will have high-lighted cites. The Patron can then select the highlighted text and the system will take the Patron to the actual cite so that it may be read in context. If the word is defined in the Composite Law Dictionary, the system can display a word from that cite in the Dictionary and open a window to display it (at the bottom of the Patron's computer screen).

In The Phase Three Library, beginning in the Spring of 1999, we will feature Counselor On-Line. This function enables a Patron with a problem or question in Law, to enter certain information into the program, step by step, and then follow a recommended procedure to generate process or information that will effectively deal with the subject.

When the on-line procedure is completed, any process developed, can then be downloaded to the Patron's computer as a text file. The Patron can then import the text file into his word processor, adjust its format to fit his word processor and printer, and then print it out, ready for service.

At each stage of the on-line procedure, complete help screens are provided to explain what is happening, and why, and the do's and don't's of the particular process the Patron ends up with. Successive process on the same matter of Law may also be recommended in some cases.

Files available for downloading from the library are expected to exceed 700 megabytes by 1999 and 1 gigabyte by the year 2000.

Related Developments

Many factors enter into the question of how fast the Library can be upgraded through the Phases. The above projections are based on assumptions given the current level of interest in the Work of The King's Men and The Christian Jural Society News and Press. If interest accelerates significantly, the Phase schedule can be accelerated. If the level of interest declines from its present level, then the speed of development of the Library may also decline and be delayed.

Another factor that enters into the size of the Library, that is the total number of files available, is the rate at which files can be scanned or keyed into computer format.

Thus, for example, if a significant number of Patrons volunteered to key, scan, or proof Works in a computer format and then send such files to us, the number of files available in the Library could increase dramatically and dwarf the projections given in the Phases above.

In putting scanned files into the Library, the key factor is the time it takes to proof files after they have been scanned. Thus, for example, given our current scanner capability, we can scan good quality text sources into the computer at the rate of 200 to 400 pages a day. But, to proof, spell check, etc., those same files could take one to two weeks. Thus, it could take up to two weeks (at 8 hours a day) to put a single 300 page book on the system and make it available for downloading.

If, however, we had volunteers with computers who would proof files after they had been scanned, we could send them books that have been scanned on floppy discs. The volunteers could proof the books and return the proofed files on floppy disc to us, for posting on-line in the Library.

Lastly, we request that Patrons not copy The News for others, but instead encourage others to become a Patron themselves. That support will also impact on the speed at which the Phases can be implemented.

Conclusion

This first Phase of The Christian Liberty Library, though beginning small, is a beginning. Some may downplay its present significance, but the Lord says, "Do not despise the day of small beginnings."

With Our Lord's Blessing, The Christian Liberty Library can become a significant weapon in the furtherance of the Crown Rights of King Jesus. Please join with us on this march forward, and God Bless.

Editor's Note: To access the Library, set your computer dial-up software to 8N1, i.e., 8 data bits, No parity, and 1 Stop bit. Set your terminal emulation to vt100, vt102, etc. Post a letter to Randy Lee to request access, and we will return your login name, password and further instructions, immediately.

If you would like to volunteer to do proofing for the Library, or to key works into the computer that cannot be scanned, please call Phillip at 818-347-7080 and let us know. Please indicate in what way you wish to volunteer (scan or proof). The volunteer program will be implemented in February of 1998.

Consent: Implied and Express

by Randy Lee

Due to the positive response from many Patrons of 'The News' during the past five months concerning the series of articles on 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' and their requests for further information on that subject, the following is offered.

One of the major stumbling blocks in the pursuit of 'Exercising Your Right of Avoidance' is a legal phenomenon known in man's law as 'consent.' It manifests itself in two forms--Implied and Express. Consent transforms itself into major minimum contacts that are not easily overcome, due to the doctrine of estoppel. Therefore, it is important to know what constitutes consent in whatever form, and how to avoid giving consent to 'the beast,' in order to maintain your Christian status, and thereby, your Christian Liberty. It is my hope that all that read and study the following will take pause before they say "yes" to someone or something, or in doing a particular act, knowing then the implications of giving 'consent.'

The word 'consent' is derived from the Latin words 'con,' meaning 'with, together,' and 'sentire,' meaning 'to feel, think, judge, etc.'

Consensus facit legem. --Consent makes the law. Maxim, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859) Vol. II, p. 125.
Consent: "An agreement to something proposed. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B. 1, c.2, s.1.
"The one who gives consent must be capable of doing so." 1 Whar. Cr. L. 146.

Are you capable of giving consent to the ungodly? Did Christ give you the capacity to give such consent? The question you must ask yourself before giving consent to anyone is, "Has the will of my Father given me permission to do so?"

"My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not." Proverbs 1:10
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2

All the disciples and followers of the Our Lord must be nonconformists to this world. We must not conform to the men of the world, of that world which lies in wickedness, not walk according to the course of this world. Eph. 2:2; If sinners entice us, we must not consent to them, but in our places witness against them.

Consent: "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence, permission or compliance therewith. State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 164 N. W. 759.

When consenting to anything, that consent must concur with the will of God.

Consent: Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 Mont. 134, 212 P. 858, 860. 'Consent' is sometimes synonymous merely with 'waiver.' Dahlquist v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 52 Utah 438, 174 P. 833, 844
"While consent is said to be a concurrence of wills, it does not necessarily refer to or indicate a bilateral agreement; it may be unilateral." Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.Minn., 26 F.Supp. 366, 371.
"The term 'consent' generally implies a yielding of that which one has a right to withhold." Reynolds v. Baker, 191 S.W. 2d 959, 961, 209 Ark. 596.

Man's law acknowledges your Christian right to withhold consent from them. Therefore, always remember that when it appears 'you must' comply to something, it probably means 'you may.'

Implied Consent: "That which is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, from which arises an inference or presumption that the consent has been given." Avery v. State 12 Ga.App. 562, 77 S.E. 892.
"Implied consent allows for consent to be implied from custom, usage or conduct. For example, a doorbell on the front of a residence is an invitation to enter another's property for purposes of calling the occupant to come to the door and speak to you. However, consent cannot be implied when the property owner or occupant has outwardly evidenced an intent that consent is not given, such as a "do not trespass" or "keep out" sign. Implied consent is limited to accomplishing the purpose for which consent was given." Opinion by the law firm of Bauckham, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen for The Michigan Township Association (1997).

Invito beneficium non datur. --No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Bouv.

Benefits, privileges, and opportunities. Yes, the BPO's of the beast, i. e., the bribes from the government temple, as the candy to the kid, and the apple to the teacher. Accepting the bribe is consenting to the evils of that temple.

Implied Consent: "Implied consent exists where a person by his line of conduct has shown a disposition to permit another person to do a certain thing without raising objection thereto." Vick v. Zumwalt, 273 P.2d 1010, 1013, 130 Colo. 148.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. --He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

The purpose of the Non-Statutory Abatement is to avoid that silence. With Law. But, if you've been accepting the bribes from the temple, you have already given consent. It is then too late for an abatement, due to acquiescence.

You of course have the right of repentance, therefore you must cease that previous activity, repent, and thereafter exercise Your Right of Avoidance.

Omnis consensus tollit errorem. --Every consent removes error. 2 Inst. 123.
Consensus tollit errorem. --Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Maxim of Law, Co. Litt. 126.
Volunti non fit injuria. --He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "They just rolled over me." The reason they rolled over you is because you had already given them consent to do so. According to the maxims of law, once you give consent there is no error, mistake or injury on their part. But:

Consentientes et agentes pari poenâ plectentur. --Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment. 5 Co. 80.

Avoid the punishment:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Peter 5:8-11

Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest. --What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal. Bv.

Voluntarily appearing in court and submitting to that court's judgment, or your silence, is the consent given.

Express Consent: "That which is directly given, either viva voce or in writing." Black's L.D. 3rd Ed., p. 402.
It is direct, positive, unequivocal consent, requiring no inference or implication." Pac. Nat. Agri. Credit Corp. v. Hagerman, 55 P.2d 667.
Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle. --He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 8.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. --It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.
Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. --It is better to recede than to proceed in evil. 4 Inst. 176.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matt 7:16-20
Implied Consent: "Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Heine v. Wright, 76 Cal. App. 338, 244 P. 955, 956.

Before you agree to anything with anybody, always ask yourself who you are becoming yoked with. For:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement [*consent] hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Cor 6:14-18 [*Insertion added.]
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. --One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.

In Vinculis - Revisited

by John Joseph

This month I wish to revisit an article of much concern and consternation among the readers of The News. For those of you who have the issue containing the original "In Vinculis" article, that information is not obsolete--it is reworked and honed to form the basis of a firmer stand for Christ. New material will be added in this article to substantiate better the material in that original article. Together, it is hoped you will be able to stand for Christ whenever and wherever you are taken in vinculis to the "magistrate." This article is more in depth than the original and requires more work on your part to understand. Much new information has been learned over the past year which is included herein.

I cannot put the words into your mouth, because it is not the words which give life. It is the Holy Spirit within you which gives life and power to the words. Therefore, it is incumbent for you to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and the words to speak to those who would take you to strange and foreign places, before "their gods who are no gods." Edification is the best I can do--incantations are what heathens practice. The same restrictions in that first article also apply here. Do not ever try to use Scripture to justify your own lawlessness or "freewill." It simply cannot be done--

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8.

Commerce is of the flesh.

The first place to start looking for any information is in Scripture. And the first place to begin is with our most Blessed and Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. He testified on record for us:

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Matthew 11:29.

Matthew Henry says of this verse:

"We must come to Jesus [*the] Christ as our Ruler, and submit ourselves to Him (v. 29). Take My yoke upon you. This must go along with the former, for Christ is exalted to be both a Prince and a Saviour, a Priest upon his throne. The rest He promises is a release from the drudgery of sin, not from the service of God, but an obligation to the duty we owe to Him. Note, Christ has a yoke as well as a crown for our heads, and His yoke He expects we should take upon us and draw in. To call those who are weary of and heavy laden, to take a yoke upon them, looks like adding affliction to the afflicted; but the pertinency of it lies in the word My: 'You are under a yoke which makes you weary: shake that off and try Mine, which will make you easy.' Servants are said to be under the yoke (1 Tim vi 1), and subjects, 1 Kings xii 10. To take Christ's yoke upon us, is to put ourselves into the relation to servants and subjects to Him, and then of conduct ourselves accordingly, in a conscientious obedience to all He commands, and a cheerful submission to all his disposals: it is to obey the Gospel of Christ, to yield ourselves to the Lord: it is Christ's yoke; the yoke He has appointed; a yoke He has Himself drawn in before us, for He learned obedience, and which He does by His Spirit draw in with us, for He helpeth our infirmities, Rom viii 26. A yoke speaks of hardship, but if the beast must draw, the yoke helps him. Christs commands are all in our favour: we must take this yoke upon us to draw in it. We are yoked to work, and therefore must be diligent; we are yoked to submit, and therefore must be humble and patient; we are yoked together with our fellow-servants, and therefore must keep up the communion of saints: and the words of the wise are as goads, to those who are thus yoked.
"Now this is the hardest part of our lesson, and therefore it is qualified (v. 30). My yoke is easy and My burden is light; you need not be afraid.
"[1.] The yoke of Christ's commands is an easy yoke; it is chrestos, not only easy, but gracious, so the word signifies; it is sweet and pleasant; there is nothing in it to gall the yielding neck, nothing to hurt us, but, on the contrary, much to refresh us. It is a yoke that is lined with love. Such is the nature of all Christ's commands, so reasonable in themselves, so profitable to us, and all summed up in one word, and that a sweet word, love. So powerful are the assistances He gives us, so suitable the encouragements, and so strong the consolations, that are to be found in the way of duty, that we may truly say, it is a yoke of pleasantness. It is easy to the new nature, very easy to him that understandeth, Prov xiv 6. It may be a little hard at first, but it is easy afterwards; the love of God and the hope of heaven will make it easy.
"[2.] The burden of Christ's cross is a light burden, very light; afflictions from Christ, which befall us as men; afflictions for Christ, which befall us as Christians; the latter are especially meant. This burden in itself is not joyous, but grievous; yet as it is Christ's, it is light. Paul knew as much of it as any man, and he calls it a light affliction, 2 Cor iv 17. God's presence (Isa xli 2), Christ's sympathy (Isa lxiii 9, Dan iii 25), and especially the Spirit's aids and comforts (2 Cor I 5), make suffering for Christ light and easy. As afflictions abound, and are prolonged, consolations abound, and are prolonged too. Let this therefore reconcile us to the difficulties, and help us over the discouragements, we may meet with, both in doing work and suffering work; though we may lose for Christ, we shall not lose by Him.
"(3.) We must come to Jesus [*the] Christ as our Teacher, and set ourselves to learn of Him, v. 29. Christ has erected a great school, and has invited us to be His scholars [*disciples]. We must enter ourselves, associate with His scholars, and daily attend the instructions He gives by His Word and Spirit. We must converse much with what He said, and have it ready to use upon all occasions; we must conform to what He did, and follow his steps, 1 Pet ii 21. Some make the following words, for I am meek and lowly in heart, to be the particular lesson we are required to learn from the example of Christ. We must learn of Him to be meek and lowly, and must mortify our pride and passion, which render us so unlike to Him. We must so learn of Christ as to learn Christ (Eph iv 20), for He is both Teacher and Lesson, Guide and Way, and All in All.
"Two reasons are given why we must learn of Christ:
"[1.] I am meek and lowly in heart and therefore fit to teach you.
"First, He is meek, and can have compassion on the ignorant, whom others would be in a passion with. Many able teachers are hot and hasty, which is a great discouragement to those who are dull and slow; but Christ knows how to bear with such, and to open their understandings. His carriage towards His twelve disciples was a specimen of this; He was mild and gentle with them, and made the best of them; though they were heedless and forgetful, He was not extreme to mark their follies. Secondly, He is lowly in heart. He condescends to teach poor scholars, to teach novices; He chose disciples, not from the court, nor the schools, but from the seaside. He teaches the first principles, such things as are milk for babes; He stoops to the meanest capacities; He taught Ephraim to go, Hos xi 3. Who teaches like Him? It is an encouragement to us to put ourselves to school to such a Teacher. This humility and meekness, as it qualifies Him to be a Teacher, so it will be the best qualification of those who are to be taught by Him; for the meek will He guide in judgment, Ps xxv:9.
"[2.] You shall find rest to your souls. This promise is borrowed from Jer vi 16, for Christ delighted to express Himself in the language of the prophets, to show the harmony between the two Testaments. Note, First, Rest for the soul is the most desirable rest to have the soul to dwell at ease. Secondly, The only way, and a sure way to find rest for our souls is, to sit at Christ's feet and hear His Word. The way of duty is the way of rest. The understanding finds rest in the knowledge of God and Jesus [*the] Christ, and is there abundantly satisfied, finding that wisdom in the Gospel which has been sought for in vain throughout the whole creation, Job xxviii 12. The truths Christ teaches are such as we may venture our souls upon. The affections find rest in the love of God and Jesus [*the] Christ, and meet with that in them which gives them an abundant satisfaction; quietness and assurance forever. And those satisfactions will be perfected and perpetuated in heaven, where we shall see and enjoy God immediately, shall see Him as He is, and enjoy him as he is ours. This rest is to be had with Christ, for all those who learn of Him.
"Well, this is the sum and substance of the Gospel call and offer: we are here told, in a few words, what the Lord Jesus requires of us, and it agrees with what God said of Him once and again. This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him." Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Book of Matthew, pp. 161-162.

Thus it is easy to see that this Scripture verse is all important! In it Christ gives us the guide for what it is we must do to be a Good and Lawful Christian--"learn of Me." What Christ means is the following:

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord." Mt 10:24-25.
"Disciple. A pupil or scholar (Mt 10:24); especially the follower of a public teacher, like John the Baptist (ch 9:14). A person taught of God (Isa 8:16). It is used of all of whatever age who in faith received the divine Master's instructions (Mt 10:42; Lk 14:26, 27, 33; John 4:1; 6:66), and especially of the twelve apostles (Mt 5:1; 8:23; 10:1; 12:1, etc.)." Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944, Westminster Press), p. 140.

The key word is the word "as," meaning like or similar to. The disciple is to be like his master, and the servant like his lord, so that those of this world see not you but Christ within you. With you exercising your "free will" the world sees you--one of the several condemned without Law--not Christ, Who fulfilled the Law by executing it. Those of the world see Christ in you because His discipline is executed by you:

"And He said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?" Mark 4:21.
"No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16.
"DISCIPLINE. Instruction, comprehending the communication of knowledge and training to observe and act in accordance with rules and orders. In re Swenson, 183 Minn. 602, 237 N.W. 589. "Correction, chastisement, punishment, penalty. Rules and regulations. Reutkemeier v. Nolte, 179 Iowa 342, 161 N.W. 290, 292, L.R.A.1917D 273." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 550.

The disciple follows, performs, or executes the instructions of his Master. This is very important when we look at Jesus, the Christ, and what the term "Christ" means:

"Jesus Christ. Our Lord was named Jesus in accordance with the directions of the angel to Joseph (Mt 1:21) and Mary (Lk 1:31). When given to ordinary children, the name expressed, if any thing, the parent's faith in God as the savior of his people. When given to Mary's child, it was designed to express the special office He would fulfill: 'Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins; (Mt 1:21). Christ is from Gr. Christos (anointed), a translation of Aram. Meshiha, Heb. Mashiah (anointed, Messiah). Jesus, therefore was our Lord's personal name and Christ was his title (the Christ); though the latter was early used also as a proper name, as it is by us, either alone or with Jesus." The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944, Westminster Press), p. 301. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Watson puts the history of the word "Christ" this way:

"CHRIST. An appellation synonymous with Messiah. The word Christos signifies anointed, from Chrio, I anoint. Sometimes the word Christ is used singly, by way of autonomasis, to denote a person sent from God, as an anointed prophet, king, or priest. 'Christ,' says Lanctantius, 'is no proper name, but one denoting power; for the Jews used to give this appellation to their kings, calling them Christ, or anointed, by reason of their sacred unction.' But he adds, 'The Heathens, by mistake, call Jesus Christ, Chrestus.' Accordingly, Suetonius, speaking of Claudius, and of his expelling the Jews from Rome, says that 'he banished them because they were continually promoting tumults, under the influence of one Chrestus:' 'Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit,' taking Christ to be a proper name. The names of Messiah and Christ were originally derived from the ceremony of anointing, by which the kings and the high priests of God's people, and sometimes the prophets, 1 Kings xix, 16, were consecrated and admitted to the exercise of their functions; for all these functions were accounted holy among the Israelites. But the most eminent application of the word is to that illustrious personage, typified and predicted from the beginning, who is described by the prophets, under the character of God's Anointed, the Messiah, or the Christ. As to the use of the term in the New Testament, were we to judge by the common version, or even by most versions into modern tongues, we should receive it rather as a proper name, than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of it only as our Lord's surname. To this mistake our translators have contributed, by too seldom prefixing the article [*the] before Christ. The word Christ was first as much an appellative as the word Baptist, and the one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our translators, who would always say 'the Baptist,' have, it should seem, studiously avoided saying 'the Christ.' The article, in such expressions as occur in Acts xvii, 3; xviii, 5, 28, adds considerable light to them, and yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey to every reader who understands his language. It should therefore be, 'Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ,' or the Messiah, &c. Many other similar instances occur. Should it be asked, Is the word Christ never to be understood in the New Testament as a proper name, but always as having a direct reference to the office or dignity? It may be replied, that this word came at length, from the frequency of application to one individual, and only to one, to supply the place of a proper name. It would also very much accelerate this effect, that the name Jesus was common among the Jews at that time, and this rendered an addition necessary for distinguishing the person. To this purpose, Grotius remarks, that in process of time the name Jesus was very much dropped, and Christ, which had never been used before as the proper name of any person, and was, for that reason, a better distinction, was substituted for it; insomuch that, among the Heathens, our Lord came to be more known by the latter than by the former. This use seems to have begun soon after his ascension. During his life, it does not appear that the word was ever used in this manner; nay, the contrary is evident from several passages of the Gospels. The evangelists wrote some years after the period above mentioned; and therefore they adopted the practice common Christians at that time, which was to employ the word as a surname for the sake of distinction. See Matt. I, 1, 18; Mark I, 1." Watson's Bible Dictionary (1833), pp. 232-233.

It is the italicized portions of the above definition which must be committed to the heart. Christ is the anointed high sacred Office of Executor of the Testament of our Father. Good and Lawful Christians, being disciples of Christ, have the same duties, powers, rights, and immunities which appertain to that sacred Office, by right of Inheritance in and through Christ (representation):

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch [*not living and depending on Christ], and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire [*process of the natural man's courts], and they are burned [*they lose and die]." John 15:5-6 [*Insertions added].
"The term [*stock] is used, metaphorically, to denote the original progenitor of a family, or the ancestor from whom the persons in question are all decended; such descendants being called 'branches.' Matter of Samson's Estate, 139 Misc. 490, 249 N.Y.S. 79, 83." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1587.
"Haeres est aut jure proprietatis aut jure representationes --An heir is either by right of property, or right of representation." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est eadem persona cum antecessore --An heir is the same person with his ancestor." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est pars antecessoris --An heir is a part of the ancestor. So said because the ancestor, during his life, bears in his body (in judgment of law) all his heirs. Co. Litt. 22b; Schoonmaker v. Sheely, 3 Hill(N.Y.) 165, 167." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.
"Haeres est nomen collectivum --'Heir' is a collective name or noun." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.

The word haeres is more like executor of modern law:

"HAERES. In Roman Law. The heir, or universal successor in the event of death. The heir is he who actively or passively succeeds to the entire property of the estate-leaver. He is not only the successor to the rights and claims, but also to the estate-leaver's debts, and in relation to his estate is to be regarded as the identical person of the estate-leaver, inasmuch as he represents him in all his active and passive relations to his estate. Mackeld. Rom. Law.
"The institution of the haeres was the essential characteristic of a testament: if this was not done, the instrument was called a codicillus. Mack.C.L., 632, 650.
"It should be remarked that the office, powers, and duties of the haeres, in Roman law, were much more closely assimilated to those of a modern executor than to those of an heir at law. Hence, 'heir' is not at all an accurate translation of 'haeres,' unless it be understood in a special technical sense.
"In Common Law. An heir; he to whom lands, tenements, or hereditaments by the act of God and right of blood to descend, of some estate of inheritance." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 841.

Now, one of the most important doctrines in Law is this:

"No man [*disciple] can serve two masters [*or disciplines]: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mt 6:24[*Insertions added]

We could also say no man can execute lawlessness and Law at the same time. What this means is: either you will serve our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, by executing his instructions or disciplines; or you will serve another master executing his discipline, whatever that discipline might be. The time for you to begin execution is before you are ever taken in vinculis. This is what establishes a record in your favor. Presumptions are very hard to overcome when there is evidence against you. The prince of the world uses presumptions to establish a record against you. All presumptions are rebuttable--the technique is in the nature of "confession and avoidance"; but is technically called "justification and excuse." It is the Law you confess which gives you the justification for doing what it was you are charged with doing. Using justification and excuse by using a foreign Law over which de facto governments lack jurisdiction is the key, because: One, you are not joined to their action, but commence an action in God's court; Two, you have superior Law which vindicates or excuses you from performance, thus raising a political question.

"REBUT. In pleading and evidence. To defeat or take away the effect of something.
"When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to 'rebut it.'" Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1432.
"REBUT AN EQUITY. To defeat an apparent equitable right or claim, by the introduction of evidence showing that, in the particular circumstances, there is no ground for such equity to attach, or that it overridden by a superior or countervailing equity. 2 Whart. Ev. 973." Black's Law Dictionary (4th Ed., 1968), p. 1432.

You must have warrant in God's Law for doing what you did, however!!! The warrant in God's Word gives you the way out, provided you have the faith and the discernment to see it. Note well: There is no warrant in Scripture for profiteering or speculation--commerce. Therefore, you cannot confess the lawfulness of your trust, corporation, partnership, joint-stock company, joint venture, association, or society when it has no lineage of inhertiance from the Tree of Life--Jesus, the Christ.

"WARRANT. 1. A writ or precept from a competent authority [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] in pursuance of law [revealed or testamentary], directing the doing of an act [*or series of acts], and addressed to an officer [*executor] or person competent [*a Good and Lawful Christian] to do the act, and affording him protection from damage, if he does it. People v. Wood, 71 N.Y. 376.
"2. Particularly a writ or precept issued by a magistrate, justice, or other competent authority [*Almighty God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ], addressed to a sheriff, contable, or other officer [*executor], requiring him to arrest the body of a person therein named, to answer, or to be examined, touching some offense which he is charged with having committed. See People v. Baxter, City Ct., 32 N.Y.S.2d 325, 327.
-------------------------
"A 'warrant' differs from a 'bond' in that a bond is a 'negotiable instrument', whereas a warrant is nonnegotiable and is subject at all times to the defenses it would be were in in the hands of the original payee, which is not the case with a negotiable bond. Adams v. McGill, Tex.Civ. App., 146 S.W. 2d 332, 334." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1756. [All Good and Lawful Christians, because they are officers vested by Christ's Testament, have warrant to do the things they do, for their powers are given by the superior Testator, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.]
"JUSTIFICATION. A maintaining or showing a sufficient reason in court why the defendant did what he is called upon to answer, particularly in an action of libel.
"A defense of justification is a defense showing the libel to be true, or in an action of assault showing the violence to have been necessary. See Steph.Pl. 184. A sufficient lawful reason for acting or failing to act. Mercado v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 559, 218 S.W. 491, 492; State v. Rish, 104 S.C. 250, 88 S.E. 531, 534; Townsend v. U.S., 68 App.D.C. 223, 95 F.2d 352, 358.
"Just cause or excuse. State v. Williams, 166 S.C. 63, 164 S.E. 415, 424. Just, lawful excuse for act. Louis Kamm, Inc. v. Flink, 113 N.J.L. 582, 175 A. 62, 67, 99 A.L.R. 1. Reasonable excuse. State v. Mueller, 208 Wis. 543, 243 N.W. 478, 479." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1004. [Emphasis added.]
"JUSTIFIABLE. Defensible; [White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236.] excusable; [State v. Row, 81 Iowa 138, 149, 46 N.W. 872.] warrantable; [White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236.] that which can be shown to be sustained by law; warranted or sanctioned by law. [Black L.D.]
"Phrases. 'Justifiable cause' [U.S. v. Reed, 86 Fed. 308, 311; U.S. v. Coffin, 30 F.Cas.No. 14,824, 1 Sumn. 394; Martilla v. Quincy Mining Co., 221 Mich. 525, 529, 191 N.W. 193; White v. White, 100 A. 235, 236; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 68 W.Va. 15, 69 S.E. 381, 383, Ann.Cas.1912A 889.], 'justifiable conduct' [Dubenstein v. Dubenstein, 171 Ill. 133, 143, 49 N.E. 316.], 'justifiable ends' [U.S. v. Bustos, 13 Philippine 690, 697.], 'justifiable motives' [U.S. v. Bustos, supra.]" 35 C.J. 896.
"JUSTIFICATION. In law generally, a sufficient lawful reason why a party did or did not do the thing charged. [Mercardo v. State, 86 Tex.Cr. 559, 218 S.W. 491, 492.] In the law of torts, facts making the act chargeable legally justifiable. [Cyclopedic L.D. See Ferdon v. Dickens, 161 Ala. 181, 49 S. 888, 894.] In pleading, the allegation of matter of fact by defendant, establishing his legal right to do the act complained of by plaintiff. [Cyclopedic L.D. See Messler v. Fleming, 41 N.J.L. 108,] In practice, the proceeding by which sureties establish their ability to perform the undertaking of the bond or recognizance. [Cyclopedic L.D. See State v. Bateman, 102 N.C. 52, 57, 8 S.E. 882, 11 A.S.R. 708; Centrall v. Sterling Mining Co., 61 Or. 516, 122 P. 42, 43; Dickinson v. Smith, 139 Wis. 1, 120 N.W. 406, 407." 35 C.J. 896.
"JUSTIFY. To afford a justification of or adequate grounds for; to maintain or defend as conformable to law, right, justice, propriety, or duty; to prove or show to be just; to warrant. [Webster Int. D. See Coles County v. Goehring, 209 Ill. 142, 70 N.E. 610, 617. "Willing" and "justified" compared.--Ambergris Min. Co. v. Day, 12 Ida. 108, 85 P. 109, 113.] In practice, to make out, or establish according to law; [Burrill L.D. (a) "Justified by the statement of claim"--Quebec Bank v. Lessard (1917), 1 WestWkly 542, 543. "Justified" and "warranted" synonymous--State v. Rish, 104 S.C. 250, 88 S.E. 531, 534.] particularly to establish the sufficiency of bail. [Burrill L.D. See U.S. v. Hardison, 135 Fed. 419 (the word 'justify,' in the regulations issued by the commissioner of internal revenue requiring sureties on bonds to justify,means the proceeding by which the sureties establish their ability to perform the undertaking of the bond.]" 35 C.J. 896.

This illustrates theory of the technique. Christians, being disciples of Christ, are not found in the codes, rules, and regulations of the prince of this worldl. Taking our example from Christ, we read:

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

The technique is to confess the Law or discipline of Christ, to justify your Lawful act(s) and to avoid the consequences of their purported law. The reasons are very apparent:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Mt 10:32-33.
"Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Lk 12:8.
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all [*earthy] things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts 13:38-39.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Rom 8:28-32.

God's hand is controlling the situation at all times. It is solely by the Grace of God vested in the office of Christ you can do any thing at all. Notice my interpolation. You are not free from the Law of God at any time; but, you are always justified in not performing those things which have men for their author and oppose the righteous Authority of God:

"Naturalism is opposed to all known forms of supernaturalism, not because it rules out a priori what may or may not exist, but because no plausible evidence has been found to warrant belief in the entities and powers to which supernatural status has been attributed. The existence of God, immortality, disembodied spirits, cosmic purpose and design, as these have been customarily interpreted by the great institutional religions, are denited by naturalists for the same generic reasons that they deny the existence of faries, elves, and leprechauns. There are other conceptions of God, to be sure, and provided they are not self-contradictory in meaning, the naturalist is prepared in principle to consider their claims to validity. All he asks is that the conception of be sufficiently definite to make possible specific inferences of the determinate conditions--the how, when, and where of His operation. The trouble with most conceptions of God which differ from conventional ones is that either they are so vague that no man can tell what they mean or else they designate something in experience for which a perfectly suitable term already exists." Sidney Hook, essay titled "Naturalism and Democracy" in Naturalism and the Human Spirit (1945, Columbia University Press), p. 45.

There is no justification except in Christ. You are free from earthy things--those things which have earthy brutes for their author and not God for their Author. Those earthy things are codes, rules, and regulations. The natural man, however, has no access either to the Office or Testament of Christ, and therefore has no standing in Law:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14.

Whenever and wherever you confess the Law or discipline of Christ, you act in a ministerial capacity, and you cannot be minister for two opposing sets of law, which we noted earlier. To act in a ministerial capacity requires knowledge of what a minister does and can do:

"MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that which involves obedience to instructions [*the Testament or Discipline of Christ], but demands no special discretion, judgment, or skill. State Tax Commission of Utah v. Katsis, 90 Utah 406, 62 P.2d 120, 123, 107 A.L.R. 1477; Blalock v. Johnston, 180 S.C. 40, 185 S.E. 51, 54, 105 A.L.R. 1115; First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 So. 204, 207." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed., 1968), p. 1148.

The minister then, is subject to the instructions of Him who sent him and has no discretion in the matter of whether he will obey them or not. Thus the acts of a minister are not "willful" but are carried out under orders of his superior, "in whom there is no sin":

"Thy kingdom come. Thy [*not your own] will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Mt 6:10.
"Ministerial powers. A phrase used in English conveyancing to denote powers given for the good [*Lawful execution of the Testament of Truth], not of the donee himself exclusively [*not a private right or power, but common among Good and Lawful Christians], or of the donee himself necessarily at all, but for the good of several persons [*the Body of Christ--the church], including or not including the donee also. They are so called because the donee of them is as a minister or servant [*a Good and Lawful Christian] in his exercise of them. Brown." Black's Law Dictionary (1957 & 1968), "Power," p. 1333.
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Mt 23:8-12. [Emphasis added.]
"WILLFUL. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary [*which implies discretion.] Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 50, 169 S.W. 611, 513.
"Intractable; having a headstrong disposition to act by the rule of contradiction. Bersch v. Morris & Co., 106 Kan. 800, 189 P. 934, 935, 9 A.L.R. 1374. Obstinate; perverse. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762, 109 S.E. 427, 428; Jones v. State, 7 Ala.App. 180, 62 So. 306, 307.
"Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary. Garrett v. Commonwealth, 215 Ky. 484, 285 S.W. 203, 204; State v. Muzzy, 87 Vt. 267, 88 A. 895, 896; Rosevill Trust Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York, 91 N.J.Law 588, 102 A. 182; State v. Lehman, 131 Minn. 427, 155 N.W. 399, Ann.Cas.1917D, 615.
-------------------------
"A 'willful' act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Lobdell Car Wheel Co. v. Subielski, 125 A. 462, 464, 2 W.W.Harr.(Del.) 462.
"A willful differs from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 38 N.Y.Super.Ct. 317; Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 21 N.M. 330, 154 P. 691, 694. Simple negligence arises merely from heedlessness, and consists simply of facts of nonfeasance, and is therefore incompatible with willfulness, which comprises acts of aggressive wrong. Stauffer v. Schlegel, 74 Ind.App. 431, 129 N.E. 44, 46; and presuppposes a conscious purpose to injure; In re Cunningham, D.C.N.Y., 253 F. 663, 665; Ft. Wayne & Wabash Valley Traction Co. v. Justus, 180 Ind. 464, 115 N.E. 585, 587; Brittain v. Southern Ry. Co., 167 N.C. 642, 83 S.E. 702, 703.
"'Willfulness' implies an act intentionally and designedly; 'wantonness' implies action without regard to the rights of others, a conscious failure to observe care, a conscious invasion of the rights of others, a willful, unrestrained action; and 'recklessness' a disregard of consequences, an indifference whether a wrong or injury is done or not, and an indifference to natural and probable consequences. Jensen v. Denver & R. G. Co., 44 Utah 100, 138 P. 1185, 1188. Se, also, Evans v. Illinois Central R. Co., 289 Mo. 493, 233 S.W. 397, 399; Cover v. Hershey Transit Co., 290 Pa. 551, 139 A. 266; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325, 102 So. 529; Crosman v. Southern Pac. Co., 44 Nev. 286, 194 P. 839.
"Conscious; knowing; done with stubborn purpose, but not with malice. Bundy v. State, 206 N.W. 21, 22, 114 Neb. 121; American Surety Co. of New York v. Sullivan, C.C.A.N.Y., 7 F.2d 605, [*1774] 606; Helme v. Great Western Milling Co., 43 Cal.App. 416, 185 P. 510, 512.
"Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. State v. Vanderveer, 115 Wash. 184, 196 P. 650; State v. Johnson, 194 N.C. 378, 139 S.E. 697, 698; Boyce v. Greeley Square Hotel Co., 228 N.Y. 106, 126 N.E. 647, 649." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), pp. 1773-1774.
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb 4:15.

The same is true of Good and Lawful Christians, because they are "executors" of the Testament of Christ, which is a ministerial office, by the relationship they have in covenant with Him, having his yoke:

"EXECUTOR. A person appointed by a testator to carry out the directions [*discipline] and requests in his will, and to dispose of the property according to his testamentary provisions after his decease. In re Lamb's Estate, 122 Mich. 239, 80 N.W. 1081; In re Sipchen's Estate, 180 Wisc. 504, 193 N.W. 385, 387;
"A person to whom a testator by his will commits the execution, or putting in force, of that instrument and its codicils. Fonbl. 307.

That instrument is The Holy Writ--The Holy Scriptures.

Editor's Note: The Christian Jural Society Press now has available a 90 minute audio tape with 32 page pamphlet on 'In Vinculis' written and presented by John Joseph.

Myths of the Patriot Movement

Part Two

by Randy Lee

(contined from Issue the Ninth)

The so-called Patriot Movement and the religion it practices can be said to have a predictable monthly tithing call to its worshippers and worshippers-to-be. It is, "Come join The Silver Bullet of the Month Club." The echo of its bark seems to bounce off the walls of the carnival temple in which it preaches--those paid commercial ads within various 'patriot' magazines, books, literature, and talk radio.

Taken to exaggerated levels, the huckster's pitch is resonant:

"Come and get it! Yes, it's the all new, only-one-of-its-kind, step-by-step, you-can-beat-'em-at-their-own-game, 'Pro Se Litigation' package,"
"Get it here. Become a 'sovereign sentient human being' with our super special one-size-fits-all eight hundred dollar 'state citizenship' package,"
"Don't miss this one. Let us make you 'safe and secure' with our 'super-duper, guaranteed not to fail,' twelve hundred dollar 'Pure-Common Law-Offshore Trust' package,"
"Come one, come all! Get this just-released, new and improved, Hot! Hot! Hot!, world renowned, teach-'em-a-lesson, get rich weapon of revenge, 'Title 42 Lawsuit' package,'
"Extra, extra, read all about it. Get your land back with our newly released, 'Allodial Title' package,"
"New & Improved!! Get yourself out from underneath the thumb of the I.R.S with our special, time-tested (twenty year prison term) 'Un-Tax' package."

And of course, we can't forget the Recision packages, Right to Travel packages, Comptroller Warrant packages, Commercial Lien packages, Common Law Court packages, Social Security packages, Flag of Peace packages, Civil Death packages, Statute Staple packages, Bill of Particulars packages, Bill of Annulment packages, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

"Come unto me, for I will get you out of your desperate situation, protect you and make you safe and secure (if you can afford it)," is their spiel. They become the gods and gurus of 'law.' The victims cry, "more, more, give us more; just one more Silver Bullet," and these 'law gods' reply, "more, more? yes, we have more, if you have more, more, more money!!!"

And of course, "the more it costs, the 'more powerful' it must be."

Surely, the snake oil salesmen of the 1800's would be proud, and today's T.V. ad exec's would excitedly quip, "it's the triumph of the human spirit at its finest."

The truth of the matter is, there are no Silver Bullets, except in the fictional world of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Ironically, the follies of the 'sovereign' human mind become quite clear when you find out what a 'patriot' really is:

"PATRIOT. Mistakenly (with possessive) as if = upholder, devotee: mid-C 17. Weever, 1631 'A Patriot of Truth.' O.E.D." A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 610.

Self-righteousness = self-destruction. The self-righteousness of man's legalism results in his own self-destruction.

The fact that humanist America has truly come to the chasm of self-destruction becomes more and more evident each day. The 'patriot gods' and their 'disciples' are part of that evidence. These 'sheep' exist because they prefer to look to the creations of man for their safekeeping, rather than their Divine Creator. They either forgot or don't know (or don't want to know) that He said "I will never leave you nor forsake you," and that, "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

The hirelings that concoct the 'silver bullets' are simply the end result of fictions of fallen minds wandering in the dark without Christ and Scripture.

Those who know The Truth, know that only God Almighty is Sovereign, that His Rights vested in Us as Executors of His Testament are Rights superior to anything that the 'gods of government' can offer, or the 'gods of the patriot movement' can claim to offer. They know that real Law comes from The One True God alone and is freely accessible in Scripture.

The Myths and Heresies of The Patriot Movement are the same Myths and Heresies of the ancients--Egypt, Greece, Rome and their Mother of Whores, Babylon-- with a 'new and improved' face of confusion through their love for codes, rules and regulations of man-made 'law.'

How many have thrown their hands up in the air and said, "I give up. I've tried all of the packages and I'm more confused now than when I started." Why is this?

When you put your faith for earthly salvation in the Babylonian creations of the secular commercial world, you reap what they sow -- a harvest of confusion, desolation, and damnation.

"Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel. For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God. Jer 3:23-25

Just as the corrupt traditions of the elders become the introduction of universal confusion, which makes man like the fishes of the sea, so too does the idea that every man can, outside of The Law of God, avenge himself through the hands of 'private persons.' These private persons; these hirelings; these sons of Adam, again say, "Come unto us, for we will be your gods, and you will be our sheep."

The Way, The Truth, and The Life

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine. John 10:7-14 Amen.

'Agitprop' and the New Republic

by John Quade

In the first quarter of the the 20th Century, a term emerged in American theater, which was used to describe the content of a specific type of play. This term was 'agitprop,' and it was derived from the combination of two words, agitation and propaganda. Thus 'agitprop' theater was theater which sought deliberately, to employ agitation and propaganda in order to advance the ideas of those with an unpopular agenda, which, in the case of American theater in the 1920's and 30's, was usually the agenda of the far left, i.e., the neo-Marxist, Communist, or socialist.

The methods of agitprop were very simple. The writer took any 'perception' of social evil in the world about him, removed it from its factual and historical context (proof texting), and created a book, pamphlet, or play around it. The key factors to remember are the ideas of 'perception' and 'proof texting.'

One's 'perception' of the facts cannot be ignored in understanding the idea of agitprop. One's perception is based entirely upon and is controlled by one's presuppositions. The perception of an event and its meaning is controlled entirely by whether one is a Christian or humanist. Thus, a Christian and a humanist may witness the same event and come to entirely different understandings of what the event means. To the one the event is normal and to the other it may be an outrage.

Second, if the event is taken out of its factual and historical context, the meaning of the event is lost. Again, whether or not one is a Christian or humanist makes all the difference in the world as to how the event is interpreted. Thus, one may utter the oft quoted phrase that "money is the root of all evil," which is taken - in part - from the Bible. But this version of the quote is proof-texted, that is, it is lifted out of context which distorts its meaning. The proof-text version of the quote seems to condemn money as the root of all evil. But, if we put the verse back into its proper context, we find that what the Bible actually says is, "The love of money is the root of all evil" [1Timothy 6:10], which says something entirely different about money than the proof-text version of the verse.

Thus, the 'perception' of any event must be carefully considered and one must avoid all tendency to 'proof text' the event, if one wants to know the truth of the matter.

But, the agitprop writer could care less about truth. His only goal was to point out a perceived social injustice. Further, the historical context and real facts of the matter were of no concern to him and may, in fact, get in the way of his agitation and propaganda. Besides, the truth would only confuse the ignorant masses.

Agitprop always has a goal in mind, though it seldom offers any real or viable statement of that goal, in the long-term sense. Its short-term goal is merely to set an agenda, which in the case of its use in American theater, was socialist.

The importance of setting the agenda must not be over-looked, because once the agenda has been set, all further discussion of the agenda takes place on the presuppositions of he who sets it. It is very difficult if not impossible to to alter the terms and conditions of the agenda once it has been popularized, because the public perception' of the agenda is thought to be a true statement of the things.

Thus, if one's agenda is to bring about the legalization of abortion, and one casts the agenda in the form of a woman's right, all real consideration of protecting the baby in the womb is gone. In part this is because the agenda is cast in a form that appeals to the sin nature of man, or in this case the sin nature of woman.

Note how the abortion agenda has been cast in precisely this form. The agenda entirely ignored whether or not a woman really had such a right. It merely asserted in a loud voice that all women had the right to their own bodies and this appealed to the sin nature of women. The entire debate over abortion removed not only the consideration of the baby's right, but the husband's right as well, along with many other issues such as whether or not the state has a compelling interest in protecting the baby in the womb.

Bear in mind, that the so-called woman's right is an issue that could only be raised in the current environment of lawlessness in the arbitrary and capricious nature of a military government engaged in commercial civil rights. In the common law, a woman has no such right and thus, in a lawful environment, the question could never have been raised in the first place.

The more important side of agitprop agenda, is the hidden side of the agenda, for there is always a hidden purpose to agitprop, and it does not even matter whether or not the creator of the agenda knows it or not. Indeed, when the agitprop agenda is proof-texted from history and the real, properly interpreted facts of the case, the agitprop creator lives in a world of unreality in which he cannot see the real consequences of his own ideas. He is, as the Scripture says, 'blinded in his heart.'

Thus, in the case of abortion, the 'public agenda' was to advance a 'woman's right' to abort the baby in the womb. But, as we all know, nothing happens in politics by accident. Modern civil governments only do what serves the compelling interests of government itself.

Earlier we raised the issue of whether or not there was a compelling state interest in protecting the baby in the womb. Obviously, since abortion is 'legalized' the answer to this question is, the State has no compelling interest in protecting the baby in the womb.

But, does this mean that there is no compelling state interest in the abortion issue? Did the Federal power merely legalize abortion because the people demanded it? Was there some other compelling state interest that has not been discussed that is related to the abortion question?

The answer to these questions, in the order in which they were asked is: no; yes; and yes.

By 'no' to the first question we merely wish to point out that a military and commercial State never acts to satisfy the demands of the people unless it serves to protect the further existence of the State.

The compelling state interest was there, but the interest was to protect the interest of the state, not the people.

The 'powers' did not legalize abortion because the people demanded it, for there was never anything more than a loud and vocal agitprop minority of the people who supported abortion, and to this day that is still true. Abortion was legalized because it was necessary for the long-term stability of the United States government!!!

Why? Because the Federal government and its think-tanks recognized that the cost of its social programs was exceeding the ability of the people to pay. A major factor in this equation was the cost in Federal programs to support babies and young people until they reached an age where they could begin to re-pay the Federal power for all the benefits they had been receiving!!!

The costs of Federal milk and school lunch programs, the public schools, social welfare in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Federal aid to college students, and a host of other programs, was rising at a cost that could not be satisfied, even with all the debt spending and taxing the people into poverty. Therefore, something had to be done.

Thus, borrowing from supply and demand economics, the Federal boys reasoned that, if we reduce the demand for Federal programs, the budget costs should level off and perhaps even be reduced to something more manageable. The answer was: allow fewer babies into the system.

But, this did not mean raising the standard of who could apply for these benefits. Agitprop had done its job too well. Now, everyone believed he has a right to these Federal benefits. The only other way to reduce demand for benefits was to reduce the number of demandants, and that meant legalizing abortion!!! This was the real agenda of the agitprop creators, and in this case, many of those agitprop leaders knew the direct connection between the population control and abortion agendas.

But, this agenda would never have flown with the American people if abortion had been justified in this way, for everyone, even the churches, would have equated such an agenda with Hitler and the Holocaust and such an agenda would have been rejected outright.

The agitprop creator always protests that which he either cannot, or will not, fix for himself. If the agitprop is directed towards social change, it is clear that the agenda is to pressure the 'powers' into 'solving' the perceived social injustice which the agitprop creator is protesting.

This aspect of agitprop in which the individual agitprop creator will not dirty his hands, (i.e., taking personal responsibility for feeding the poor, caring for the elderly, or whatever the agenda is) means that the agitprop creator is an elitist. It is always 'someone else's job' to fix the ills of society that agitprop complains of. And, since agitprop invariably has a social agenda, this means action must be taken by the State power, not the individual man or woman.

The power of agitprop is seen when we look at the number of so-called 'not-for-profit' groups and foundations in the country who are on the Federal dole. Each of these has its own agenda and none campaigns to eliminate the Federal dole for that would put them out of business. In a study done nearly fifteen years ago, it was determined that there were 108,000 such foundations on the Federal pay-roll (See the Lichter and Rothman Reports of 1983).

There are many long-term implications or consequences to agitprop, not the least of which is, that the agitprop agenda is always to expand the size and power of the civil government. It does not matter whether agitprop is used to advance abortion, social justice, or environmental causes. The end result is, government gets larger at the expense of the people.

Of course, most of the initial spending to launch the thousands of Federal programs comes from increasing the debt load of the Federal government. But, this has a limit, contrary to what most people believe (including politicians), and eventually, the borrower can no longer dip into the nest of the goose that lays the golden egg. The result is always, with every rise in spending, that the lender demands more and more collateral and greater protection for his money meaning tighter controls on the people, more licenses at higher cost, higher taxes, etc.

It is always the people who pay and suffer under regime's motivated by agitprop, because there is only so much power available in every society. A simple analogy illustrates the point.

If all the power available in a society is derived by a mathematical formula to equal a certain number, and if that power is distributed between the people and the state, then any increase in one side of the equation must mean a decrease in the other side of the equation.

It doesn't matter what the power number is, whether 10, 1,000 or 2,456. Over time the power number may increase or decrease but there is always a certain number held by the people, and the rest is held by the state (to oversimplify the analogy).

Thus, if the total power number is found to equal 50, the state may have 25 of the total and the people have 25. If the state expands it power with new programs to satisfy the people's response to the agitprop agenda. If the expansion requires a power of 5 for example, then the state ends up with a power of 30 and the people are reduced by an equal amount, to 20.

As we have said, this analogy is over-simplified. We have left out of the equation, for example, the power of the corporations, small business, and the Christian church. At one time in the land, the church had more power than the State, but as the people looked more and more to the 'it,' this meant a decline in both the power of the church and the people. It is clear that today's Christian church is not a serious factor in the power equation. The reason is, the churches themselves have long since abandoned the whole counsel of God and His Law, and thus, there is no longer an organized 'voice of truth' to counter the agitprop of modern Humanism.

Now, there is always someone who will say; "But, the power of God in His church is infinite and cannot be numbered!" True, but if the church has compromised its standing and watered down its doctrine, it has rendered itself useless for God's divine purposes and He will seek other ways to manifest His power, but not before He has judged such a worthless church.

The decline of the Christian church's power began when the body of believers and their pastors did not challenge the agenda of the abolitionist's agitprop in the 1840's and thereafter. And, by the word 'church,' we mean the Christian church in both the North, South, East, and West.

The church in the South should have been preaching and teaching that institutional slavery was wrong when slaves were made inheritable from generation to generation. This was a clear violation of God's Law and is punishable by death, especially for slaves who were Christian.

The Northern should have challenged the abolitionists directly, as fomenters of lawlessness, but they did not because the churches in the North and some in the South, had already started incorporating and thus had opted for man's law and not God's Law as the law of their existence.

Since the church would not challenge the agitprop agenda in the North and it would not challenge the sin in Southern slave owners, the entire agitation and propaganda agenda before, during, and since Lincoln's War, has been set by the Humanists, to advance the Humanistic agenda.

The end result was the most bloody and costly war in the nation's history which was fought for a cause set entirely by Humanists. The outcome of Lincoln's War and its long-term consequences is thus a foregone conclusion - tyranny/despotism.

The answer to the tyranny and despotism of agitprop, Lincoln's War, the current military and commercial powers in the Federal, State, County, City governments, is the same as it has always been-- Christ and His Law found in Scripture.

Abatement Update

Part One

by John Joseph

We thank our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for being and showing us the Way for us to walk in; for being, expressing and revealing the Truth in Love to us; for being the Life and showing what it means to live for our Father; and confirming all of the foregoing by paying the ultimate price for all of us who believe on Him Who was sent of and by our Father. We also thank the several King's Men across the land, from the church at Hawaii to the church at Maine and everywhere in between for their steadfastness in the Lord by, "holding fast that which is good" and "having done all" stood fully armored on the Holy Ground of His Righteousness. We also thank their loving and supporting wives and children, for without your support and love for your husbands and fathers the house is divided and cannot stand. Thank you all for maintaining your houses under the Blessed Lordship of Jesus, the Christ. Truly you are a sanctified and peculiar people worthy of the High and Noble calling of "Good and Lawful Christian." Without you and your fellowship the road is very hard and long. We thank God and our Lord, King Jesus, for the privilege of your fellowship and love, and ask that you keep us in your prayers as we do you. We know the battle is the Lord's and that all time, space, and reality is in His mighty hand to command as He sees fit. Who can stay it? or who commands Him Who holds the worlds, and their destinies, in His hands?

The following is a supplement applicable to The Abatement Handbook section of The Book of the Hundreds, third edition only. To further facilitate the implementation of the political standing of Christ and His Law by the Good and Lawful Christian, it is recommended that the following changes be made to the abatements. These changes are not for any editions of the "Book of the Hundreds" earlier than the Third Edition. If you have an earlier edition, it is highly recommended that you obtain the Third Edition. Before you implement these changes or additions in any future abatements, take the time to understand the comments and substantiate them by your own independent research and counsel. We cannot stress the importance of this enough. The paper is not you, and so it is incumbent for you to research the following principles of Law and draw your own conclusions, settling the matter in your heart. Never do any thing without the Counsel of the Holy Spirit and the counsel of others in fellowship with you. The Maxims of Law used in the changes, additions, and alterations follow the text, for your edification.

Note: Comments and bolded notes are not to appear in the abatements. They are solely for your edification. Changes and additions are noted following the boxes.

For the original salutary greeting in Chapter One, substitute the following:

"Comes Now, this Good and Lawful Christian Man, grateful to Almighty God for My Liberty in Christ, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from my Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Matter, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Writ, revealed both in His Testament written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him...."

(Comment: Note carefully what has changed in this salutary greeting. You are not exercising any of your own ministerial powers, but are exercising the ministerial powers appertaining to the high and Sacred Office of Christ, by His Direction, Mandate, and Will evidenced by and in His Testament. Everything you do is solely by His Direction and eliminates, for purposes of Law, a charge of "willfulness" (which implies evil intent) against you. Therefore, you must study Scripture to know and understand what ministerial powers He exercised because if you misuse or abuse His ministerial Powers, you will fail: "Qui alterius jure utitur, eodem jure uti debet --He who uses the right of another ought to use the same right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157. Because you are a Good and Lawful Christian means you do everything in His Name and by His Authority, not of your own purported "authority." The words "Warrant," "Writ," "Mandate," and "Direction" are specific and accord with not doing any thing "willfully." You are under yoke, and because you are under yoke, you are directed by the Driver of that yoke--the Testator of the Testament you execute. You have a Law to execute, and that Law is God's Law--the same Law our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ executed. It is the Lawgiver Who justifies you and none other. When you are justified you are excused from performance to any other form of law. This is very critical, for without this justification you are condemned. It is the Lawgiver Who justifies you--by His Warrant--and not your own works or words on paper. If God, through our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, is not your Lawgiver, you can never be justified, for no Law can justify any one. The high and Sacred Office of Christ is in Law, and so are you if you, and the act you did or failed to do, are in Christ. If not, then you have no standing in Law. In Law, you are in the Garden of Eden protected by the bar of the flaming sword established by God, an ancient landmark (See Deut 27:17; Prov 23:10 and others); outside the Garden of Eden you are without standing in Law, for you have no relationship to the Supreme Lawgiver who alone can justify you, and are at the bar of the Law awaiting judgment, sentence, and execution. )

Add the following in Chapter Two, Secondly:

"Whereas, all Estates originate in and are of Inheritance vested by the Testament of our Sovereign Testator Jesus, the Christ, because by Him all things consist, so that His act establishing the original Estate or state is regarded more in Law for all other estates are derivative from and dependent upon that original Act, quando diversi desiderantur actus ad aliquem statum perficiendum, plus respicit lex actum originalem, for unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso, causa et origo est materia negotii, and His Reason for bringing His Estate into being always governs all within and every part derived from His Estate which He created, ratio legis est anima legis, and any act done against His Reason is not Lawful, nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum, for He is Perfection, and in Him is no corruption, evil, error, or sin; and,

(Comment: Note that this goes back to Genesis 1:1. This is highly critical, for without the original act of creation, there are no other estates, inheritable, corporeal, incorporeal, or otherwise. There is no creation without Law--God's Word is Law. By extension, there is no Inheritance without Law. We also see that "cause and origin" are the substance of everything so that God's Law, His Word, is the substance of all things and rules all things created by and under it. All inferior estates are derivative and dependent upon His original Act. Estates are not just land, but also include chattels, powers, vested rights, and duties under the Law or Testament establishing them. There is no higher Testament or Law than God's Testament, written and revealed.)

"Whereas, in that original Act, there is no provision for a person dead in Law, i.e., a legal entity be it a natural person, corporation or any collection of natural persons, to have any Inheritance or any part in the Estate which is formed by, in, or from the original Act of my Sovereign Testator Jesus, the Christ which, when extended, means that your corporation can have no part, i.e., a lien or shetar in or over, any estate derived from that original Act; and,

(Comment: The person(s) we are referring to here are those who are "sons of Adam," the ones who rebel against God: covenant-breakers, whoremongers and the like. God separated them from the church of His Son when He ordered Adam out of the Garden of Eden. See Gen 3:22-24 noting particularly the reason for the banishment. These shall never have any inheritance in the Estate established by the original Act of Christ. God's Warrants to Good and Lawful Christians are given in Scripture: Eph 5:5 and Rev 21:8. Dead in Law are those dead to God, those Godless entities, who are without (outside the Body of) Christ; "for without Me ye can do nothing" --because no one can do an act without Authority of Law and not suffer for it.)

"Whereas, no Good and Lawful Christian possesses the Title of any part of the Estate of Christ, because the earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, so that no executor can convey what he or she does not possess, nemo dat qui no habet, and where there is no provision or warrant in the Testament of my Sovereign Testator, of which I am one of several joint heirs and appointed co-executors, to Lawfully grant, convey, transfer, derelict, trade, mortgage, pledge, exchange, surrender or otherwise give up to a person dead in Law all or any part therein, nemo potest nisi quod de jure potest, and pacta quae contra leges constitutionesque vel contra bonos mores fiunt nullam vim habere, indubitati juris est; and,

(Comment: In order for any conveyance or pledge to be Lawful, there must be a Warrant or sanction Authority in the Law. Without such sanction in the Law or Testament, there is no such conveyance or pledge. It cannot be presumed either (see next). executors do not have private absolute title in the estate; but do have possession under Warrant of the Testament they execute in the Testator's Name, Who, in Truth, is the one with Title.)

"Whereas, there is no presumption in Law which presumes that any executor, a Good and Lawful Christian, has authority to encumber or waste the estate of his Testator, so that it is incumbent upon those third persons, i.e. your corporation, who make engagements with the Testator's executor to inquire of his authority to encumber or waste said Inheritance of his Testator, scire debes cum quo contrahis; and,

(Comment: This comes mostly from general court cases concerned with the issues of fiduciaries and executors. This is a general principle of Law which the courts at Law and of law use when presented with such issues. This doctrine is followed and explained in a number of sources concerned with an estate's "property"--the laws concerning inheritance find their source in Numbers 27.)

"Whereas, I can make no engagements Lawful which prejudice either my Testator, His Testament, or His Estate of Inheritance therein, which bind either Him or my Self to any obligations with natural persons dead in Law; and,

(Comment: This is a general principle of Law from the law of slaves, fiduciaries, and executors. If you are under the yoke, you can make no ratifications which affect either the yoke, the Driver of the yoke, or the direction the Driver drives the yoke. But you must remember that if this statement is not true, God will not honor it.)

"Whereas all engagements founded on unlawful consideration are void, and your purported consideration is unlawful, which is error in Law, because it is founded in the blood of the six hundred thousand Christian Saints shed during Lincoln's War against the several consociated Christian states in union, because the principle part of everything is the beginning or origin, unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso; cause and origin is the substance of the thing, i.e., your purported consideration, causa et origo est materia negotii; and, to know something is to know its cause and reason, scire proprie est rem ratione et per causam cognoscere, so that no contract which is fruit of the poisoned tree of crime is valid or of any force or effect in Law, contractus ex turpi causa, vel contra bonos mores nullus est and pacta quae contra leges constitutionesque vel contra bonos mores fiunt nullam vim habere, indubitati juris est and crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat; and,

(Comment: This refers errors in Law to their origin, and the reason is that if you refer errors in Law to their origin, you are refuting them: "Errores ad sua principia referre, est refellere --To refer errors to their origin is to refute them." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2133. Therefore, to refer their purported consideration (it is error in Law to give fiction to compel performance of substance--this practice began with Lincoln's War) to its real origin, not just when brought into being; but to the point in time when the commercial power established itself to license the lending corporation, for example, you then have solid ground in God's Law to refute them and stand on the Holy Ground of His Warrant. Law without Truth is not Law; but vain imagination or illusion of law. This then refers to the following maxim of Law "Ex nihilo nihil fit --From nothing nothing comes." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2133. So that because the illusion has no truth, neither is it law. And without Law, consideration cannot exist--note Genesis 1:1. Had Elohim never spoken the Law, the substance of the creation would never have been brought into being.)

"Whereas, he who committeth iniquity, or partakes of the benefit of iniquity, shall not have equity, and because Lincoln's War is founded in crimes against the several Christian states in union then crimen omnia ex se nata vitiat and, nemo allegans suam turpitudinem audien dus est; and,"

Further 'Updates and Comments' and supporting 'Maxims of Law' will be continued in Issue the Twenty-fourth.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Repentance

Repentance. In the Greek, metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah), metanoeo (met-an-o-eh'-o), repent; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally, feel compunction): from meta (met-ah'), amid; and noeo (no-eh'-o) or noieo (noy-eh'-o), to exercise the mind (observe), i.e. (figuratively) to comprehend, heed: consider, perceive, think, understand. (Subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another's] decision). Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary.

"By personal repentance and reformation, we destroy the accursed thing in our own hearts, and, unless we do this, we must never expect the favour of the blessed God. Let all men know that it is nothing but sin that separates between them and God, and, if it be not sincerely repented of and forsaken, it will separate eternally.

National repentance and reformation bring national plenty, peace, and prosperity. It is promised, "The Lord will make thee plenteous," (Deut. 30:9) in the fruit of thy cattle and land, for good. Many have plenty for hurt; the prosperity of fools destroys them. Then it is for good when with it God gives us grace to use it for His glory." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible.

"The 'Will Not'"

"God's wish is to bless all men; but all men do not choose to be blessed. And this is the difficulty. Jesus says to those whom He would bless, 'Ye will not come unto Me that ye may have life.' There was a 'will not' on the part of those who heard Him. Here is where the road is lost that leads to heaven. This is the voice that turns men from the track, and sends them wandering into forbidden paths. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and said, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not.' Thus does the Saviour long to bless and save the perishing souls of men, and gather them to His sheltering fold to give them eternal rest. But all God's divine love can avail nothing, so long as the human will is unsubdued and contrary to the divine will. God cannot save us without repentance on our part. God is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' True repentance will save us, but nothing else can. Jesus can die for us, but He cannot repent for us." -- Rev. W. O. Cushing, Gospel Herald, Nov. 25, 1865, in Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 185-187.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Tennent

When Mr. Whitfield was last in America, Mr. Tennent made him a visit, as he was passing through New jersey; and one day dined with other ministers at a gentleman's house. After dinner, Mr. Whitfield adverted to the difficulties attending the gospel ministry; lamented that all their zeal availed but little; said that he was weary of the burdens of the day; declared the great consolation that in a short time his work would be done, when he should depart and be with Christ; he then appealed to the ministers if it was not their great comfort that they should go to rest. They generally assented, except Mr. Tennent who sat next to Mr. Whitfield in silence, and by his countenance discovered but little pleasure in the conversation--on which Mr. Whitfield tapping him on the knee, said,

"Well, brother Tennent, you are the oldest man among us, do you not rejoice to think that your time is so near at hand, when you shall be called home?"

Mr. Tennent bluntly answered, "I have no wish about it."

Mr. Whitfield pressed him again; Mr. Tennent again answered, "No, sir, it is no pleasure to me at all; and if you knew your duty, it would be none to you. I have nothing to do with death, my business is to live as long as I can--as well as I can--and serve my Master as faithfully as I can, until He shall think proper to bring me home."

Mr. Whitfield still urged for an explicit answer to his question, in case the time of death were left to his own choice.

Mr. Tennent replied, "I have no choice about it; I am God's servant, and have engaged to do His business as long as He pleases to continue me therein. But know, brother, let me ask you a question. What do you think I would say, if I was to send my man into the field to plough; and if at noon I should go to the field and find him lounging under a tree, and complaining, "Master, the sun is very hot, and the ploughing hard, I am weary of the work you have appointed me, and am overdone with the heat and burden of the day. Do, master, let me return home, and be discharged from this hard service." What would I say? Why, "that he was a lazy fellow, that it was his business to do the work that I had appointed him, until I should think fit to call him home."

Issue the Twenty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The 'Tax Exempt' Church...

Fictions of law, Part One...

'Good' and Lawful Christian...

In Whose Name?...

Abatement Update, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The 'Tax Exempt' 501(c) 3 Church

Is it really 'exempt'?

by John Quade

As we have often said in The News, it's all in the words, and the presuppositions behind them. No where is this more important than when we come to consider the lawfulness of the 501(c)3 Church organizations.

Can any of us really presume to understand the words we use when discussing this topic? Obviously not, since the use of any word and its meaning is determined by whose presuppositions control the meaning of the particular word. Clearly, the meaning of a word in the mind of an epistemologically self-conscious Christian, is always radically different than the meaning of the same word in the mind of the Humanist.

But, let us presume, for a minute, that we have gone to great lengths to define the meaning of a word, especially one used in Law, and we have piled up the citations from all the authorities going back several hundred or even thousands of years, and we are as near as possible to being absolutely certain that we know what the word means. Does this mean that someone else will accept the meaning of the word, even if, ostensibly, both people are coming from the same set of presuppositions?

For example, if two Christians are engaging in study, research, and discussion concerning the meaning of a word, and both use the same sources and both come to an interim decision as to what the word means. Does this mean that they agree? No, not hardly.

Why? Because one of the Christians may reject the word's clear meaning because of the implications the meaning carries with it. In simple terms, all ideas have consequences. When dealing with words and their meaning, and one consistently applies a word's meaning to a given task, certain consequences will follow quite logically.

But, there is a fly in the ointment here. And, it has to do with implied meanings that lead to consequences that one might not like to deal with.

He may see these implications immediately and he may not. He may get into the use of the word's meaning and get down the road a'ways and all of sudden, the hidden meaning of the word or idea that he is working on, begins to dawn on him and he begins to dig in his heels and resist the logical consequences of the word's meaning. In this case, the consequences will contradict the word's meaning and he will probably end up an intellectual mess.

Funny thing about words. As it turns out, all meaning is religious. But, most men fail to see this. Thus, they get down the road a'ways and it begins to dawn on them that they are on a road they do not want to be on and this raises a major problem for them. How does the man avoid the real consequences of his word's or idea's meaning? Its nearly impossible for most of us, because we do not want to believe that we have misunderstood the world about us.

Thus, when we come to discuss whether or not one should be involved in a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, the meaning of words are always charged and the meaning of words and their implications become very important because, if one is a Christian, one does not want to do that which is contrary to the Will of God.

The problem for the King's Men is, when we discuss whether or not a church should get involved in a 501(c)3 corporation or not, we have already done the research, and therefore oppose a Christian's involvement in such corporations.

But, it is next to impossible to get anyone in such a Church to listen to the real facts in the case because the implications of the words are such that they would mean a major turn-about in one's thinking if the 501(c)3 member takes the facts seriously.

In other words, someone who is a member of a 501(c)3 Church corporation is already pre-disposed to believe that there is nothing wrong with his being a member of such a Church. Even trying to get a fair hearing from such a man or woman is like trying to pull hens teeth. The evidence from legal history no matter how broad or how specific, and regardless of the quantity, is not enough to overcome the built-in bias in favor of the 501(c)3 corporation!!!

We have shown time and again that the existing law that dominates the current governments at every level is military and commercial, not lawful, not constitutional, and certainly not Biblical. But, for a man to believe the evidence in the case is nearly as large a task as trying to get him to believe that being a member of a 501(c)3 Church is contrary to the Law of God!!!

Thus, for example, when the debates on Senate Bill 557 (the so-called Civil Rights Restoration Act) took place back in 1988, Sen. Kennedy and others in his camp consistently referred to "religious or church organizations," whereas opponents spoke of defending "religious freedom" and "rights" of the Church.

Now, the whole debate over this question never turned on precisely what the words meant. Indeed, one must say that the entire hullabaloo over this Bill was one of words, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing!

Obviously, both sides were arguing at cross-presuppositions. Senator Kennedy was using the only term he could concerning the tax exempt status of 501(c)3 churches. His opponents kept using words that were apparently designed to remind everyone of Constitutional rights, which, as we have pointed out so often, are non-existent except in the sense of all rights from the Federal government being the privileged Civil Rights brand.

In simple terms, Senator Kennedy's argument was technically correct, while his opponents argument was based on the belief in Constitutional rights in the classical sense of those rights.

The truth of the matter is, a 501(c)3 church has no rights in the classical sense of 'rights' guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Constitution, because, since Lincoln's War, the controlling foundation for all so-called 'rights' has been the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, all they have are 'civil rights' which can be given or taken away at the will of the Courts, the President, or Congress in the face of any 'compelling public need,' or in direct military jargon, 'necessity.'

But, the point is, Kennedy used his words to argue 'as if' a Constitution of some kind existed for 'corporate protection,' and his opponents argued 'as if' there were a real Constitution that protected non-existent 'church rights.' Neither side actually knew what the other side meant by the words they used. There was no communication, to be blunt about it, but only Kennedy knew the real truth, i.e., that the nation is under a permanent state of national emergency amounting to a state of martial law over all 'residents' of all states and territories, leaving The Constitution 'flying in the breeze.'.

The term "organizations" is one of the keys to understanding governmental meddling in the affairs of the church. Nevertheless, a "religious or church organization" is a corporation that functions in a legal capacity, which is, 'doing business as a Church.' The IRS is fully aware of this, and their publications make it clear. Nowhere do they define "tax exempt churches" - they always refer to religious or church "organizations." Surely Cong- ress, in writing the tax law, understands this distinction as well!

Well, maybe they do or maybe they don't. Most of the codes are in fact written for the Congress under a contract they have with WestLaw of Minneapolis, Minnesota. There are perhaps, many Congressmen that know the score, and it is just as likely that there are many who do not know, at least not fully.

A church that voluntarily initiates an application to the state for corporate status expects "limited liability" and "tax exemption." It in turn owes to the state its right to exist and prosper. It is obvious that its legal status and that of its 'flock' has been drastically altered from what it was before incorporation. Incorporated Churches are artificial entities, fictions in law, which may have such "privileges and immunities (limited liabilities)" as are granted by the state.

The U.S. Supreme Court well understands the artificial status of corporations:

"A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises ... Its powers are limited by law ... It's rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." Wilson v. U.S., 221 US 382.
"Corporations are not citizens ... The term citizen ... applies only to natural persons ... not to artificial persons created by the legislature ..." Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall 168, 177. (See also, Opinion Field, 16 Wall 36, 99).
"Whenever a corporation makes a contract it is the contract of the legal entity ... The only rights it can claim are the rights which are given to it in that character, and not the rights which belong to its members as citizens of a state." Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet 586.

According to IRS Publication 557, the instruction manual for 501(c)3 organizations, in order to be an "organization" in the legal sense, it is necessary to incorporate.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. defines "organization" as:

"A corporation or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity."

Notice that all of the entities in this definition are governmentally franchised, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Commercial Code. The definition shows that a corporation (even if it functions as a church) is recognized as commercial and public; an incorporated Church is legally interpreted as a commercial, public entity. Didn't Christ say that His house was not to be a house of merchandise? See John 2:16.

Most States will not 'permit' exempt status until a church applies for and obtains an IRS 501(c)(3) status ruling. This means, of course, that the Church willingly incorporates and submits itself to State and Federal jurisdiction.

IRS Publication 557 Sec. 508(c) provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax-deductible contributions.

The reason is, before the church incorporates as a 501(c)(3) organization, it has standing in a superior form of Law than the I.R.S.. It's only after incorporation that the Church, by incorporating, lowers itself to the same standing as the I.R.S. and thus becomes fully exposed to regulation and control.

This would raise many ethical questions: Why are the churches of today almost always found to be incorporated? Why would the churches elect to place themselves under such jurisdiction; to find regulation under governmental franchise preferable to their own Divine Law?

Are they not in fact serving two masters?

At any rate, we have seen how important the words are and who defines them on what presuppositions. These few examples show clearly that meaning is all important to knowing.

Before closing this short essay, take notice of one more word in the above. We refer to "exempt." The I.R.S. code uses this word a good deal, and allegedly, at least in the minds of churchmen if not in the I.R.S.'s mind, this appears to mean that the church cannot be taxed.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as is evidenced by the Jimmy Swaggart case of a couple years ago, in which, he was required to pay taxes on some transactions that his 'organization' was conducting.

But, the important point about the word 'exempt' is, what are its implications? Clearly, the I.R.S. and the Federal and State governments presume that all the land and property of the 501(c)3 Church potentially belong to the government and only some activities are "exempt" from taxation.

In other words, the word 'exempt' means that all the property of that Church belongs to the State (because its a corporation) but it has a special status that exempts is from paying taxes, unless it steps into a taxable arena.

Think of the gall of the Federal government and its lackey, the I.R.S. It all belongs to them, not God. And, out of the "graciousness of the governments heart," it will exempt certain property held by certain groups, while still retaining the right to tax and seize anytime it wants to.

Do any of these words have any meaning at all for the Reader???

Fictions of law-

Persons: Natural and Juristic

Part One

by Randy Lee

This will begin a monthly series on 'fictions of law,' those fictions being the humanist creations of the current Roman civil law system which pervades America. All Good and Lawful Christians must learn to identify these non-substantial pagan 'creations,' in order to better exercise our 'Right of Avoidance.' Without this understanding and avoidance, the body of believers will not be capable of occupying the High and Sacred Office in which Christ has called us to, but instead will continue to stumble down the road to Babylon.

Before we examine what 'natural and juristic persons' are, we will first take a look at the basic meaning, within the world system, of 'law,' 'fiction of law,' 'legal fiction,' and supplemental words such as 'person,' and 'equity.'

Law

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914):

"Law. The aggregate of rules set by men as politically superior or sovereign, to men as politically subject. p.1876. Aust. Jur., Campbell's ed. 86.

From Webster's 1969 Dictionary:

"Law is the general term signifying a rule laid down or established, whether by custom or as the expression of the will of a person or power able to enforce its demands.
An act, enactment, or statute is a specific law enacted by the lawmaking body of a state, while an ordinance is usually a municipal regulation. These are law only if they do not conflict with the organic law or constitution. Injunction is specifically applied to an order of a court of equity. A formula is a conventional form or a set rule. All such rules having to do with a particular sphere of human activity; as, business law. The branch of knowledge dealing with such rules; jurisprudence.
"Civil law: (a) the Roman law, especially the part that applied to Roman citizenship; (b) the body of law having to do with private rights: it developed from Roman law.
"Moral law: (a) that system of rules of human [*non-Christian/secular] action which has its origin in a general sense of the members of any community of what is right and wrong, and which derives its authority from the general disapprobation of acts contrary to its principles; (b) the decalogue & moral maxims of the Mosaic law [*God's Law].
"Municipal law: a system of rules of human [*secular] action established by the governmental power of a state.
"Statute law: law established by a legislative body. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), page 1028. [*Insertions added.]
Human laws. "Laws which have man for their author, as distinguished from divine laws, which have God for their author." Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519
"Civil Law. 'Civil Law,' 'Roman Law,' and 'Roman Civil Law' are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 312.

Note above that there is a difference between law and Law, i.e., man's (human/pagan) 'law' as distinguished from God's Law. The organic law (or Law) which one recognizes and adheres to is all important. For, when man's law conflicts with God's organic Law, it is no law at all. As Sir William Blackstone stated, "Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all."

Fiction of Law and Legal Fiction

For a comparative word study on fiction, fabrication, and falsehood, see Page nine at 'Etymologicum Anglicanum.'

FICTION OF LAW. "Something known to be false is assumed to be true." Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 130 N.J.Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914):

"Fictions are to be distinguished on the one hand from presumptions of law, and on the other hand from estoppels. A presumption is a rule of law prescribed for the purpose of getting at a certain conclusion, though arbitrary, where the subject is intrinsically liable to doubt from the remoteness, discrepancy, or actual defect of proofs.
"This distinction is thus expressed by a Scotch writer: A fictio juris differs from a presumption. Things are presumed which are likely to be true; but a fiction of law assumes for truth what is either false, or at least is as probably false as true. Fictions of law must in all their effects be always limited to the special purpose of equity for which they were introduced. Ersk. Prin. 531.
"The familiar fictions of the civil law and of the earlier common law were very numerous: but the more useful of them have either been superseded by authorized changes in the law or have gradually grown as it were into distinct principles, forming exceptions or modifications of those principles to evade which they were at first contrived. As there is no just reason for resorting to indirection to do that which might be done directly, fictions are rapidly disappearing before the increasing harmony of our jurisprudence. See 4 Benth. Ev. 300; 2 Pothier, Obl., Evans' Ed. 43. But they have doubtless been of great utility in conducing to the gradual amelioration of the law; and, in this view, fiction, equity, and legislation have been named together as the three instrumentalities in the improvement of the law. They have been employed historically in the order here given. Sometimes two of them will be seen operating together, and there are legal systems which have escaped the influence of one or the other of them. But there is no instance in which the order of their appearance has been changed or inverted. Maine, Anc. Law 24.
"Theoretical writers have classified fictions as of five sorts: abeyance, when the fee of land is supposed to exist for a time without any particular owner during an outstanding freehold estate; 2 Bla. Com. 107; 1 Cruise, Dig. 67; 1 Com. Dig. 175; 1 Viner, Abr. 104; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold, and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that, because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, or administrator stand by representation in place of the deceased.
"Again they have been classified as of three kinds: positive, when a fact which does not exist is assumed; negative, when a fact which does exist is ignored; and fictions by relation, when the act of one person is taken as if it were the act of a different person; when an act at one time or place is treated as if performed at a different time or place; and when an act in relation to a certain thing is treated as if it were done in relation to another thing which the former represents; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1213-1214.

-------------------------

"Fictio in the old Roman law was properly a term of pleading and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse; as that the plaintiff was a Roman citizen, when in truth he was a foreigner. The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction; Maine, Anc. Law 25.
"Fictions (of law) are particularly congenial to the infancy of society [*Lincoln's new nation]. They satisfy the desire for improvement [*subver- sion], while they do not offend the disrelish for change [*modernism]. Thus, they become invaluable expedients [*devices] for overcoming the rigidity of law [God's Word]." A Dictionary of Law (1893), by William C. Anderson, page 458 [*Insertions added].
"Legal fiction. 1. In pleadings and other legal writings, a standardized false statement that is not permitted to be exposed, and so serves as a mechanical device to make the law apply where otherwise it would not. E.g., that a corporation is a person, though no one can see it, a legal fiction so standardized that it is often regarded not as a fiction but as a redefinition of person. 3. A standardized rationalization for a judicial conclusion. E.g., the conclusion that regulation is justified because a business is affected with a public interest. Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, U.C.L.A.).

After making a close study of the above, you find that 'fictions of law' are, first; created to establish man's heathen law, and second; for purposes of acquiring jurisdiction by a strange and foreign commercial State that avoids truth, "for the sake of justice" of course, and third; that a 'fiction of law' is now called a 'legal fiction' which is still a device (artifice) to acquire jurisdiction within a commercial venue 'for the public's sake.' The following maxims of law make it clear that one who partakes of the fictions of man's equity, and not of Law and Truth, is in the wrong place:

"Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions --Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas --Law creates a fiction where equity exists."
"Fictio juris non est ubi vertias -- Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist."
"Fictio cedit veritati, fictio juris non est ubi veritas --Fiction yields to truth, where the truth appears, there can be no fiction of law."
"Fictio est contra veritatem, sed pro veritate habetur --Fiction is against the truth, but it is to be esteemed truth."
"Fictio legis neminem laedit --A fiction of law injures no one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxims," p. 2134.
"Fictio legis inique operatur alicui damnum vel injuriam --Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or injury to any one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143.

In summary, 'fictions of law' and 'legal fictions' are those contrivances and artifices which are created by the ungodly bankrupt State to acquire jurisdiction that it would not otherwise have. As stated above, these 'creations' are "distinct principles, forming exceptions or modifications of those principles to evade which they were at first contrived," "limited to the special purpose of equity for which they were introduced," "great utility in conducing to the gradual amelioration of the law," "man's 'law' always begins with fictions, paving the way for equity and legislation," and most importantly in the fictional law world of the ungodly bankrupt looking for revenue, that "the act of one person is taken as if it were the act of a different person."

As we will see later, this last class is where we find the fictional world of natural and juristic persons.

Person

From Mellinkoff's 1992 Dictionary of American Legal Usage:

"person. An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings. Often used without definition, as in the U.S. Constitution (Arts. I, II, III, IV; Amends. IV, V, XII, XIV, XXII). Defined, and redefined, in an endless succession of special purpose statutes, with no assurance to the profession that this is the person you thought you were talking about.
1. A human being--without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in [*man's Roman Imperial] law....with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person (sense 3).
3. an artificial person: an abstraction of convenience regarded by the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who create or own it. The classic example of this person is the corporation, a being distinct from its shareholders, [*etc].
4. A legal entity, often described as a person, is itself an expression without uniform meaning: frequently, a synonym of artificial person.
5. A catchall person, avoiding repetition, clarity, and precision, according to the needs of the legal writer...E.g., 'Person means an individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal entity' (Uniform Probate Code, 1201(29)). Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles). [*Insertions added].

Covering the above, full circle, we find:

person

2. a human being, an individual, and a natural person (all meaning the same type of person, a heathen (see 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being' in Issue the Sixth) are the central figures in man's 'law.'

3. a legal entity is frequently (arbitrarily) a synonym of artificial person.

4. an individual, a corporation, and an organization are legal entities (which are frequently artificial persons).

Therefore, individuals (human beings and natural persons), can arbitrarily be considered artificial persons.

The above correlates to the following maxim of law:

"Jus quo universitates utuntur est idem quod habent privati --The law which governs corporations is the same as that which governs individuals." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141.

Equity

"EQUITY. A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of, "law," properly so-called; the object of which is to render the administration of justice more complete, by affording relief where the courts of law are incompetent to give it, or to give it with effect, or by exercising certain [*commercial] branches of jurisdiction independently of them. This is equity in its proper sense; an elaborate system of rules and process, administered in many cases by distinct tribunals, (termed 'courts of chancery,') and with exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects [*commerce]. It is 'still distinguished by its original and animating principle that no [*commercial] right should be without a remedy,' and its doctrines are founded upon the same basis of natural justice; but its action has become systematized, deprived of any loose and arbitrary character which might have belonged to it, and be carefully regulated by fixed rules and precedents [*the lex mercatoria] as the law itself.
"Equity, in its technical sense, contradistinguished from natural and universal [*God's] equity or justice, may well be described as a 'portion of justice' or natural equity, not embodied in legislative enactments, or in the rules of common law, yet modified by a due regard thereto and to the complex relations and conveniences of an artificial state of society, and administered in regard to cases where the particular rights [*commercial rights], in respect of which relief is sought come within some general class of rights enforced at law, or may be enforced without detriment or inconvenience to the community; but where, as to such particular rights [*commercial rights], the ordinary courts cannot, or originally did not, clearly afford relief." Rob.Eq.
"Equity is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction [*commercial], differing in its origin, theory, and methods from the common law." Laird v. Union Traction Co., 208 Pa. 574, 57 A. 987." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 634. [*Emphasis and Insertions added].

What 'equity' comes down to is, 'a jurisdiction in which one can seek a commercial remedy in a commercial court (Staple Court).' With Mercury (a Greek myth) being the god of commerce, the current bankrupt commercial State can only deal within "an artificial state of society," along with its 'creations,' or 'fictions of law.' Those fictions include: fictional 'persons,' unsigned and unsealed court warrants, unsigned and unsealed computer generated court dockets and IRS assessments, fiat Federal Reserve Notes, bank notes and checks, debased coin, credit cards, etc. The reason behind this, as always, comes down to a maxim of law:

"Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus --He who is placed out of the law is civilly dead. A bankrupt is, as it were, civilly dead. International Bank v. Sherman, 101 U.S. 406, 25 L.Ed. 866." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 697.

A civilly dead entity, such as the bankrupt United States Government (see 'Admissions and Confessions' in Issue the Sixteenth) and its politically conquered State governments, are therefore lawless, without True power and authority, and can only enforce its 'laws' with a gun barrel.

In 1941, Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School, made this quite clear:

"Where history had been taken to be a record of the unfolding of human experience of the idea of liberty, Marx asserted the unfolding or realizing of an economic idea--the idea of satisfying human wants. For some three decades this interpretation remained unnoticed. It was taken up in 1889, got much vogue in continental Europe in the last decade of the century and came to the United States at the beginning of the present century, where it has had increasing vogue. Out of it has grown what is called 'economic determinism,' a doctrine that all the phenomena of law and government are necessarily and inexorably determined by purely economic causes; that every act of legislation and every exercise of the judicial function is inevitably in the nature of things dictated and shaped by the self-interest of the dominant social and economic class in a society which, by a like necessity, will be class organized until the ultimate doing away with private property. The legal order is a regime of force, the force of a politically organized society, applied at the instance of a socially and economically dominant class upon those whom that class is able to constrain. Thus, law is what ever is done officially in the way of imposing the force of such a society upon those subject thereto. The motivation of imposing of that force is purely economic [*commercial]. Precepts and principles and doctrines and ideals are illusion or superstition or wishful thinking. They are used to cover up results reached independently on a purely economic basis." 'Administrative Law,' by Roscoe Pound (1941), pp. 116-118.

True equity is God's equity. God requires man to follow His Law, thereby bringing True equity into its proper sphere. But when the earthly man took it upon himself to redefine equity, he perverted it. From early times, that perversion continues as a constant and exerted effort to suit the interests of the commercial Church and State. As the Word of God shows, there is nothing new under the sun:

"Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us." Micah 3:9-11

"But with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." Isa 11:4
"Before the LORD; for He cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall He judge the world, and the people with equity." Ps 98:9

And for those who contrive, enforce, and partake of the fictions of law and the iniquity thereof, God will have equity:

"Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace. Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men. We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart, of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." Isa 59:1-14

And for those who seek The Way, The Truth, and The Life; who put on the helmet of salvation, and partake of the mind of Christ, they too will receive God's equity:

"My son, if thou wilt receive My words, and hide My commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God. For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of His mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: He is a buckler to them that walk uprightly. He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of His saints. Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul; Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee: To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things; Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness; Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked; Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:" Prov 2:1-15

Persons - Natural and Juristic

From Smith's Elementary Law:

"39. Persons, in law, are entities [*artificial persons] having capacity to own or be bound by legal rights.
"In General. The capacity to be the subject or owner of a legal right is the ability to control or influence the acts of others with the aid of the state, whereas the capacity to be bound by legal rights is the ability to act so as to subject oneself to the correlative conditions imposed by the legal rights of others. Any entity capable of having legal rights and acting so as to assume legal duties or incur legal liabilities has the status of a legal person, and possesses legal personality.
"Natural and Juristic Persons
"Legal personality is conferred by the [*Roman imperial] law upon two classes of persons, natural and juristic. The former is composed of human beings; the latter, of the state, municipalities, and private corporations. And, although the legal personality of a juristic person may be limited in certain particulars by reason of the nature of such a person, to the extent that it is conferred the legal personality of a juristic person is as effective as that of a natural person. On the other hand, not all natural persons have complete legal personalities and may thus be distinguished by their 'normal' and 'abnormal' legal personalities. For example, a natural person may be said to have a 'normal' legal personality when he has the capacity to enforce [*civil] rights in court, assume legal duties [*prescribed by code, rule or regulation], and incur civil and criminal liabilities; whereas such a person has an 'abnormal' legal personality when he does not have all of these capacities. Such abnormality, or an incapacity precluding a natural person from having complete legal personality, may be the consequence of any of the following conditions: (1) infancy; (2) marriage; (3) alienage; (4) mental infirmity; or, (5) conviction of a crime. Smith, Elementary Law (1939), pp. 112-113. [*Insertions and emphasis added. The terms "legal," "person" and "owner" are Roman law terms.]

The important word above is 'alienage.' To avoid the fiction known as 'legal personality' of a natural person (same as the natural man, see II Cor. 2:14), the Christian must remain within the forum state of Christendom, under Jesus, the Christ; and not partake of 'the unclean thing.'

"A juristic person is domestic in the [*forum] state by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 3, 7. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

The above also applies to 'natural persons.' Therefore, if you take on the legal personality of a natural person or are legally associated (employment or membership) with a juristic person, you can never raise the political argument concerning your Christian standing.

"Private law recognizes the following classes of juristic persons:
1. The state, or the governing social entity, in its private legal relations. In this respect the dominant entity does not authoritively represent its interests by virtue of its attribute of sovereignty. Its activity here is the same as that of any free Citizen in the state in the satisfaction of private economic necessities [*commerce]. In this activity a state is called the fiscus, or treasury, in contradistinction to the activity in which the state represents the public interests of the community by sovereign law in the governing sense (res publica).
"2. Public communities within the state, which represent public interests; thus, municipalities, parishes, towns, provinces, and similar communities.
"3. Aggregates of persons, such as associations (corporations) arising from joint concurrence or agreement, which have legal interests, in that the law gives them a legal position. According to the conditions of the legal recognition of their juristic personality such corporations (collegia, corpora) are: guilds and industrial fraternities, and those privileged aggregates of persons which are under state supervision (collegia sodalica); for example, the Roman collegia funeraticia, and modern associations for accident, age and health insurance. These associations under recognition have social objects as opposed to objects of the state or of individuals [*eleemosynaries].
"4. Associations for profit (societates quaestuariae), which the law specially invests with the capacity for having [*commercial] rights; thus, share companies, registered associations, and mining companies, in the modern law.
"5. [*501(c)3] Churches, churchly associations and institutions.
"6. Foundations, that is, complexes of property which are recognized by the law as holders of [*commercial] rights for the accomplishment of certain limited objects [*limited liability] piae causae, etc." Gareis' Science of Law, 15. [*Insertions added].

The preceding is a very limited coverage of a vast and sometimes complicated subject. To cut through and avoid all of the hills and valleys of humanist reason, and the fictions created thereby, one simply needs to hear and understand the Words of Our Lord and Saviour for The Truth:

"And He said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52
"Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12:1-3
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Jn 8:31-32

(but those who don't believe on Me )

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

(More 'fictions of law' within A. Lincoln's Temple in Issue the Twenty-sixth)

'Good' and Lawful Christian

by John Joseph

We've had many enquiries recently, and in the past, concerning the phrase and status of "Good and Lawful Christian" which appears in the Abatements and much of the writing of The King's Men. Most of the questions concern the word 'Good.' Many have gone so far as to state that the term should not be used because Scripture says, "call no man good." There is no such verse or phrase!!

A little basic "hermeneutics" used by the people enquiring would have eliminated the typical proof-texting above, which is so well taught by the 501(c)3 commercial Churches and Church T.V. And, of course, if one uses the 'new and improved' commercially copyrighted versions such as the NIV (New Idiots Version), the RSV (Revised Stupid Version) or other modern blasphemous ilk, you're lost before you get started. The King James Bible and Geneva Bible are the only Holy Writs which have standing in Law, due to the ancient document rule!!

The verses quoted for the misconception, "call no man good," springs from Matthew 19:16-17 (see also Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19):

"And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt 19:16-17

To clarify these verses for you, we will use, first and foremost, Scripture, and in addition, commentaries by George Clark, Matthew Henry, and Daniel Kerr.

Our first rule of evidence is from Scripture: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thes 5:21.

Using this as our basis, we must then search for the phrase or verse which would relate to never calling any man 'good.'

Firstly, if you go to Scripture and look at the context of the verses upon which the above phrase is erroneously inferred (never stated), you find that the context is very limited in scope and relates to only one thing--public confession and recognition of the Truth. From Clark's Commentaries on Matthew 19:17:

17. Why callest thou me good: the young man addressed Jesus as a mere human teacher, yet called Him "Good," which could absolutely be applied only to God. So in Mark and Luke. But the old manuscripts and the Revised version, in this place, omit "good" before "Master," in verse 16, and read this verse: "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good." Your question is needless. Only One is absolutely good, and that is God. In Him, in His Will and Law, is the True good of men. [*see also further, Matthew Henry's Commentary].

Secondly, you find that the Old Testament refers to "a good man' several times (see Ps 37:23, Ps 112:5, Prov 12:2, Prov 13:22, Prov 14:14, etc.).

Thirdly, you find that Jesus, the Christ Himself , Luke, and The Apostle Paul refer to good men:

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matt 12:35
"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abun dance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45
"And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a just:" Luke 23:50
"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord." Acts 11:22-24.

Let us look at the three places all related to the same subject matter and the same men, and Matthew Henry's Commentaries on the discourses. I will defer to the learned Brother Henry for his input on the subject, for he is certainly more insightful than I:

"And, behold, one came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? "And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:16-17.
"Here is an account of what passed between Christ and a hopeful young gentleman that addressed himself to Him upon a serious errand; he is said to be a young man (v. 20); and I called him a gentleman, not only because he had great possessions, but because he was a ruler (Luke xviii 18), a magistrate, a justice of peace in his country; it is probable that he had abilities beyond his years, else his youth would have debarred him from the magistracy.
"Now concerning this young gentleman, we are told how fair he bid for heaven and came short.
"I. How fair he bid for heaven, and how kindly and tenderly Christ treated him, in favour to good beginnings. Here is,
"1. The gentleman's serious address to Jesus [*the] Christ (v. 16); Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Not a better question could be asked, nor more gravely.
"(1.) He gives Christ an honourable title, Good Master--didaskalos agathos. It signifies not a ruling but a teaching Master. His calling Him Master, bespeaks his submissiveness, and willingness to be taught; and good Master, his affection and peculiar respect to the Teacher, like that of Nicodemus, Thou art a Teacher come from God. We read not of any that addressed themselves to Christ more respectfully than that Master in Israel and this ruler. It is a good thing when men's quality and dignity increase their civility and courtesy. It was gentleman-like to give this title of respect to Christ, not withstanding the present meanness of his appearance. It was not usual among the Jews to accost their teachers with the title of good; and therefore this bespeaks the uncommon respect he had for Christ. Note, Jesus [*the] Christ is a good Master, the best of teachers; none teaches like Him; He is distinguished from His goodness, for He can have compassion on the ignorant; he is meek and lowly in heart.
"(2.) He comes to Him upon an errand of importance (none could be more so), and he came not to tempt Him, but sincerely desirous to be taught by Him. His question is, What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? By this it appears, [1.] That he had a firm belief of eternal life; he was no Sadducee. He was convinced that there is another world, who is prepared for it in this world. [2.] That he was concerned to make it sure to himself that he should live eternally, and was desirous of that life more than of any of the delights of this life. It was a rare thing for one of his age and quality to appear so much in care about another world. The rich are apt to think it below them to make such an enquiry as this; and young people think in time enough yet; but here was a young man, and a rich man, solicitous about his soul and eternity. [3.] That he was sensible something must be done, some good thing, for the attainment of this happiness. It is by patient continuance in well-doing that we seek for immortality, Rom ii 7. We must be doing, and doing that which is good. The blood of Christ is the only purchase of eternal life (He merited it for us), but obedience to Christ is the appointed way to it, Heb v 9. [4.] That He was, or at least thought himself, willing to do what was to be done for the obtaining of this eternal life. Those that know what it is to have eternal life, and what it is to come short of it, will be glad to accept of it upon any terms. Such a holy violence does the kingdom of heaven suffer. Note, While there are many that say, Who will show us any good? our great enquiry should be, What shall we do, that we may have eternal life? What shall we do, to be forever happy, happy in another world? For this world has not that in it that will make us happy.
"2. The encouragement that Jesus [*the] Christ gave to this address. It is not His manner to send any away without an answer, that come to Him on such an errand, for nothing pleases Him more, v. 17. In His answer, "(1.) He tenderly assists his faith, for, doubtless, He did not mean it for a reproof, when He said, Why callest thou Me good? But He would seem to find that faith in what he said, when he called him good Master, which the gentleman perhaps was not conscious to himself of; he intended no more than to own and honour Him as a good man, but Christ would lead him to own and honour Him as a good God; for there is none good but one, that is God. Note, As Christ is graciously ready to make the best that He can of what is said or done amiss; so He is ready to make the most that can be of what is well said and well done. His constructions are often better than our intentions; as in that, "I was hungry, and you gave me meat, though you little thought that it was to Me." Christ will have this young man either know Him to be God, or not call Him good; to teach us to transfer to God all the praise that is at any time given to us. Do any call us good? Let us tell them all goodness is from God, and therefore not to us, but to Him give glory. All crowns must lie before His throne. Note, God only is good, and there is none essentially, originally, unchangeably, good, but God only. His goodness is of and from Himself, and all the goodness in the creature is from Him; He is the Fountain of goodness, and whatever the streams are, all the springs are in Him, James 1:17. He is the great Pattern and sample of goodness; by Him all goodness is to be measured; that is good which is like Him, and agreeable to His Mind. We in our language call Him God, because He is good. In this, as in other things, our Lord Jesus was the Brightness of His glory (and His goodness is His glory), and the express image of His person, and therefore fitly called good Master.
"(2.) He plainly directs His practice, in answer to his question. He started that thought of His being good, and therefore God, but did not stay upon it, lest He should seem to divert from, and so to drop, the main question, as many do in needless disputes and strifes of words. Now Christ's answer is, in short, this, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 272-274.

-------------------------

"And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God." Mark:10:17-18.
"I. Here is a hopeful meeting between Christ and a young man; such he is said to be (Mt. 19:20,22), and a ruler (Lu. 18:18), a person of quality. Some circumstances here are, which we had not in Matthew, which makes his address to Christ very promising.
"1. He came running to Christ, which was an indication of his humility; he laid aside the gravity and grandeur of a ruler, when he came to Christ: thus too he manifested his earnestness and importunity; he ran as one in haste, and longing to be in conversation with Christ. He had now an opportunity of consulting this great Prophet, in the things that belonged to his peace, and he would not let slip the opportunity.
"2. He came to Him when he was in the way, in the midst of company: he did not insist upon a private conference with Him by night, as Nicodemus did, though like him he was a ruler, but when he shall find him without, will embrace that opportunity of advising with him, and not be ashamed, (Cant. 8:1).
"3. He kneeled to Him, in token of the great value and veneration he had for Him, as a teacher come from God, and his earnest desire to be taught by Him. He bowed the knee to the Lord Jesus, as one that would not only do obedience to Him now, but would yield obedience to Him always; he bowed the knee, as one that meant to bow the soul to Him.
"4. His address to Him was serious and weighty; Good Master, what shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life? Eternal life was an article of his creed, though then denied by the Sadducees, a prevailing party: he asks, What shall he do now that he may be happy for ever. Most men enquire for good to be had in this world (Ps. 4:6), any good; he asks for good to be done in this world, in order to the enjoyment of the greatest good in the other world; not, Who will make us to see good? But, "Who will make us to do good?" He enquires for happiness in the way of duty; the summum bonum--chief good which Solomon was in quest of, was that good for the sons of men which they do should do, (Eccl. 2:3). Now this was,
"(1.) A very serious question in itself; it was about eternal things, and his own concern in those things. Note, Then there begins to be some hope of people, when they begin to enquire solicitously, what they shall do to get to heaven.
"(2.) it was proposed to a right Person, one that was every way fit to answer it, being Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life, the true way to life, to eternal life; Who came from heaven on purpose, first to lay open for us, and then to lay open to us; first to make, and then to make known, the way to heaven. Note, Those who would know what they shall do to be saved, must apply themselves to Christ, and enquire of Him; it is peculiar to the [*the] Christian religion, both to show eternal life, and to show the way to it.
"(3.) it was proposed with a good design-- to be instructed. We find this same question put by a lawyer, not kneeling, but standing up (Lu. 10:25), with a bad design, to pick quarrels with Him; he tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do? It is not so much the good words as the good intention of them that Christ looks at.
"5. Christ encouraged this address, "(1.) By assisting his faith, v. 18. He called Him good Master; Christ would have him mean thereby, that he looked upon Him to be God, since there is none good but One, that is God, who is One, and his name One, (Zech. 14:9). Our English word God doubtless hath affinity with good; as the Hebrews name God by his power, Elohim, the strong God; so we by his goodness, the good God. Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 518-520.

-------------------------

"And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God." Luke:18:18-19.
In these verses we have,
I. Christ's discourse with a ruler, that had a good mind to be directed by Him in the way to heaven. In which we may observe,
"1. It is a blessed sight to see persons of distinction in the world distinguish themselves from others of their rank by their concern about their souls and another life. Luke takes notice of it that he was a ruler. Few of the rulers had any esteem for Christ, but here was one that had; whether a church or state ruler does not appear, but he was one in authority.
"2. The great thing we are every one of us concerned to enquire after is what we shall do to get to heaven, what we shall do to inherit eternal life. This implies such a belief of an eternal life after this as atheists and infidels have not, such a concern to make it sure as a careless unthinking world have not, and such a willingness to comply with any terms that it may be made sure as those have not who are resolvedly devoted to the world and the flesh.
"3. Those who would inherit eternal life must apply themselves to Jesus [*the] Christ as their Master, their teaching Master, so it signifies here (didaskale), and their ruling Master, and so they shall certainly find Him. There is no learning the way to heaven but in the school of Christ, by those that enter themselves into it, and continue in it.
"4. Those who come to Christ as their Master must believe Him to have not only a divine mission, but a divine goodness. Christ would have this ruler know that if he understood himself aright in calling Him good, he did, in effect, call him God and indeed he was so (v. 19): "Why callest thou me good? Thou knowest there is none good but One, that is, God; and dost thou then take me for God? If so, thou art in the right." Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. v, pp. 778-779.

The subject matter was one of great importance: the Truth our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, revealed to the young man. Truth is always good, and our Lord certainly is that and more. How then does this relate to a "Good and Lawful Christian?"

"Christian.
"The meaning of the word Christian is a follower of Christ. They who embrace the opinions and sentiments of others, and look up to them for direction and instruction in any of the arts and sciences, or in any of the systems of religion [*of the world], are properly their disciples; and are generally distinguished by certain distinctive and appropriate names, descriptive of such discipleship and adherence to particular systems. Hence the followers of Pythagoras and Plato are denominated Pythagoreans and Platonists, and the followers of Mahomet, Mahometans, after their several masters. And hence the followers of Christ are called Christians, after Christ their Master. And it should be considered a matter of no little importance to the followers of Christ, to be distinguished by no other title than that of Christian, a name every way suitable to their holy profession, and as entirely adapted to their peculiar circumstances, as being the disciples of Him who has said His kingdom is not of this world. If this name, as we believe, be of divine appointment, it very forcibly occurs that no option is left to the disciple of Christ as to the choice of names. He must take that name which his Master has given him, and with His consent be called by no other. His enemies, by way of derision, may stigmatize him by any epithet they may think proper to use. But for himself, let him rejoice and not be ashamed to suffer as a Christian. There is something strange in the idea, that the disciples of Christ should consent to be called by other names, even by those of other eminent disciples, such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and so forth. It might be asked in the language of the apostles, Were these eminent saints and reformers crucified for you? or were you baptized in their names? And if you were not baptized in their names, how can you with consistency be denominated after them? I know that many pious and holy persons attach little or no importance to names; and conceive that if they possess the thing signified by the same, it is a matter of no importance by what name they may be called. In this indifferency about names, many errors have been committed. The name Christian, with the thing signified thereby, constitutes the sum total of religion. It is always proper and correct to call things by their appropriate names. If we are Christians, why not be called by this title and no other? A rigid adherence to this course would long since have ended these divisions and sub-divisions which most painfully harass and perplex the church of Christ; but there are some who contend that the name Christian was bestowed upon the disciples at Antioch by their enemies, as an appellation of reproach. For this opinion I can find no evidence, either in the word of God or elsewhere. We may, therefore, conclude it to be a mere assumption. In opposition, however, to the notion that the name Christian was first applied to the disciples by their enemies in a way of reproach, we will adduce two witnesses, whose authority in such matters will not be called in question. The first is Dr. Adam Clark, who, in his criticism upon the original word rendered in Acts 11:26, were called, expressed himself thus:
"'It signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate by divine direction. In this case the word is used, Matt. 2:12; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22.
"'If, therefore, the name was given by divine appointment, it was most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and, that therefore, the name Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness which are essentially required and implied in the character!'

The Doctor continues,

"'A Christian, therefore, is the highest character which any human being can bear upon earth; and to receive it from God, as these appear to have done, how glorious the title!'
"The next is the pious and learned Mr. Davis, who wrote a sermon expressly on this subject, and in which he uses this language:
"The original, which is here rendered called, seems to intimate that they were called Christians by divine appointment, for it generally signifies an oracular nomination, or declaration from God; and to this purpose it is generally translated. Hence, it follows that the very name Christians, as well as the thing was a divine original; assumed, not by a private agreement of the disciples among themselves, but by the appointment of God. In this view, it is a remarkable accomplishment of an old prophecy of Isaiah, 62:2.'
"These views have been submitted, not with a design of impugning others, but for the purpose of exhibiting some of the reasons which influence us firmly and strictly to adhere to the Christian name. This rigid adherence to a name, may be a subject of sport or derision to some, and of contempt and scorn to others. But still, experience and observations unitedly conspire to satisfy our minds completely, that too great particularity, in religious matters, even in external things themselves, can hardly be used. The Bible is the only criterion for regulating and guiding our course in relation to all religious concerns. No Christian man can esteem a strict and rigid conformity to its requisitions of little importance. What that book inculcates must bind the consciences of all true believers; and as we make this the standard of our religious opinions and faith, we dare not depart from it even in the selection of a name. Who but must wish that all the party names, which the circumstances of the church from time to time have given rise to, and the strife and contention which have accompanied them, were entirely obliterated, and their efforts forgotten forever? The religion of the New Testament, when divested of mysticism, is a beautiful and most interesting scheme, entirely adapted to the wants and circumstances of fallen man. Its peculiar excellency consists in the simplicity of the means exhibited and insisted upon for their recovery and restoration. These means are, repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Here no perplexity is presented. The conditions are plain and simple; and imply just what the awakened sinner feels to be the case--an utter inadequacy to save himself. When, by the grace of God, which is freely offered to all, the sinner feels the force and power of divine truth freeing him from guilt and sin, and renewing him in the spirit of his mind, and enabling him to cry Abba, Father; it will then be his duty to make a profession of faith in Christ, and his subjection to Him. Now, in Scripture language, he has put on Christ, and he has thus received Christ Jesus the Lord, so should he walk in Him; and he is exhorted by the apostle not to return again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world. How incongruous that such a one should take upon himself any other appellation besides the one descriptive of his connection with Christ as a follower and disciple!"--Rev. Daniel W. Kerr, editor for the Christian Sun, February 17, 1844, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 112-117.

You are not calling yourself God when you use the High and Noble calling of 'Good and Lawful Christian.' All 'Good' comes from God. You are simply letting the world know Who's 'Lawful' yoke you are under, and the 'Good' blessings received under that Lawful yoke, known as "the good treasures of the heart," by and through Jesus, the Christ, alone: for "the good seed are the children of the kingdom." (see Matthew 13:38).

Considering all of the foregoing, you can only call yourself, or another Brother or Sister, a "Good and Lawful Christian" when you have truly submitted to Him, and are truly under His yoke. If not, you are taking the Lord's name in vain, you are a liar, and you will pay the ultimate price on Judgment Day for such blasphemy.

In Whose Name?--

Sifting the Wheat from chaff, Light from darkness, Life from death

by John Joseph

Many of you have called us on the phone and have heard us ask "In Whose Name do you call?," and have probably wondered what it is we're talking about. Well, this article is to explain what Scripture says concerning this question, because there is Warrant for doing this very act. It also happens to be a part of our Christian history and heritage, which will be shown later in this article.

First, let me get something off my chest that has been eating at me for some time. We recently received a letter from a patron who denounced what he calls "ivory tower theory" that he believes we publish in the News, and said that he would not be renewing. Fine, I thought. This is just more chaff falling by the wayside. But I got to thinking about this a little deeper and on reflection of his statements, I will say this: The problem is not the "ivory tower theory" and it is not with us--it is with those who "have not studied to show themselves approved of God." Obviously these types are too ashamed to admit to themselves that they are not that "workman who needeth not be ashamed." They are still on the breast having never been weaned from it, and too afraid to touch any meat. I am not here to justify what is or is not published in the News. Brother Michael Andrew's encounter in court certainly was "ivory tower theory" being put into practice and use. Now, I will say this--if those who believe that "ivory tower theory" is nothing, fine. I challenge you, then, to draw up Lawful process, derived solely from Scripture, without a theory of the case. Further, drop the Non-Statutory Abatement from your arsenal, because that has about four years work of "ivory tower theory" behind it and about two and one-half years of solid Blessings behind it. It is one thing to criticize, but quite another to present a solution. If you cannot or will not provide a solution, then we do not want to hear from you. It is not our calling at the News to provide "off the shelf" solutions for everyone's problem. You can find "off the shelf" solutions at the office of your local bar fly (bar attorney)--look at all those code books!!! You can take off that helmet of salvation and have some real drivel poured into your head--none of it having any salvation in and of the Lord. Now that's "off the shelf, Babylon tower theory."

If you don't want any more "ivory tower theory," then go to the entertainment section of your local newspaper and you need not read this article any further. Neither do I want any of your empty, dead, and Babylon tower "fellowship."

With that off my chest, on to more of that "ivory tower theory."

Note: All insertions in brackets [*] are mine.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1 John 4:1-4.

What is our Brother saying to us? That every man that comes to us, whether with a tin plate on his chest, or not, is a ministerial officer for someone. They minister for either the Christ or they do not. So he tells us how to sift the fakes from the substantial Good and Lawful Christian. Question: "Is there Warrant in Scripture for separation by Law?" The answer is "yes."

Our Brother has in deed shown us that a Warrant does exist in Scripture to avoid (not evade) this, because another Brother puts it this way:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" 2 Cor 6:14-16a.

This is further supported by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom we minister:

"My sheep hear My Voice, and I know them, and they follow Me [*not someone else]:" John 10:27.

Obviously confusion is the result if you try to follow two different shepherds at the same time--bifurcation or double-mindedness. How do you sift the "wheat from the chaff?" Good and Lawful Christians minister for One and only One Sovereign--Jesus, the Christ. Make no mistake about this. This is a matter of culture that raises a political question. Thus no earthly court can adjudicate it, because the judgment was already rendered. Where, you ask? In Genesis 3:22-24 when Adam was banished--God separated Adam from fellowship with Himself. This is the way the church must look at its Law.

Stare decisis is a doctrine found in Scripture. The Judgment at Genesis 3:22-24 was clearly executed by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. All judgments, especially those rendered by God, are always taken to be true:

"Semper praesmunitur pro sententia --Presumption is always in favor of a judgment." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2162.
"Judicium semper pro veritate accipitur --A judgment is always taken for truth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.
"Res judicata pro veritate accipitur --A thing adjudged must be taken for truth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.
"the ungodly [*sons of Adam] shall not stand in the judgment [*they are already condemned], nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous [*they have not repented of their evil deeds]." Ps 1:5.

Who has the standing, in Law, to challenge God's Judgments? No one, "for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." But Christians always have standing to challenge earthly judgments:

"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the LORD." Is 54:17.
"Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti --A judgment given by an improper judge is of no force." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2140.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Cor 6:9-10.
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man [*real estate speculator, broker, banker, merchant, IRS agent, and other such 'persons'], who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Eph 5:5.

One who wears a tin plate on his chest is obviously ministering a "law" separate, distinct, foreign and strange to the Good and Lawful Christian. Generally speaking, the first thing they want from you is confirmation of "legal personality." Is this evil in itself? Not according to the Word of God:

"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Is 54:16.

This is God's Rod of correction to correct the Christian when he walks out of the protection of our Father, by putting Him behind them. When does the act of the officer become evil? When he violates the Warrant of Scripture exercised by the Good and Lawful Christian to avoid, not evade, his imposition. Thus, if you are a hot-headed "patriot" you go against God, for you have not the Law on your heart, and cannot discern the wheat from the chaff, "for you can do all things within your self which mortifies you" because you have your "constitutional and civil rights."

But if you are a Good and Lawful Christian, you use the protection of the Law to avoid, not evade, the issue. To avoid with Truth and Law is not evil; evasion is evil, for it is done by deceit and artifice to escape the consequences of an unlawful act (see "In Vinculis--Justification and Excuse by and through Resting in Christ alone.")

Now how do we implement this "ivory tower theory?" John Winthrop, governor of Massachusetts Bay, said this in 1637:

"For clearing of such scruples as have arisen about his order, it is to be considered, first, what is the essential forme of a common weale or body politic such as this, which I conceive to be this--The consent of a certaine companie of people, to cohabite together, under one government for their mutual safety and welfare.
"It is clearly agreed, by all, that the care of safety and welfare was the original cause or occasion of common weales and of many familyes subjecting themselves to rulers and laws; for no man hath lawfull power over another, except by birth or consent, so likewise, by the law of proprietye, no man can have just interest in that which belongeth to another, without his consent.
"From the premises will arise these conditions:
"1. No common weale can be founded but by free consent.
"2. The persons so incorporating have a public and relative interest each in other, and in the place of their cohabitation and goods, and laws, &c. and in all the means of their welfare so as none other can claime priviledge with them but by free consent.
"3. The nature of such an incorporation tyes every member thereof to seek out and entertaine all means that may conduce to the wellfare of the bodye, and to keepe off whatsoever doth appeare to theire damage.
"4. The wellfare of the whole is to be put to apparent hazard for the advantage of particular members.
"From these conclusions I thus reason.
"1. If we here be a corporation established by free consent, if the place of our cohabitation be our owne, then no man hath right to come into us &c. without our consent.
"2. If no man hath right to our lands, our government privileges, &c. but by our consent, then it is reason we should take notice of before we conferre any such upon them.
"3. If we are bound to keepe off whatsoever appears to tend to our ruine and damage, then we may lawfully refuse to receive such whose dispositions suite not with ours and whose society (we know) will be hurtfull to us, and therefore it is lawful to take knowledge of all men before we can receive them.
"4. The churches take liberty (as lawfully they may) to receive or reject at their discretion; yea particular towns make orders to the like effect; why then should the common weale be denied the like liberty and the whole restrained than any parte?
"5. If it be sinne in us to deny some men place &c. among us, then it is because of some right they have to this place &c. for to deny a man that which he hath no right unto is neither sinne nor injury.
"6. If strangers have right to our houses or lands, &c. then it is either of justice or of mercye; if of justice let them plead it, and we shall know what to answer; but if it be only in way of mercye, or by the rule of hospitality, &c. then I answer 1st, A man is not a fit object of mercye except he be in miserye. 2d, We are not bound to exercise mercye to others to the ruine of ourselves. 3d, There are few that stand in neede of mercye at theire first coming hither. As for hospitality, that rule doth not bind further than for some present occasion, not for continual residence.
"7. A family is a little common wealth, and a common wealth is a greate family. Now as a family is not bound to entertaine all comers, no not every good man (otherwise than by way of hospitality) no more is a common wealth.
"8. It is a generall received rule, turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hospes, it is worse to receive a man whom we must cast out againe, than to denye him admittance.
"9. The rule of the Apostle, John 2:10 is, that such as come and bring not the true doctrine with them should not be received to house, and by the same reason not into the common weale.
"10. Seeing it must be granted that there may come such persons (suppose Jesuits, &c.) which by consent of all ought to be rejected, it will follow that this law (being only for notice to be taken of all that come to us, without which we cannot avoyd such as indeed are to be kept out) is no other but just and needfull, and if any should be rejected that ought not to be received, that is not to be imputed to the law, but to those who are entrusted with the execution of it. And herein is to be considered, what the intent of the law is, and by consequence, by what rule they walke, who are betrusted with the keeping of it. The intent of the law is to preserve the wellfare of the body; and for this ende to have none received into any fellowship with it who are likely to disturbe the same, and this intent (I am sure) is lawful and good. Now then, if such to whom the keeping of this law is committed, be persuaded in theire judgments that such a man is likely to disturbe and hinder the publick weale, but some others who are not in the same trust, judge otherwise, yet they are to follow their owne judgments, rather than the judgments of others who are not alike interested: As in tryall of an offender by a jury; the twelve men are satisfied in their consciences, upon the evidence given, that the party deserves death: but there are 20 or 40 standers by, who conceive otherwise, yet the jury bound to condemn to him according to their own consciences, and not to acquit him upon the different opinion of other men, except theire reasons can convince them of the errour of theire consciences, and this is according to the rule of the Apostle, Rom 14:5. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mynde." John Winthrop, "A Defence of an Order of Court made in the Year 1637," from Democracy Liberty and Property (Macmillan, 1942 & 1955), pp. 287-289.

It appears from the above, that Governor Winthrop used Scripture to justify the act of the General Court and left us a glimpse of the heritage we have in Christ. That is, to exercise His Testament in forming our own Good and Lawful Christian jural societies. Be aware however, this is not cultish, for we do not teach the dogma of man's imposed interpretations of Truth. Our Lord then having given Warrant to us also has freely given us the keys of Knowledge to be exercised for His Glory and Majesty. May we be found worthy to perform that task when called upon by those who would prey upon us.

So whenever you call, we want to know "in whose name you called." Our Lord said He alone is the Door, and if you want to separate the un-Godly from your Good and Lawful Christian body, then they must come through Him. There is no other door. So, in like manner, if one comes calling, but does not enter through the Door of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, "the same is a thief and a robber." And this is the way you use the Sword of the Lord, not of your own fashioning, but of His Fashion. And this is the reason for the question, "In Whose Name did you call?"

Abatement Update

Part Two

by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Twenty-fourth)

By now most if not all of you have received your new Abatement Updates. Thank you again for your love and prayers, for without them we would have a much harder road; and thank you all for your loving Christian fellowship.

There were a few points which did not make it into the Abatement Updates due to either a lack of space or a lack of speed in getting new information into them from all of the King's Men around the country. This is something which is essential, for Scripture says, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." Pr 27:17. Without you, the work on lawful process is painfully slow, but for the Lord keeping us and you in His hands, we would all perish.

To those who are tired of "ivory tower theories," enjoy your return to Babylon with the secular human 'species' and their brand of mercy. Sam Adams had this to say about you and it is quite appropriate:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Sam Adams.

Let me first begin with the section concerning itself with estates of Inheritance, since this is where most, if not all, of the information did not make it into the Update. Most of this concerns itself with exercising ministerial powers and rights. In this section you might add, in the appropriate place, the following maxim, quoting only the Latin, and leaving the rest out:

"Prior tempore, potior jure --First in time is stronger in right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2154.

A little explanation is in order here because this seems like it would not apply to the Abatement. But on closer examination, you will see why only the Good and Lawful Christian has access to the maxims of Law.

A Good and Lawful Christian bears the Seal of His Sovereign:

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory." Eph 1:13-14.
and,
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph 4:30.

A Seal speaks the Law of the Sealer and identifies the one Sealed as belonging to the Sovereign of the Seal, thereby separating whatever is marked by the Seal from those without it. What does this have to do with the above? Every thing. You see, the Seal is evidence of Warrant, Power and Right of the Sovereign, in Whose Name you are sent to Execute His Testimony--not your own testimony. The One Who placed the Seal on your heart is the One Whose Law and Testimony you execute, under His Direction, Mandate and Will contained in the Writ you execute. It is the Ministerial Powers and Rights of the Office of Christ which are of unparalleled importance to the Good and Lawful Christian, because these are conveyed and evidenced by the Seal of the Sealer. The Ministerial Rights and Powers which appertain to the Seal originate in and with God, therefore find their being declared in Genesis 1:27, where man is made in the image and likeness of God--there is the Seal. This exceeds the "legal memory of man" and therefore the Ministerial Rights and Powers of the Office of Christ exercised by the Good and Lawful Christian antedate any thing created by the human/natural man/pagan. So that,

"Qui alterius jure utitur, eodem jure uti debet --He who uses the right of another ought to use the same right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2157.

This then reduces the argument to the Good and Lawful Christian exercising the Ministerial Powers and Rights vested in Him by God through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

Now the question is: "how old are those vested Ministerial Powers and Rights?" They are as old as when Genesis opens up and tells us of the Creation of the Estate by Elohim, because Rights in and of Inheritance date from their Origin in Ancestry. Those Ministerial Rights and Powers exceed the "legal memory of man" and as long as you are in the Garden of Eden exercising those Rights and Powers appertaining to the Office of Christ, you have assurance from God that you have His Authority and Warrant to exercise them.

What about "sovereign citizens?" Do they have the same rights and powers? No. If you are "sovereign" within yourself, then you have no sanction from God, for you deny the only Sovereign, and have not His Testimony and Seal. Because these 'selfs' have not the Testimony of God and His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, they have no rights in and of Inheritance from the Creator of the Estate in the first place. In other words, they are bastards, in the True sense of the Word, to wit:

"Bastardus nullius est filius, aut filius populi --A bastard is nobody's son, or the son of the people." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957), p. 193.

Further, if one proclaims himself to be a "sovereign citizen" he will not willingly be put under the yoke of the One True Sovereign, and therefore cannot evidence any relationship in Christ which is essential to a "common weal" for only the Christ is Truly Sovereign (see "In Whose Name" Page ten). If "sovereign" in yourself, you don't need any one else's law, just your fickle appetite for self-righteousness.

But you may say, "I live under grace, not under law. That's my Christianity." And truly it is your Christianity, but not the doctrine of the Christ. This is such nonsense, but it must be dealt with here. I would suggest any one reading this article to get a copy of the pamphlet and tape "In Vinculis--Justification and Excuse by and through Resting in Christ alone," for a more complete explanation than what will be offered here. I will only say this: The term "Christ" is an Office, not a name. This is key to being a Good and Lawful Christian--not an antinomian knave.

"A distinguishing feature between an 'office' and an 'agency' is that the former has its origin in the law while the latter originates in contract." Bear River Sand Corp. v. Placer County (1953), 118 C.A.2d 684, 258 P.2d 543.

Ministerial officers are subject to the Law (yoke) which establishes the ministerial office. If you are under grace and not under the Law (yoke) of the Christ, then you are lawless, and have no part in the church established by Christ. You are in the same class as the "sovereign citizen" --condemned without Law. Where did "your christianity" originate--in you or in Law appertaining to the Office of Christ? And what was its cause for being brought into existence by you? If it did not originate in the Law of the Christ, then what relationship do you have to the Christ and our Father? So that without that all important relationship in Law to the Lawgiver, you have no rights or powers either. You have no Inheritance!!! For our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ declared and our Father confirmed that,

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing [*or have any Inheritance in and through Me]." John 15:5. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

You see, there are many myths out there in "patriotland" where one never needs to confront his secular assumptions or the assumptions of others. But in Christ, everything is put under the Light of His Word, and is shown for what it really contains.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Fiction, Fabrication, Falsehood

"FICTION is opposed to what is real; FABRICATION and FALSEHOOD to what is true. Fiction relates what may be, though not what is: fabrication and falsehood what is not as what is, and vice versa. Fiction serves for amusement and instruction: fabrication and falsehood serve to mislead and deceive. Fiction and fabrication both require invention: falsehood consists of simple contradiction.

In an extended sense of the word fiction, it approaches still nearer to the sense of fabricate, when said of the fictions of the ancients, which were delivered as truth, although admitted now to be false: the motive of the narrator is what here constitutes the difference; namely, that in the former case he believes what he relates to be true, in the latter he knows it to be false. The heathen mythology consists principally of the fictions of the poets: newspapers abound in fabrication.

As epithets, fictitious and false are very closely allied; for what is fictitious is false, though all that is false is not fictitious: the fictitious is that which has been feigned, or falsely made by some one; the false is simply that which is false by the nature of the thing.." Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), pages 431-432.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

The wise Coachman

An old gentleman in the county of Herts, having lost his coachman by death, who had served him many years, advertised for a successor. The first who applied, giving a satisfactory account of his character and capacity for such a place, was asked how near he could drive to the edge of a wood, where a sloping bank presented danger. He replied, "to an inch." The old gentleman ordered him to be supplied with suitable refreshment, and to leave his address, adding, that if he wished for his services, he should hear from him in a day or two. Shortly afterward, a second applied, who underwent the same examination as the former, and replied to the last question, that he could drive, "to half an inch," and had often done it; he also received the same dismission with the same civilities as the former man. Soon afterward, a third applied, and on being asked the same question, namely, how near he could drive to the edge of a sharp declivity, in case of necessity, coolly replied, "Really, I do not know, sir, having never tried: for it has always been my maxim to get as far as possible from such danger, and I have had my reward in my safety, and that of my employers."

With this reply, the old gentleman expressed his entire satisfaction, and informed the man if he could procure a proper recommendation, wages should not part them, adding, "I am grown old and timid, and want a coachman on whose prudence and care I can rely, as well as his skill."

Would it not be well if those who are engaged in commercial pursuits, would avoid as carefully as this prudent coachman did, the edge of the precipice? In this case, balmy sleep would oftener light on the eyelids of persons so employed, and the shipwreck of fortune would not so often occur. But let the professor of godliness especially remember this true and useful story. A faithful pastor being asked how far a person might go in sin, and yet be saved, replied, "It is a dangerous experiment to try." Ah! do not too many study to find out how little grace they may have, and yet go to heaven? Instead of this, let us all treasure up in our hearts the words of Christ, "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." O, let us keep as far as possible from sin and hell, and "cleave to the Lord with full purpose of heart."

Bits and Pieces

The Zip Code

According to the USPS 1997 DMM Manual, at A010, 1.2(d), "Zip Codes may be omitted from pieces mailed by the general public at the single-piece rates for First-Class Mail and Standard Mail and from pieces bearing a simplified address."

Dog Latin

is the bastardized or debased Latin formerly used in law and legal documents, from which we have for the most part escaped. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1894), quotes the following jocular example: "As the law classically expresses it, a kitchen is 'camera necessaria pro usus cookare; cum sauce-pannis, stewpannis, scullero, dressero, coalholo, stovis, smoak-jacko; pro roastandum, boilandum, fryandum, et plum-pudding-mixandum.'"

Lawyers...and other reptiles

"They have no lawyers among them for they consider them as a sort of people whose profession it is to disguise matters." --Sir Thomas Moore, 1516

---------------

He saw a lawyer killing a viper,

On a dunghill hard by his own stable;

And the Devil smiled, for it put him in mind,

Of Cain and Abel.

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

---------------

When an elderly New York lawyer, after a typically long life of sin, was told he had only days to live, he rushed home and began to frantically leaf through the Bible, looking for loopholes.

---------------

How Cold Was It?

It was so cold that a lawyer had his hands in his own pockets.

general delivery

According to Postal Bulletin #21877 issued 9-29-94, "The 30-day limit in DMM 930.1.4 refers to how long mail is usually held in the General Delivery section, not to how long a person can receive general delivery service."

In addition, those with no fixed address, i.e., transients and homeless, "may receive indefinite general delivery service."

If you don't have a copy of this postal bulletin, call us and we'll FAX or send you one.

Not!

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

Issue the Twenty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case...

Timeline of Tyranny, Part One...

Autopsy Report Reveals Wonder Drug 'Antinomy' killed Christian America, Part One...

The Modern Gospel Versions, Part One...

Fictions of Law, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case

from the several King's Men in Nebraska

Editor's Note: The following has been submitted by the several King's Men in The Nebraska Jural Society. The four sections to this story, in order of its presentation are; first, The First House of Delegate's Formal Statement; second, The newspaper article from The Bellvue Leader concerning the Case; third, The First House of Delegate's Public Resolution; fourth, Commentary of the several King's Men in California.

The Nebraska Jural Society

First House of Delegates, pro tempore

The sixth day of the second month in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-eight

To whom it may concern:

A resolution by the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, was passed by a majority of the delegates assembled, at the bi-monthly meeting on the evening of the fifth day of the second month, in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-eight.

Prompting the resolution was the resent newspaper story in the Bellevue Leader regarding the sentencing of a man who was convicted of engaging in prohibited acts with a minor man-child. The Bible recognizes only two penalties for acts offensive to God: Restitution or death. Unfortunately, in this age of church feminization brought on by the influence of humanistic heresy, men who are willing to make decisions according to the bedrock of western civilization are few and far between.

It is entirely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that District Judge George Thompson acted improperly in quoting Holy Scripture during a sentencing hearing. The Law of God is not private law, but public Law. The Law speaks to offences that affect the collective body and soul of society. There are no "individuals" in society. All are part of the whole, and all suffer when the Law is trivialized, ridiculed, and worst of all, replaced with an inevitably inferior invention of man's "reason."

By approval of the members of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore.

-------------------------

Bellevue Leader

February 4, 1998 Bellevue, Nebraska

Judge accused of bias

Cited Scripture when jailing gay man for molesting child

By JOE DEJKA
Leader senior writer

A Sarpy County judge has been accused of misconduct for quoting the Bible when sentencing a gay man.

District Court Judge George Thompson quoted Scripture condemning homosexuality when he sentenced Aaron Pattno for sexually assaulting a teen-age boy.

Pattno's Omaha defense attorney, Marc Delman, said the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and abused his discretion.

Delman wants the Nebraska Court of Appeals to throw out his client's prison sentence.

In a brief filed this month with the court, Delman claims Thompson showed bias against his client when he read a Bible passage that refers to "men committing shameless acts with men."

Delman said Thompson should have removed himself from the case because of his strong feelings.

Delman asked the court to overturn Pattno's sentence of 20 months to five years in the Nebraska Department of Corrections. He said his client deserves probation, instead.

The maximum sentence for the crime is five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. There is no minimum sentence.

Thompson said Monday he could not comment on the case while it was on appeal.

The Nebraska Attorney General's office will represent the state before the appeals court.

Contacted by a reporter, Delman declined to elaborate on the information in his brief.

In the brief, he said homosexuality may be abhorrent to orthodox Christians, but it is not "inherently evil."

"At the very least, Judge Thompson's public criticism of (Pattno's) sexual orientation compromised the fairness of (his) sentencing," he said.

According to the brief, Pattno was 25 years old last spring when he developed a romantic relationship with a 13-year-old boy.

During an overnight visit between the two, Pattno and the boy kissed, and there was sexual contact between them.

Pattno pleaded guilty Aug. 12, 1997 to sexual assault of a child by contact.

Delman alleges that a court-ordered pre-sentence investigation of his client recommended neither probation nor incarceration.

He said that in the courtroom before he was sentenced, Pattno expressed regret and remorse for the "trouble and heartache" he caused for the victim and his family.

He said Pattno had no criminal record other than minor traffic violations. He said he was employed and had some college education.

Before Thompson pronounced sentence, he said, the judge read the following passage, Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Delman said such Scripture has no place in the courtroom.

"Many would likely applaud Judge Thompson for his profession of faith and its incorporation into a sentencing proceeding, but just as many would find it wholly inappropriate to proselytize a defendant coming before the bar for the imposition of punishment," he said.

Delman said it is difficult to tell how much Thompson's personal views affected the severity of the sentence.

"Did Judge Thompson reject probation to reflect the true seriousness of the offense...or because probation would trivialize what the judge considers an unspeakable heresy against God?" Delman wrote.

The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges refrain from expressing their personal religious views inside the courtroom, he said.

Judges must, according to the code, remain impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, he said.

The code asks that judges remove themselves from cases in which they have a bias or prejudice, he said.w

-------------------------

The Nebraska Jural Society

First House of Delegates, pro tempore

Public Resolution

Know all Men by these presents: The people of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, grateful to Almighty God for their Liberty, hereby inform the World of the following resolution, in Lawful assembly passed;

Whereas: The cause of the Church is a public cause and private interpretation is irrelevant,

Whereas: History bears repeated examples of civilizations destroyed when their foundational presuppositions are attacked and consequently weakened,

Whereas: The law of the land and the Law of God are one in the same,

Whereas: It is the duty of public officials and magistrates to preserve the King's peace,

Whereas: The Ten Commandments, the ordinances, and statutes of God revealed throughout Scripture exceed the legal memory of Man, are therefore ancient standing Law and inherently indisputable,

Therefore, be it resolved, that the members of the Nebraska Jural Society, First House of Delegates, pro tempore, commend the Honorable George Thompson, Judge of the District Court for the Second Judicial District of Nebraska, for his faith in, reliance upon, and execution of the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ.

In witness whereof, We hereunto set Our hands this fifth day of the second month in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Nineteen hundred ninety-eight, in the two hundred and twenty-second year of the Independence of America.

The Timeline of Tyranny:

The Public School System

Part One

Compiled by John Quade

1796

Sept: Washington's "Farewell Address" is read before Congress. It says: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

1836

McGuffey Readers are printed, by William H. McGuffey using a phonics approach to reading, based on the work of Noah Webster, the Readers emphasize Biblical principle. In the next 75 years, 122 million copies will be sold.

Horace Mann publishes essays on education in Massachusetts to promote standard curricula. This effects Common Schools, controlled by parents since some control must pass to States to administer standards. Mann's ideas are the modern way. By Lincoln's War, Common Schools are replaced by Public Schools.

1863

A. Lincoln creates the Office of the Commissioner of Education as a War measure. The basis is laid for Federal control of schools, colleges and universities.

1864

John Swett, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, says: "The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous... The only persons who have a legal right to give orders to the teacher are his employers, namely the committee in some states and in others the directors or trustees... If his conduct is approved of by his employers, the parents have no remedy against him or them."

This idea is propagated and accepted in most States, except in the South.

1886

'Poison Drops in the Federal Senate: The School Question from a Parental and Non-Sectarian Standpoint," by Zachary Montgomery (candidate, U.S.Attorney-General) is printed. In Massachusetts, the 1860 census shows that the state has 1 native white criminal to every 649 people. In Virginia, which left the education of children to the parents, there is 1 such criminal in 6,566 inhabitants. Suicides in 6 northeastern states where States control education were 1 in 13,285. In mid-Atlantic and southern states the suicide rate is 1 in every 56,584 people. Why?

Montgomery says - first, the loss of parental authority and home influence on children in State schools; and second, the neglect of 'moral and religious education and training,' are the reasons. Montgomery's work gets support from such as John LeConte (President, California State Univ.) and George Washington's grand-nephew.

1905

In a loft over a restaurant in New York City, Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair and others form the Intercollegiate Socialist Society to "foster a more enlightened interest in the principles of Socialism among the college students of America."

The group's efforts are directed primarily at teacher's colleges with special emphasis on Columbia University Teachers College, and Chicago University, both very influential schools for training teachers.

1917

The Intercollegiate Socialist Society is exposed as being riddled with Socialism and Communism and is broken up.

It is reformed as the "League for Industrial Democracy," with the same goals. Many influential and wealthy 'educators' join this group. It is quite fashionable.

1918

"The Science of Power," by Benjamin Kidd is printed. He says: "The main cause of those deep dividing differences which separate peoples and nationalities and classes from each other and which prevent or stultify collective effort in all its most powerful forms...could all be swept away if civilization put before itself the will to impose on the young the ideal of subordination to the common aims of organized humanity...it can only be imposed in all its strength through the young. So to impose it has become the chief end of education in the future. Oh, you blind leaders who seek to convert the world by labored disputations! Step out of the way or the world must fling you aside. Give us the Young. Give us the Young and we will create a new mind and new earth in a single generation." Kidd cites Masonic leader Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872). "Your task is to form the universal family... Education, this is the great word that sums up our whole doctrine." (From "On the Duties of Man.") Kidd cites Mazzini's again that "education is addressed through emotion to the moral faculties in the young and instruction to the intellectual (faculties)," and Kidd claims, "Power centers in emotion."

Education declines among high school graduates are exposed in "Brain-washing in High Schools," by Prof. E. Merrill Root (Earlham College). He cites Maj. William E. Mayer, Army psychiatrist, in U. S. News & World Report, who describes successful brainwashing (not by torture) of one-third of American P-O-W's under North Korean Communists, and blames formal educators that did not provide the historical knowledge of our country that could have been used to counter Communist brainwashing. When U. S. News asks "Weren't they taught this (knowledge of the American system) in school?" Major says, "Many of them said they weren't. Many of them said they didn't know." Root relates similar conclusions reached by the D.O.D. Advisory Commission on Prisoners of War in a report of July 29, 1955 by Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Arthur Radford. A key point made by Prof. Root is, "Politically speaking, our government is not a 'democracy' but a constitutional republic, with checks and balances to curb the public state and to enhance the individual."

1963

March/April: In the A.V. Communication Review, Monograph No. 2 of the Technological Development Project of the NEA. The project is under contract # SAE-9073 with the U. S. Office of Education of HEW, as authorized under Title VII, Part B, of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, one finds: "Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven (Psychology Dept., U.C.L.A.) is building a computer-based device to change attitudes. It works on the principle that student attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable."

1966

May 9: A special advisory committee to the California State Board of Education concludes that "Sensitivity training is being used by those who are in fact aligned with revolutionary groups acting contrary to public policy; that is, they intend to use the schools to destroy American culture and traditions." Prof. Harden Jones of Berkeley, made an in-depth study of sensitivity training in Nazi "Strength Through Joy" movements in Hitler's Germany.

"Values and Teaching: Working With Values in the Classroom," by Louis Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney Simon is printed. They say: "As the family changed, and as new influences came into the family, the impact of the church began to wane .. There was also a weakening of the authority of parents with no substitute authority to fill the vacuum beyond the temporal standards of the boys and girls themselves ... there is the idea that the child is to be really free to choose ... Moralizing has not worked in the past; do not be afraid to abandon it as a classroom practice ... We are primarily concerned with the process that a person uses to get at a value, not with what value he chooses at any one time and place - we are concerned with the process of valuing and not particularly with the product."

1971

The Federal Bar Journal prints an article by attorneys Charles Sheerer and Ronald Roston, who comment on personality tests in schools: "...any personality test constitutes an invasion of privacy, as the person tested rarely understands the implications of all the questions ... or the significance of the responses. The tests may not only reveal the thoughts and feelings which the student desires to withhold from others but those he is trying to keep from his own consciousness."

The tree of State education begins to bear bitter fruit as it become more and more obvious to everyone that the public school system is a corrupt failure.

This, and the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, jars the Christian community and they begin to form their own, 'private schools,' usually under a 501(c)3 corporate church.

1975

October 24: Henry Steele Commager writes a second Declaration of lnterdependence, that includes the words: "Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth anew nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order... Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation... We affirm that a world without law is a world without order, and we call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order, and to broaden the jurisdiction of the World Court, that these may preside over a reign of law that will not only end wars but end as well that mindless violence which terrorizes our society even in times of peace."

This is written for the World Affairs Council, but, Cong. John Ashbrook says the Council "has even joined with the Philadelphia school system to develop model fifth and sixth-grade school programs promoting the Declaration of Interdependence. Children are even asked to pledge themselves to the declaration's concepts, thus repudiating their own patriotic heritage, and to lobby for signatures from their friends and relatives for the Declaration of Interdependence. "

Nationally syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick in the February 7, 1976 Washington Star calls the Declaration of Interdependence "a genuinely subversive document." Cong. Marjorie Holt refuses to sign the document, saying: "It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations." But, it will be signed by 131 members of Congress, including Christopher Dodd, Robert Packwood, Claiborne Pell, Paul Simon, Pat Schroeder, Ron Dellums, and Les Aspin. On July 8, 1977, U. S. Senator Jesse Helms will write a letter in which he will state:

"It really is a shocking thing to see how many people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution would go ahead and endorse such a treasonable document." Senator Helms will refer to the signers as endorsing a treasonable document, and Les Aspin (a signer) will became Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense (1993), who is supposed to be in charge of defending the nation.

More reports and national studies indicate the continued decline of public school students in the quality of education and their ability to function in the work-day world.

1977

August 1: The Washington Post prints Lawrence Feinberg's "Competency Tests Set in 26 Schools," in which he reports that a new "competency based curriculum" to be used in every school in Washington, DC, "is based on the work in behavioral psychology of Harvard University's B. F. Skinner, who developed teaching machines and even trained pigeons in World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes." Washington, D.C., Associate School Superintendent James Guines tells Feinberg, "If you can train a pigeon to fly up there and press a button and set off a bomb, why can't you teach human beings to behave in effective and rational ways? We know we can modify human behavior. We're not afraid of that. This is the biggest thing that's happening in education today."

1985

January 3: 'The national television program "20/20" on the ABC network devotes much time to an alleged example of how "brainwashing" preschoolers could have been used to destroy a child's sense of family values.

1988

May 12: The Pulitzer Publishing Company's St. Louis Post-Dispatch prints "Globalism Tramples on American Values" by D. L. Cuddy, in which one reads: "A recent New York Times Magazine article noted that the University of Denver Center for Teaching International Relations World Citizen Curriculum, hundreds of copies of which have been sold to schools and teachers nationwide, 'recommends out-of-body experience as a way of visualizing a world without national boundaries.'" (Greg Cunningham in the mid-1980s wrote, for the Denver Regional Office of the U. S. Department of Education, a paper critical of CTIR's global education program.) The article in the Post-Dispatch continues: "Starting tomorrow in St. Louis, an American Forum on Education and International Competence will be held, emphasizing the positioning of global education for the 1990s. The forum will have workshops on such topics as 'Developing Strategies for lnternationalizing State Curriculum' and 'Political/Religious Challenges to Global Education.' In "Global Education: State of the Art," published by the federally funded Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, one reads that, "global education incorporates the view that black and white answers probably never really existed but the time is long past when even that myth can endure. Competent world citizens must act in the large zone of grays where absolutes are absent... Following the motto of 'thinking globally, acting locally,' global educators today have made a concerted effort to have their views contained in every subject in every school. According to a report by the Study Commission on Global Education, all school courses should be 'infused with a global perspective.' Those Americans who do not want their local school boards internationalized and who want to maintain a sovereign United States based upon Judeo-Christian moral principles should resist any attempt to incorporate this nation into a New Age, New World Order."

1988

"Killers of Children: A Psychoanalytic Look at Sex Education," by Dr. Melvin Anchell is printed, in which he explains psychological development and shows why sex education conflicts with (e.g., invades the young child's latency period, etc.) and distorts natural psychology. Dr. Anchell elsewhere criticizes sensitivity training as clinical "desensitization."

The NEA adopts Resolution C-34 stating: "The National Education Association believes that home-school programs cannot provide the child with a comprehensive education experience. The Association believes that, if parental preference home-school study occurs, students enrolled must meet all State requirements. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used."

The National Center on Education and the Economy is formed to carry on policy development work begun by the Carnegie Forum on Education and The Economy. The Forum releases its report, "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century," (1986). It recommends radical restructuring of the organization and management of America's schools. The Center's first product is, "To Secure Our Future: The Federal Role in Education," is released in 1989 and plays an important role in framing the issues and shaping agreements made at the Education Summit at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville) in the Fall of 1989.

1988

August: The ASCD Update informs that "Tactics for Thinking, a framework for teaching thinking developed at the Mid-continent Regional Educational Lab. (McRel) and published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in 1986, becomes the target of critics who argue that it 'brainwashes' children and advances a 'New Age' agenda of one world government.' ASCD director, Gordon Cawelti, calls for a World Core Curriculum. At an international meeting in Holland (1985) 20,000 teachers are trained in Tactics for Thinking. Robert Marzano, Director of Research at McRel develops Tactics for Thinking on similar work by Estonian "change agent" Hilda Taba.

PL 100-297 amends ESEA of 1965 and lays the foundation for the national plan for restructuring all the nation's schools for Outcome-Based Education. This 'reform' plan includes partnerships, parent training, early childhood education, school based/linked clinics, day care, assistance to at-risk students and voluntarism and effective schools. It provides funds for improving and reforms of schools and teaching.

1988

December: 1st lnt. Cong. on Self-Esteem and Sex Ed. for Educators, Mental Health and Rehabilitation Professionals is held in Kona, Hawaii. Featured speakers are Sol Gordon, John Vasconcellos, and Sylvia Hacker among others.

1989

September: Pres. Bush and 50 State Governors meet in Charlottesville, Virginia, and agree to establish National Education Goals. July, 1990 the National Education Goals panel is formed. Gov. Bill Clinton heads the initial work leading to 6 National Education Goals, and in 1991 the panel chairman, Colorado Governor Roy Romer, releases the first report. Among the 6 goals will be that "by the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn." The only way for this to happen is by massive government intervention in preschool family life. One goal indicates that "by the year 2000, every adult American will be literate." One can imagine tactics that will have to be used so that every illiterate senior citizen will be literate.

Note: Gov. Bill Clinton is also, at this time, a member of "The Council on State Governments."

The decline in the quality of education in the public schools has now at epidemic proportions. A national 'outrage' expressed by politicians and educators cries for more money.

The Christian School movement has grown to the point where nearly 1 in 4 children are in a Christian school.

1989

November: Shirley McCune (Mid-continent Regional Educational Labora-tory (McREL) stresses that "Radical change is now; you cannot escape it .... Strategies and behaviors must be changed because the dawning of this new age is far more significant than the transformation of the national and world economics taking place ...

The Williamsburg Charter Foundation's curriculum on religious liberty is tested in 5 states. It characterizes the peace and women's movements as "the most glorious accomplishments" in U. S. history. It has a variant of the notorious "lifeboat" game, as 4 of 5 students are 'forced to evacuate" a descending balloon gondola because they lack certain information. An invasion of privacy occurs as students are asked what changes there have been in their parents' and families' beliefs.

The group will change its name to First Liberty Institute. Its head, Charles Haynes, says, on Christians' concerns about public schools: "I understand their frustrations -they feel they're losing their institutions. However, public education will not go backward. We are a pluralistic society.'(USA TODAY, November 28, 1989)

1990

June: educators from 7 nations gather in Chicago to explore common visions for holistic education," which results in the formation of GATE (Global Alliance for Transforming Education), with Dr. Phil Gang as Executive Director and Dorothy Maver on the Steering Committee. In August of '91, GATE prints "Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective," that emphasizes multiple intelligences and experiential learning, and calls for standard tests to be replaced by personalized assessments, saying "We call for a thorough re-thinking of grading, assessment, and standardized examinations .... We suggest that 'objective' scores do not truly serve the learning or optimal development of students." They call for "Educating for Participatory Democracy ... for Global Citizenship ... for Earth Literacy ... and Spirituality and Education." GATE works with "progressive educators, United Nations organizations, teacher educators and academics, government leaders, citizen groups for social change, the media and others."

At the same address as GATE is The Institute for Educational Studies (TIES) with Dr. Phil Gang (whose book Our Planet, Our Home has been hailed by Robert Muller), founding director and creator of "Teaching, Learning and Communicating in a Global Society: A Leadership Training for Transforming Education, " presented by TIES.

In this program, TIES seeks to "empower teachers ... as change agents in a global society.... What is needed is a shift in consciousness commensurate with the shift to a global society ... emphasize global interdependence .... Explore a major shift in belief systems with regard to our children and our future."

Next month, we will explore how the opposition have expanded their subversion of the schools in the 1990's.

Autopsy Report Reveals Wonder Drug Antinomy

killed Christian America

by John Joseph

Yes, that new wonder drug so often taken for granted by today's addicted Christian has killed off the America that his forebears once knew as a great country in and of Christendom. It has been determined by the Scripture that antinomianism is not a doctrine appertaining to the High and Sacred Office of the Christ, and was never taught by our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. It appeared sometime after His Ministry commenced.

If you are concerned about "ivory tower theories" then, please by all means available at your disposal, return to the entertainment section of your local daily drivel.

For the remainder, I am going to be talking about "antinomianism" and its poisonous political consequences. I will also be touching on "hermeneutics," a term bandied about in legal circles, but not understood by Christians as having a Christian source. I am not here to criticize any one for their particular beliefs, but I am here to call attention to the inconsistency of those beliefs. These inconsistencies create confusion which leads to impotence in and of His church and state, apathy, and finally death. And in this progression the tools necessary to stop it, i.e. a working knowledge of the Law, are lacking or are not even present.

Let us first get definitions out of the way, for we have to have some common ground upon which to proceed in this discourse. Contrary to popular belief, Christianity is a political statement of God's Will and Intention for man. And so do not be surprised to find religious terms in law dictionaries.

"ANTINOMIANISM. n. -s: the theological doctrine that by faith and God's gift of grace through the gospel a Christian is freed not only from the Old Testament law of Moses and all forms of legalism but also from all law including the generally accepted standards of morality prevailing in any given culture." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1981), vol. I, p. 95.

If we examine further the use of the word "antinomy" it means the following:

"ANTINOMY. A term used in the civil law to signify the real or apparent contradiction between two laws or two decisions. Merl. Report. h. t. Vide Conflict of Laws." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), p. 106.
"ANTINOMY. In Roman Law. A real or apparent contradiction or inconsistency in the laws. Merlin, Report.
"It is sometimes used as an English word, and spelled Antimony." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

Note the use of the word "apparent" in both of the definitions above. "Prima facie" is the Law word meaning the same thing, "on its face" sans any investigation behind the facade or face. Thus a device or artifice is implied, but not necessarily any deception. You are merely put on notice, and further investigation is required of you. Not only is this term a legal term, but it is also a religious term, coined by Luther. Other dictionaries define it to be:

"ANTINOMY. n. [L. antinomia, a contradiction between laws, from Gr. antinomia; anti-, against, and nomia, from nomos, law.] 1. Antagonism between laws; the opposition of one rule, principle, or law to another. 2. The unavoidable contradiction to pure reasoning which human limitations introduce, as formulated by Kant; paradoxical conclusion. 3. A contradiction or inconsistency between two apparently reasonable principles or laws." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 81.

Things prima facie appearing to be contradictory are not necessarily so. They must be interpreted in light of other passages of Scripture or legislation concerned with the same subject-matter. This leads us to the definition of "hermeneutics":

"HERMENEUTICS. (Greek, to interpret). The art and science, or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205. [Emphasis added.]

Note carefully the Christian source for this science. This Christian science is what is used to interpret all codes, rules, and regulations. And those secular judges like to say they are not religious? They would have to be religious to interpret the codes they enforce! It is that simple. Even idolatry itself is a religion. (So the next time you call, don't ask, "Do you think they know this?" The answer is most obvious to the casual observer.) The key word in the above definition is the word "truthful." We must then come to a definition of "Truth" so that we can be full of the Truth, or Truthful in our interpretation of Scripture:

"TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought [*the mind of Christ] and reality [*God's Word revealed in Christ, and in His creation both physical and spiritual]; eventual verification [*His Word does not return void but accomplishes His purpose]; and consistency of thought with itself [*not self-contradictory]. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [Christ Jesus manifests and manifested all three requirements.] From Elwell:
"TRUTH. Fundamental or spiritual reality. The first Christian theologian to attempt any systematic exposition of the concept of truth was Augustine. His immediate aim was to refute skepticism. If man's mind is incapable of grasping truth, particularly if man is incapable of grasping the truth about God, then morality and theology are impossible. Augustine distinguished four senses of the term 'truth.' First, truth is the affirmation of what is, e.g., three times three is nine, and David was king of Israel. Second, every reality (particularly the immutable, supersensible ideas) can be considered as an affirmation of itself: it is true when it merits the name it claims. In this sense beauty and wisdom are truth. Third, the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the Truth because he expresses the Father. And fourth, in the realm of sensible objects, such as plants and animals, there is a resemblance, but only a resemblance, to the primary realities of point two above. Strictly speaking, a visible tree is not a true tree. But as the resemblance is real, even sensible objects have a degree of truth.
"Many contemporary students of the Bible, fearing that Augustine or others are too deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, attempt to specify the several senses in which truth is used in the Scripture. Hoskyns and Davey, The Riddle of the NT, after quoting Eph. 4:20-24, seek for a conception of truth that will have 'not an intellectual but a moral and spiritual effect upon them.' The common conception of truth as 'a fact' or 'what is real,' so they assert, 'has no moral or spiritual significance.' The Hebrew notion of truth, with its close relation to God, is considered un-Greek. So also Gerhard Kittel distinguishes, more cautiously perhaps, between Hebrew and Greek usage, citing several passages in the Platonic dialogues.
"One should, however, bear in mind that the technical concepts of the philosophers are hardly ever used by the majority of the population, whether in ancient Greece or modern America. The Bible, too, is written in colloquial language, and the senses in which it uses the term truth are not so different from colloquial usage anywhere.
"One should also bear in mind that moral and spiritual truth is as much truth as mathematical, scientific, and historical truth. It is all equally 'intellectual.' Nonintellectual truth is unthinkable. It is not true that the common conception of truth as a fact or what is real 'has no moral or spiritual significance.' We need only to recall that God gave the Ten Commandments.
"Furthermore, the Greek philosophers did not divorce truth from moral and spiritual values. Plato went so far as to teach, to the consternation of many readers, that a knowledge of the truth automatically guarantees a moral life. Both Pythagoreanism and Neoplatonism were systems of salvation; and even the Stoics and Epicureans made ethics the culmination of philosophy.
"The differences between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek philosophies are rather to be sought in the nature and the method of the salvation proclaimed, in the concepts of sin, of redemption, and the specific norms of morality; and not in the usage of the word "truth." The relation between God and truth in the Scriptures is indisputably quite different from anything found in Greek philosophy, mainly because the concept of God is so different. It is in such theological content, not in philological usage, that the important distinctions are to be found.
"The usage of the words in the Scripture supports this conclusion. Plain, ordinary, factual truth is the point of Gen. 42:16, 'Ye shall be kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in you' (Cf. Deut. 13:14; 17:4; 22:20; Prov. 12:19; Jer. 9:3). Esth. 9:30 concerns legally certified information, and Josh. 2:12 points to a private oath.
"It is not a different meaning but precisely the same meaning when the veracity of divine revelation is asserted. God tells the truth; he tells what is so; his assertions are correct. Cf. Pss. 19:9; 119:160; Dan. 8:26; 10:1, 21.
"For the NT Kittel lists six different meanings of the word 'truth,' but adds that 'in many individual cases the distinction is not certain.' One of the six meanings is 'that which has existence or duration.' It is true that truth exists or endures, but it is not in this sense that Gal. 2:5, 14 and Eph. 4:21 define truth.
"Similarly one can rely on the truth without defining truth as 'that on which man can rely.' Rom. 15:8 is not thus to be pressed; nor with the connotation of 'sincerity' can II Cor. 7:14; 11:10; and Phil. 1:18 be used for this purpose.
"Rather, all these usages are derivative from the basic meaning of 'the actual fact' or 'the truth of an assertion.' Cf. Mark 12:14, 32; Luke 4:25; Acts 26:25; Rom. 1:18, 25. It is not another and different meaning, in the NT as in the OT, when it is applied to correct doctrine or right belief. Cf. II Cor. 4:2; 6:7; 13:8; I Tim. 2:4; II Tim. 3:7.
"Like other words, truth too can be used figuratively, by metonymy, in which the effect is substituted for the cause. Thus when Christ says, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,' the word 'truth' is just as figurative as the word 'life.' As Christ is the cause of life, so is He the cause of truth. That water freezes and that a sinner may be justified by faith are true because Christ creatively said, Let it be so. G. H. CLARK. Bibliography. Augustine, Contra Academicos; N. de Malebranche, Recherche de la Verite; J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding; I. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft; B. Blanshard, The Nature of Thought." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

These are the requirements for interpretation, for God's Word says:

"Thy word is true from the beginning [*Genesis 1:1]: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160.

Therefore His Word is consistent, without error and is the only Truth and Reality for the Good and Lawful Christian.

It is through the Lawful use of hermeneutics which marks the difference between a "christian" and a Good and Lawful Christian, as seen in the history of "antinomianism" itself, from Elwell:

"ANTINOMIANISM. The word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and/or obey the moral law of the OT. There have been several different justifications for this view down through the centuries. Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will keep them from sin. A second view has been that since the law came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father, it was a Christian's duty to disobey it. Third, others have said that since sin is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally, still others have opposed the preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
"It was the first of these views that the apostle Paul had to address in various letters to Christian churches in the first century. For example, there were those in the Corinth church who taught that once people were justified by faith, they could engage in immorality since there was no longer any obligation to obey the moral law (I Cor. 5-6). Paul also had to correct others who obviously had drawn wrong conclusions from his teachings on justification and grace (e.g., Rom. 3:8, 31). Paul himself agonized over his own inability to meet the law's demands, but also exalted it as holy, spiritual, and good (Rom. 7). Elsewhere he taught that the law was the schoolmaster who brings sinners to a knowledge of their sin and therefore to Christ (Gal. 3:24). He concluded that the proper relationship was that of the stipulated works of the law flowing from the experience of saving grace rather than vice versa (Rom. 6-8).
"Perhaps the most extreme form of antinomianism in early Christianity found expression in the Adamite sect in North Africa. The Adamites flourished in the second and third centuries, called their church 'Paradise,' condemned marriage because Adam had not observed it, and worshiped in the nude.
"Many Gnostics in the first centuries of the Christian era held the second of these variations of antinomianism, that the Demiurage, not the true God, gave the moral law; therefore it should not be kept. Some forms of antinomian Gnosticism survived well into the Middle Ages. Moreover, various medieval heretical groups preached Corinthian- style freedom from the law, some going so far as to claim that even prostitution was not sinful for the spiritual person.
"The two most famous antinomian controversies in Christian history occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and involved Martin Luther and Anne Hutchinson, respectively. In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word "antinomianism" in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola. In the early days of the Reformation, Luther had taught that, after NT times, the moral law had only the negative value of preparing sinners for grace by making them aware of their sin. Agricola denied even this function of the law, believing that repentance should be induced only through the preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
"This first major theological controversy in Protestant history lasted intermittently from 1537 to 1540. During this time Luther began to stress the role of the law in Christian life and to preach that it was needed to discipline Christians. He also wrote an important theological treatise to refute antinomianism once and for all: Against the Antinomians (1539). The whole matter was finally settled for Lutheranism by the Formula of Concord in 1577, which recognized a threefold use of the law: (1) to reveal sin, (2) to establish general decency in society at large, and (3) to provide a rule of life for those who have been regenerated through faith in Christ.
"There were several outbreaks of antinomianism in the Puritan movement in seventeenth century England. However, the major controversy over this teaching among Puritans came in New England in the 1630s in connection with an outspoken woman named Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634. At the time, the New England Puritans were attempting to clarify the place of 'preparation for conversion' in covenant (or federal) theology. They had come to the conclusion that salvation lay in fulfilling the conditions of God's covenant with humankind, including preparation for justification and a conscious effort toward sanctification. To some, including Hutchinson, this seemed like an overemphasis on the observance of the law, and she condemned it as a 'covenant of works.' Instead, she stressed the 'covenant of grace,' which she said was apart from the works of the law. She began to hold informal meetings in her home to expound her views and to denounce those of the preachers in Massachusetts.
"In the context of the great stress of the times, it was only a few years before the civil war erupted in England and the colony lived in tense frontier circumstances, the New England clergy probably misunderstood her main concerns and overreacted to what they perceived to be a threat to the unity and internal security of the Puritan community. At a synod of Congregational churches in 1637 Hutchinson was condemned as an antinomian, enthusiast, and heretic, and banished from the colony. In 1638 she moved to Rhode Island.
"In the twentieth century some have viewed existentialist ethics, situation ethics, and moral relativism as forms of antinomianism because these either reject or diminish the normative force of moral law. Certainly most orthodox Christians today agree that the law served the twin purposes of establishing the fact of human sin and of providing moral guidelines for Christian living. In general the various antinomian controversies in history have clarified the legitimate distinctions between law and gospel and between justification and sanctification.
"The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace. R. D. LINDER. See also AGRICOLA, JOHANN; JUSTIFICATION; SANCTIFICATION. Bibliography. E. Battis, Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; R. Bertram, "The Radical Dialectic Between Faith and Works in Luther's Lectures on Galatians (1535)," in C. S. Meyer, ed., Luther for an Ecumenical Age; D. D. Hall, ed., The Antinomian Controversy, 1636- 1638: A Documentary History; F. F. Bruce, New Testament History; M. U. Edwards, Jr., Luther and the False Brethren." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

Be sure you read about the doctrine of antinomianism very carefully. It has some serious defects from both a Scriptural point of view and political point of view. And that is the reason for this article. This wonder drug, antinomianism, like all other wonder drugs, has its roots in man's limited reason--not God's Word. The apparent conflict is over setting the Law of God against the Grace of God. To divide the Sovereign's Law is to attempt to impugn the Sovereign Lawgiver Himself. Who has the standing to do that? The two are actually compatible and complementary of each other.

Quite obviously, those who adhere to such doctrines would be called "antinomians":

"ANTINOMIAN. n. [from antinomy, and -an.] a member of a Christian sect which held that faith alone, not obedience to the moral law, is necessary for salvation." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 81.
"ANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or obligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that clearly supersede the necessity of good works and virtuous life. The Antinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538, who taught that the law was in no wise necessary under the Gospel; that good works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that repentance is not to be preached from the decalogue, but only from the Gospel. This sect sprung up in England under the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell; and extended their system of libertinism much farther than Agricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers expressly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace nor forfeit the divine favor, the wicked actions the commit are not really sinful, nor are to be considered as instances of their violation of the divine law; and that consequently they have no occasion either to confess their sins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford, Schlusselburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, & c. have written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c., defences, of the Antinomians; Wignadus, a comparison between ancient and modern Antinomians.
"The doctrine of Agricola was it itself obscure, and is thought to have been represented worse than it really was by Luther, who write against him with acrimony, and the first styled him and his followers Antinomians. Agricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth century are considered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he acknowledges that, 'in respect of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,' as he adds, 'we are lawless, to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which no true Christian dares so much as think of.' The following sentiments, however, among others, are taught in his sermons: 'The law is cruel and tyrannical, requiring what is naturally impossible.' 'The sins of the elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though He did not commit them, yet they became actually his transgressions, and ceased to be theirs.' 'The feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise from a want of knowing the truth.' 'It is but the voice of a lying spirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting their consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for them to bear.' 'Christ's righteousness is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing to be sinners, are as righteous as He was, and all that He was.' 'An elect person is not in a condemned state while and unbeliever; and should he happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.' 'Repentance and confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A believer may certainly conclude before confession, yea, as soon as he hath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of Christ embracing him.' These dangerous sentiments, and others of similar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none more ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his 'Checks to Antinomianism.'" Watson's Bible Dictionary (1833), p. 63. [This dictionary will be available on-line sometime this summer.]

Antinomy is not a Christian doctrine. This is seen from the following passages of Scripture, for our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, is the One speaking:

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord." Matthew 10:24-25.

We can see then if one is a Good and Lawful Christian that he is not greater than his Master, Christ Jesus. If one were greater than his Master, then he or she must have the Testimony of our Father to substantiate this standing. None is forthcoming. This is such a simple Truth, it can be taken for granted and is not open for disputations. For if you dispute this point, you go against our Master, and the Master you claim by calling your self a "christian." Which is it--are you greater than Christ Jesus, and have your own "christianity?" or are you under the Law circumscribing the high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ established in Law by our Father?

Our next point to be made is from the following passage, again our Master, Christ Jesus is speaking:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

The very fact that Christ Jesus never destroyed the Law must mean that the Law is still intact and in effect. The key word in the above passage then is fulfil. Many have taken this word to mean that He destroyed the Law. But this does not fit with what He said earlier in the same statement. This would be a contradiction, which would not be the Truth. Would Christ Jesus impugn the Testimony of His Father and Himself? Thus we must invoke the basic rules of hermeneutics, established by Good and Lawful Christians, and adopted by jurists when construing a law, statute, code, rule or regulation, those rules being:

"Magis de bono quam de malo lex intendit --The law favors a good rather than a bad construction." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1102.
"Voluntas ultima testatoris est perimplenda secundum veram intentionem suam --The will of a testator [*our Father and our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ] is to be fulfilled according to his true intention." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2168.

From here we must ascertain the Will or Intention of our Father revealed in Christ Jesus to properly interpret the above passage of Scripture. When we have done this we proceed:

"Non aliter a significatione verborum recedi oportet quam cum manifestum est, aliud sensisse testatorem --We must never depart from the signification of words, unless it is evident that they are not conformable to the will of the testator [*our Father and our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ]." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1200.
"A verbis non est recedendum --From the words of the law, there should be no departure." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.
"Quoties in verbis nulla est ambiguitas, ibi nulla expositio contra verba expressa fienda est --When there is no ambiguity in the words, then no exposition contrary to the words is to be made." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2160.

Thus, each word in every passage of Scripture has a specific relation to the Giver of it and the One Who executed it, Christ Jesus. That relation is Intention. Because the Giver of the Law is Perfect, His Law must be Perfect. Because the Giver is Perfect, there is only Truth in His Law. Thus, if we do not construe the Intention truthfully, then either Christ Jesus is not True, or we are not True. As a consequence of this, either Christ Jesus' interpretation of our Father's Intention is True and we are all saved by Him; or, if our misconstruction is True, we are all condemned and damned. There is no gray area here. We know this is true because He says:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6.

Thus our misconstruction would not True and we would be condemned and damned.

"The acts [*Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment] being clearly in pari materia, they must of course be read together and treated as parts of one system [*of Law]." Potter's Dwarris, p. 189. [Insertion added.]
"IN PARI MATERIA. Upon the same matter or subject. Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together [*as one]; Union Soc. v. Bank, 7 Conn. 456." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1523.

"Why all these rules?" you ask. Because the Law has two functions: To seek the Truth and preserve it. If the Truth is in Law, then God will preserve it by His Word. This is the issue in the Garden, and why the flaming sword is placed between those out of the Law and those in Law. This is very relevant to our issue of antinomianism for: One, if we see what it is Christ Jesus did and does for us, we can better serve Him in Whose Name we are sent; and Two, it will help us to understand better the Powers appertaining to high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ established in prophecy by our Father and executed or fulfilled in the Redemptive Work of Christ Jesus. Let us go to our textual tools to see what the word fulfil means in the original Greek and also what it means in today's English:

4137. PLEROO; from pleres (4134) full. To fill, as a net with fish (Matt 13:48), as a house with a perfumed smell (John 12:3); to fill up, as a valley (Luke 3:5), or measure (Matt 23:32); fill up, supply (Phil 4:19); to fulfill, complete used of time (Matt 2:15; Luke 21:24; John 7:8; Acts 24:27), of number (Rev 6:11), to perfect (John 15:11; Phil 2:2); to finish, end (Luke 7:1); to accomplish, perform fully (Matt 3:15; Luke 9:31; Acts 12:25; Rom 138; Col 4:17); to preach or explain fully (Rom 15:19; Col 1:25); to accomplish or perform what was foretold or prefigured in the OT (Matt 1:22; 21:4; John 19:24, 36); to fully satisfy (Matt 5:17). When Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill, meaning that He came not only to fulfill the types and prophecies by His actions and sufferings, but also to perform perfect obedience to the Law of God in His own Person and to enforce and explain it fully by His Doctrine. Thus He has fully satisfied the requirements of the Law." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, King James Version (1994), p. 931.

This word "fulfill" in today's current understanding the following:

"FULFILL or FULFIL. 1. archaic: to make full: FILL. 2. To supply the missing parts of: make whole [*Ps 23:3; Is 49:5-13; Is 58:12; Acts 9:34]: INTEGRATE [*both the Old and the New Testaments in One--Christ Jesus]. 3. a. To carry out: ACCOMPLISH, EXECUTE [*the Will of our Father--Mt 26:39; Jn 4:34; 5:30, 36; 6:38;] b. To finish out: bring to an end [*Jn 17:4; 19:30]; c. To come up to (as a requirement): MEET, ANSWER, SATISFY [*Ps 91:16; Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10]; 4. a. To measure up to: convert into reality [*2 Cor 4:14-18; 1 Tim 3:16]; b. To realize the full potentialities of: develop completely: CONSUMMATE. Syn. PERFORM, SATISFY." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1981), p. 919. [Insertions added.]
"FULFILL or FULFIL. 1. To fill to the full; to fill entirely. [Archaic.] 2. To carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen. 3. To do (something required); obey. 4. To fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition); answer (a purpose); 5. To complete; to bring to an end. Syn.--Accomplish, realize.--To fulfill is literally to fill quite full, that is, to bring about a full or complete achievement; to accomplish is to exert effort and to persevere in order to bring to perfection; to realize is to make real, namely, whatever has been aimed at." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 739.

Note, not one thing has changed in the last two thousand years. Did you notice the words "execute," "satisfy," "accomplish," "meet" and "answer"? This is extremely critical for the Good and Lawful Christian. Why? Our Brother James said it best in his Epistle:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works [*show me your faith by your "lip service"], and I will show thee my faith by my works." James 2:14-18. [Emphasis added.]

Christ Jesus said, in full accord with the prophecies concerning Him, then, that He would Accomplish perfectly in Himself the Execution or performance of an act desired by the Intention of our Father in satisfaction of a Judgment given according to Law, thereby Answering the Obligation of man to God our Father, and Consummating the reconciliation of God and man in Himself. If one contends that consummation ends a relationship, then how does one ever remain in the state of matrimony after consummating his marriage? Does the man end the wife's life and vice versa? If Christ Jesus had done away with the Law, of what value would be the Judgment He executed? For all judgments are executed in pursuance of the law which decreed the judgment. Without the Law there is no Judgment, and no Redemption, for Redemption is made according to the Obligation of the Law so decreeing the Obligation. Without Redemption there is only condemnation. Thus, one can never be antinomian in his beliefs and acts and maintain he is a disciple of Christ Jesus. They are mutually exclusive.

So, we can say, if nothing has changed by Scripture and by dictionary definitions, what it is that has changed? God cannot and did not change; Christ Jesus did not change; the Holy Spirit is still the same. So what is it that has changed? The presuppositions of the pastors thereby changing the doctrine preached as a consequence. Please note that "doctrine" is not the same as Truth. Christ Jesus so draws the distinction in Scripture and leaves no doubt:

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments [*codes, rules and regulations] of men." Mt 15:7-9. [Insertion added.] See also Mk 7:7. [Can you see the current Pharisees now?]

Of what value is this false doctrine of antinomianism, and whose interests does it serve? This is easily answered:

"Divide impera --divide and rule."

Such a simple concept, but what consequences it has, in terms of crippling Christ Jesus' church and state on first glance. But now, who or what is divided? It appears to be the church. But on closer examination, it is not the church--it is humanity. "Humanity?" you ask. Of course. Again, Christ Jesus speaks to us:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt 16:18.

Again He says,

"He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.

So that the antinomian wars against the Person he claims to follow and worship. One cannot be a Good and Lawful Christian and war against the Sovereign he claims, Who established the Office in Law:

"A distinguishing feature between an 'office' and an 'agency' is that the former originates in the law while the latter originates in contract." Bear River Sand Corp. v. Placer County (1953), 118 C.A.2d 684, 258 P.2d 543.

This raises an impossibility in Law. If one wants the protection appertaining to the high and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ, he cannot assault it with beliefs contrary to the Law establishing it:

"Res transit cum suo onere --The thing passes with its burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.
"Cujus est commodum, ejus est onus --He who has the benefit has also the burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

To occupy an Office contrary to the Law establishing it is a crime--usurpation of office. Again, there are no gray areas here.

According to Christ Jesus, His church shall always be victorious--the "jurisdiction of hell shall not prevail against it." For a state or church to be victorious it can never be divided or be destroyed-- "[*Being] of the same mind [*in Christ] one toward another." Only man-made "institutions" can be divided and ruled by the natural man. If it were otherwise, then God's Providence may be questioned at will by the "self-willed" and rebellious natural man. But it is not otherwise, and God's Providence is impeccable and can never be questioned. How do we know this to be true? Because of the concurrence and corroboration of the Minds of both our Father and our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ:

"So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11. [Emphasis added.]
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but My words shall not pass away." Luke 21:33.

The 'Autopsy Report' will be continued next month.

The Modern Gospel Versions

Part One

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

Due to the humanist and satanic attack on The Word of God, and the confusion created by the Babylonian Book Sellers of the modern era through the marketing of their numerous commercially copyrighted versions of The Word of God, the following is offered. It is a short synopsis of a very large subject. The main subjects are 'The Source of Translation,' 'The Doctrine of Preservation' and 'Original Inspiration,' and the main question is, "Who is in control of God's Word?" Next month, we will go into greater detail on the statements below.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Jesus, the Christ is saying, "My words will not be broken, in Heaven or on earth."

"But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deuteronomy 6:6-7

He promised to preserve The Words.

God has preserved His Word, in fact!! Those who say He hasn't, or that the specific words are not important, are saying that God is a liar.

Can the loving preservation of the Word of God pass from the hands of His People, into the hands of corrupting profiteers?

The original principle that The Word of God is Sacred has been co-opted for the principle of private interpretation. An example of this is seen by one of the early translators of the various modern Bibles.

"Once the translation of The New Testament is freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration, difficulties cease to be formidable." James Moffatt, Introduction to Moffatt's New Translation of The New Testament (1913).

In other words, "things are quite open ended now, and you have freedom to interpret it any way you want." He did just that.

Preservation of God's Word has always been in God's Hands, not in man's hands.

So, what did God actually say? How can you be sure of the message when you're not sure what God said?

How can you have an inspired message apart from inspired words?

How can we be sure of God's message apart from God's words?

How do you "rightly divide the word of truth" if you don't know the true words?

Where are we as a body of believers if each says, "Well, I believe this version of The Bible (or that version) is the Word of God," or "I like this version better that that one."

There are two sources to all translations.

The King James Bible is translated from the The Greek Textus Receptus, which is also known as The Traditional Text, The Byzantine Text, or The Majority Text.

The numerous modern versions are translated from The Eclectic Texts, or Alexandian Texts. These texts have many discrepancies between them, openly admitted by the modern translators.

Corruption of these Eclectic (pick and choose) manuscripts can be traced from the days of Origen, with his departure from the Greek Textus Receptus.

According to the 1936 edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. 16, pp. 900-902, Origen taught that, "the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being who did not have eternal existence as God."

Who was Origen?

Origen was a textual critic in the second century A.D. who corrected numerous portions of several sacred manuscripts. Evidently, he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus, through deceptive scholarship of this kind, certain manu- scripts became corrupted.

From this Origen source, several of the modern revised versions of The New Testament have been created by Griesbach, Wordsworth, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Darby, Scofield, Westcott & Hort, Tregelles, Alford, etc., all of which are commercially copyrighted.

Out of 200 selected New Testament verses, the following 24 modern versions have important omissions totaling in number, as follows:

New International Version...

Revised Standard N.T....

Berkeley Version N.T....

Weymouth's in Modern Speech N.T....

New American Standard N.T....

Good News for Modern Man N.T....

William's New Testament...

Ivan Panin's Numeric N.T....

Goodspeed's American Transl. N.T....

Moffatt's New Translation N.T....

Wuest's Expanded Translation N.T....

Amplified New Testament...

Twentieth Century New Testament...

Phillip's New Testament...

Darby's Translation New Testament...

Living New Testament Paraphrased...

New Confraternity New Testament....

Norlie's New Translation N.T....

Lamsa's Eastern Text N.T....

John Wesley's Translation N.T....

Martin Luther's German N.T....

King James Version N.T....

Textus Receptus (King James Greek)...

Next month, we will document the omissions in greater detail, and further discuss the various translations and their sources.

Fictions of law-

Human beings and other Humanist creations

Part Two:

by Randy Lee

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

The irony of this statement is that not only have the judges, lawyers, news media, school teachers, etc., convinced everyone that they are a human being and have 'a human spirit,' but that the Christian clergy as well have bought into these fictions of the humanist world.

You will not find anywhere in The Word of God the terms human or human being used, or that God's people are animals. It has become a 'traditional' vehicle by which everyone, Christian and pagan alike, are lumped into the same category--that category being the 'animal' world of the unregenerate, wicked, sinful, earthy, and dissolute natural man, and his 'rat race.'

"What has been found true about rats may be applied to humans." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting E. E. Slosson.

It was not always this way. At an earlier time, before the current degeneration and feminization of the church, a few 'purist' clergy were quite aware that a Christian, being 'a new man,' is no longer a human being, to wit:

"The Sabbath, as an institute given to men for all ages and dispensations, even including that of Paradise, was and is God's means for maintaining in the human family His knowledge and fear as our Maker, Ruler and future Judge. But on that fear all moral institutions repose--the family and the state, as truly as the church. Therefore, men are naturally bound to keep the Sabbath simply as men, and not only as Christians.
After man fell, and came to need redemption, the Sabbath was also continued by God as a means of grace and a gospel institute. But this did not repeal or exclude its original use. The professed Christian has two reasons for observing the Sabbath; every human being has one." The Christian Sabbath (1854), by Robert L. Dabney.

Robert Dabney is a highly respected and recognized biblical scholar of the nineteenth century, and in addition, was the Chaplain for the troops under Stonewall Jackson during Lincoln's War. The pointedly clear distinction between Christians and human beings by this 'purist,' is a jewel not to be ignored.

From the other side of the coin we have one of the secular definitions 'in law' of what a human being is, explained to us in 1926 by Roscoe Pound, who was a 33rd degree Mason and the Dean of Harvard Law School (masquerading under a moral guise through a former Christian college):

"In England in the rise of the court of chancery and development of equity, ethical ideas from the casuist literature of the sixteenth century, and the general notions of right and wrong held by chancellors who were not common-law lawyers, were made liberalizing agencies. In Continental Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the philosophical ideas of juristic writers upon the law of nature were used in the same way. Thus, moral duty was turned into legal duty and put in the foreground in place of legal remedy. Reason was relied upon rather than strict rules. The individual human being, as the moral unit, became the legal unit. It was conceived that the moral principle, simply as such and for that reason, was to be also a legal rule." Law and Morals (1926) by Roscoe Pound, page 30.

So goes the 'benefits' of unregenerate man's 'reason' and 'equity.'

From one side we have the earlier clergy disclosing to us that a Christian, when taking on the yoke of Christ, is no longer a human being, but a Christian being; and, what a human being really is from the ungodly of Harvard. In spite of it all, we are constantly taught by both the 'godly' and ungodly of today that everyone is a human being and a member of the highest animal species. How can this be? What are the consequences of partaking of such heresy?; the heresy of accepting that which is contrary to Scripture--God's people being brought down to the level of the pagan natural man:

"Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away. Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for thy people are as they that strive with the priest. Therefore shalt thou fall in the day, and the prophet also shall fall with thee in the night, and I will destroy thy mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to Me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against Me: therefore will I change their glory into shame." Hosea 4:3-7

From Matthew Henry's Commentaries on these verses:

"The ruin of those who have helped to ruin others will, in a special manner, be intolerable. And did the children think that when they were in danger of falling, their mother would help them? 'It shall be in vain to expect it, for I will destroy thy mother, Samaria, the mother-city, the whole state, or kingdom, which is as a mother to every part. It shall all be made silent.' Note, When all are involved in guilt nothing less can be expected than that all should be involved in ruin.
Both priests and people rejected knowledge; and justly therefore will God reject them. The reason why the people did not learn, and the priests did not teach, was not because they had not the light, but because they hated it--not because they had not ways of coming to the knowledge of God and of communicating it, but because they had no heart to it; they rejected it. They desired not the knowledge of God's ways, but put it from them, and shut their eyes against the light; and therefore 'I will also reject thee; I will refuse to take cognizance of thee and to own thee; you will not know Me, but bid Me depart; I will therefore say, Depart from Me, I know you not. Thou shalt be no priest to Me.'"

The clergy of today are taught at seminary that Christ was both a 'human being' and God, and in turn teach this heresy, though Scripture does not teach this.

In addition, these Neoplatonic teachers of today tell us that we live under Grace, not under Law. Through this doctrine is created the separation of the inner man and the outer man, known as 'pietism,' even though the being of the Christian is a unity under Christ which includes both the inner man and the outer man. There is not, and should not, be an artificial separation.

The recognition of 'the new man' under Christ seems to elude them. The aspect of the Christian being (the inner and outer man) is ignored in favor of the sinful human being only; their mentality is "There is no ability of repentance in the outer man. Thus, the outer man is not under the authority of Christ, nor is he influenced by The Holy Spirit, and he is condemned forever to engage in lawless activities"-- i.e., commerce, Sabbath breaking, blasphemy, etc., which in turn leaves these 'teachers' free to be utterly lawless, i.e., being a 501(c)3 corporation doing business on The Sabbath. This 'new religion' says, "We've just got to live in this corrupt old world."

Like the humanist, the 'new religion' sees only the world, itself, and its fellow 'human beings'--and nothing more:

"There are no absolutes and man must content himself with being." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting H. E. Clurman.

Until the body of believers are freed of these heresies, the Bride is not capable of making herself ready for the Bridegroom.

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be My son." Revelation 21:7

More 'Fictions of Law' next month.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

"SOJOURN, v.i.; sojourned, pt., pp.; sojourning, ppr. [Ofr. sojorner, sojourner; It. Soggiornare, from LL. (Hyp.) subdiurnare; sub, under, and diurnus, pertaining to a day, from dies, a day.] to dwell for a time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident, or as a stranger, not considering the place as a permanent habitation; as, Abraham sojourned in Egypt. "Syn.--abide, tarry, dwell, stay, live." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1725.

"TRANSIENT. Passing by or away. XVII. -L. transiens (obl. transeunt-, repr. In some uses by transeunt), prp. of transire pass over, f. trans TRANS-+ire go; cf. AMBIENT." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 936. [You are just merely passing by the Post Office to receive matter posted to You. This word has absolutely nothing to do with economic status. But it does have everything to do with being "homeless." Homeless is a good word-it has been butchered by the media.]

"TRANSIENT, a. [L. transiens (-entis), ppr. of transire, to go across; trans, across, and ire, to go.]

"1. (A) passing away with time; not permanent; temporary; transitory; (b) passing quickly or soon; fleeting; ephemeral.

"2. Transeunt.

"3. Staying only for a short time; not permanently settled, etc.; as, a transient lodger.

"4. In music, designating or of a temporary modulation.

"Syn.--fleeting, fugitive, transitory, temporary, passing, evanescent, ephemeral, momentary, brief." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1939.

"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land." Lev. 25:23-24.

"The Palatine, because of its nearness to the Forum, became the residence district for the statesmen and wealthy people of the city. Hence it was natural that the first emperors had their homes there. Eventually the whole imperial administration was centerd on this hill, and the emperor's buildings covered it completely. So the hill which was named after the patron goddess of the shepherds who built their rude huts there came to be the site of magnificent buildings. Thus it happens that our word palace is derived from the name of the hill.

"Another hill near the Forum, the Capitoline, got its name from the famous temple of Jupiter known as the Capitolium, because it was the 'head' (caput), or chief temple of that god. From it the Capitol at Washington gets its name, as well as the Capitols at the various states. The hill also had on it a fort and the temple of Juno Moneta. In connection with this a mint for coining money was later established, and thus from the word moneta we get our words money and mint." New Elementary Latin (1932), p. 129.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Pray without Ceasing

A number of ministers were assembled for the discussion of difficult questions, and among others it was asked, "How the command to pray with ceasing could be complied with? Various suppositions were stated; and at length, one of the number was appointed to write an essay upon it, and read it at the next meeting; which being overheard by a plain sensible girl, she exclaimed, "what! a whole month wanted to tell the meaning of that text? It is one of the easiest, and best texts in the Bible."

"Well," said an old minister, "Mary, what can you say about it? Let us know how you understand it. Can you pray all the time?"

"O yes sir."

"What! when you have so many things to do?"

"Why sir, the more I have to do, the more I can pray."

"Indeed! well Mary, do let us know how it is, for most people think otherwise."

"Well, sir," said the girl, "when I open my eyes in the morning, I pray, 'Lord, open the eyes of my understanding;' and while I am dressing, I pray that I may be clothed with the robe of righteousness; and when I have washed me, I ask for the washing of regeneration; and as I begin my work, I pray that I may have strength equal to my day. When I begin to kindle up the fire, I pray that God's work may revive in my soul; and as I sweep out the house, I pray that my heart may be cleansed from all its impurities; and while preparing and partaking of breakfast, I desire to be fed with the hidden manna and the sincere milk of the Word; and while I am busy with the little children, I look up to God as my Father, and pray for the spirit of adoption, that I may be His child, and so on all day. Everything I do furnishes me with a thought for prayer."

"Enough, enough," cried the old divine, "these things are revealed to babes, and often hidden from the wise and prudent. Go on Mary, pray without ceasing. And as for us, my brethren, let us bless the Lord for this exposition, and remember that He has said the meek will He guide in judgment."

The essay, as a matter of course, was not considered necessary, after this little event occurred.

Bits and Pieces

compiled by Randy Lee

'general delivery'

When at general delivery, the disciple of Christ is everywhere in general, nowhere specific (transient). A 'resident' at an address is nowhere in general, but specifically everywhere 'in the field.'

For, as Christ said, "... The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Matthew 8:20

(For definition of 'in the field,' see Etymologicum Anglicanum in Issue the Sixteenth of The News).

Brothers and Sisters

Those at 'general delivery' will notice that on their envelope label for The News this month, 'Brother' or 'Sister' precedes your Christian Appellation.

The reason for this is: Notice to the world that you are separate and distinct, being a member of the church located at general delivery (and not a belligerent located 'in their field').

As late as 1893 in Chicago, "the general delivery clerk had to deal with the leading banker, the leading politician, the smart clergyman of the town...and the family that will never allow its mail to be delivered by carrier." The Story of Our Post Office, (1893) by Marshall Cushing, p. 186

Lawyers ...and other reptiles

A Really, Really Bad Day...

August 21, 1878: At a meeting in Saratoga, New York, the American Bar Association was founded.

---------------

Lawyer Defined:

Lawyer: 1. A person who takes this from that, with the result that That hath not where to lay his head. 2. An unnecessary evil. 3. The only man in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.

--Elbert Hubbard, The Roycroft Dictionary and Book of Epigrams.

---------------

Now, that's dedication!!! ...

"Lawyers as a group are no more dedicated to justice or public service than a private utility is dedicated to giving light." --David Mellinkoff, law professor, UCLA.

---------------

Practice makes perfect!!! ...

"No one can have been for twenty years in active and varied legal practice without becoming convinced that the profession to which he belongs harbors within itself examples of as base, deliberate, and ingenious depravity as any that, less favored by fortune or cunning, have gravitated into the penitentiary."
--Theodore Bacon, 1882

---------------

Now ya see it, now ya don't! ...

"The law is a kind of hocus-pocus science that smiles in your face while it picks your pocket."
--H. L. Mencken

---------------

Strange, very Strange:

Here lies an honest lawyer, And that is Strange.

--epitaph for the lawyer Sir John Strange

Assurance or Insurance?

In a letter from Michael Paul: McClinton, he writes:

"I don't have insurance of any kind. With Christ in my heart, God showed me in 1992 that His protection alone was sufficient.

I was driving towards an intersection with the traffic light showing red. I down-shifted the car preparing to stop, when suddenly the traffic light turned to green. My eyes recognized it and I thought how 'nice' the timing was; that I'll just cruise through it--BUT my body did not respond to my thought. It just continued that previous function and stopped the car. In the middle of thinking to myself, "Come on dummy, the light is green," a huge four wheel truck flew through the intersection (that I would have entered) at a high rate of speed, running the red light.

From that day I've never been, and never will be, a proud man of my own will.

I knew then, and now, that doing God's Will can bring Blessings and Rewards that no Babylon tower theory can.

Only those in the Ivory Tower with God Almighty can understand!!"

Martial Law

"I do not know of anything that you can not do under existing circumstances that you could do any better if there was a written proclamation of martial law posted in your district. Or, as some authorities have stated, "Martial law proclaims itself."" A Practical Manual of Martial Law (1940), by Frederick Bernays Wiener, page 20.

Issue the Twenty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Fictions of law, Part Three...

Judge quotes Scripture' Update...

Doing God's Business...

Rehabilitation through His Word...

Timeline of Tyranny, Part Two...

The 501(c)-3 Corpse, Part One...

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Fictions of law-

The cause, origin and foundation of current law, straight from the horse's mouth.

Part Three

presented by Randy Lee

For those who continue to wonder why 'man's law' seems to be devoid of truth and justice, the following self-explanatory admissions from its law profession are presented for your edification.

When will The Bride finally realize that the only Truth is found--as it always has been and always will be--in and through Her Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ???

The Foundation of Today's Courts,

revealed by law professor L.L. Fuller

"Probably no lawyer would deny that judges and writers on legal topics frequently make statements which they know to be false. These statements are called 'fictions.' There is scarcely a field of the law in which one does not encounter one after another of these conceits of the legal imagination. Sometimes they take the form of pretenses as obvious and guileless as the 'let's play' of children, as Roscoe Pound explained in his Interpretations of Legal History, page 4, that:

"From time to time they (the judges) make the inevitable readjustments...by fictions often comparable to the 'let's play' this and that of children."

At other times they assume a more subtle character and effect their entrance into the law under the cover of such grammatical disguises as, "the law presumes," "it must be implied," "the plaintiff must be deemed," etc. Nor is it true, as is sometimes tacitly assumed, that fictions are to be found only in court decisions, where they are the product of the peculiar situation of the judge, who must, or feels that he must, to some extent conceal the true nature of his activities. Fictions are to be found not only in the opinions of judges, but in critical treatises written by men free from any of the influences which supposedly restrain the judge and warp his expression. Even the austere science of Jurisprudence has not found it possible to dispense with fiction. The influence of the fiction extends to every department of the jurist's activity.

Yet it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused the legal profession much embarrassment. Laymen frequently complain of the law; they very seldom complain that it is founded upon fictions." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Russian Proverb

"A judge is like a carpenter; what he wants, he carves."

Law and reality to the law profession,

revealed by Legal History professor Pierre de Tourtoulon

"The oldest and most essential ideas are nearly all, if not all, fictitious. Marriage is a fictitious purchase and sale, the power of a father is a fictitious master's power, adoption is a fictitious fatherhood, in certain respects the last will and testament is (at least sometimes is) a fictitious adoption, legitimation assumes fictitiously a marriage which never existed, etc. It would not therefore be inaccurate to claim that our reality is simply fiction differentiated, and that at bottom is reduced to a series of fictions heaped one upon another in successive layers." 'Philosophy in the Development of Law,' (1922), p. 387, by Pierre de Tourtoulon, University of Lausanne Professor of Legal History.

The source of fictions of law,

revealed by Jeremy Bentham

"Fictions were invented by the Roman prætors, who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it, under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness, which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact, what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign--he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurption of the bench." 4 Benth. Ev. 300.

What is truth to the law profession?,

revealed L.L. Fuller

"A fiction is frequently a metaphorical way of expressing a truth. The truth of any given statement is only a question of its adequacy. No statement is an entirely adequate expression of reality, but we reserve the label "false" for those statements involving an inadequacy which is outstanding or unusual. The truth of a statement is, then, a question of degree." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Today's juristic truth,

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"We might erect a legal world in which silence is consent, taking is finding, attracting is inviting, to bring a suit is to achieve Roman citizenship; a world in which even the commonest expressions were to be understood in a Pickwickian sense. This attitude has, indeed, been dignified by a name--'the theory of the juristic truth of fictions.' " 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, page 378, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Corporations and natural persons as legal fictions with legal rights,

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"It is clear that the corporation, taken as a unit, must be treated by the courts and legislatures in that somewhat complex fashion which we epitomize by saying that legal rights and duties are attributed to the corporation. It is further clear that this treatment of the corporation bears a striking resemblance to that accorded 'natural persons.' It then follows that natural persons and corporations are to some extent treated in the same way in the law; they form a 'class.' Assuming, however, that it is worth while having a name for this common class formed by natural persons and corporations, is the word 'person' the most desirable name? Would 'legal subject' be better? Or 'right-and-duty-bearing-unit'?" 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, p.373, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Roman vs. English Fiction

revealed by L.L. Fuller

"The Roman fiction carried a grammatical acknowledgment of its falsity; the English fiction appeared as a statement of fact; its fictitious character was apparent only to the initiate. The Roman fiction was an assumptive fiction, a fiction taking an 'as if' form; the English fiction was (and is) a fiction ordinarily taking an 'is' or assertive form." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930, page 390, 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Illinois Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Jeremy Bentham on fictions of law

from his "Works," Browning's Edition.

"In English law, fiction is a syphilis, which runs in every vein, and carries into every part of the system the principle of rottenness." vol. 5, page 92.

"It [a legal fiction] affords presumptive and conclusive evidence of moral turpitude in those by whom it was invented and first employed. It has never been used but with bad effect." vol. 9, page 77.

"Fictions of use to justice? Exactly as swindling is to trade." vol. 7, page 283.

"Legal fictions are the most pernicious and basest sort of lying." vol. 6, page 582.

The father of the humanist lawyers

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

More 'fictions of law' next month.

'Judge quotes Scripture' Update

by The King's Men

Bellevue Leader

February 25, 1998 Bellevue, Nebraska

Bible use in court backed

Religion in the courtroom

By JOE DEJKA
Leader senior writer

The battle lines of a religious debate with far-reaching implications were drawn Monday evening.

The Nebraska Attorney General's Office leaped to the defense of Sarpy County District Court Judge George Thompson, who is accused of bias for quoting the Bible before he sentenced a gay man to prison for sexual assault on a teen-age boy.

In a legal brief filed Monday challenging Aaron Pattno's appeal of his prison sentence, Assistant Attorney General David Bydalek said Pattno deserved his sentence and that judges have the right to make moral pronouncements at sentencing.

Bydalek said that to find evidence of religion in government, the Nebraska Court of Appeals need look no farther than the walls of The Nebraska Supreme Court Chamber, which is adorned with a permanent representation of the Ten Commandments.

Judges must avoid making sentencing decisions based on their own personal biases or prejudices, he said.

However, "this does not mean that judges are required to function as amoral automatons, whose sentencing pronouncements must be censored of any reference to moral turpitude, need for rehabilitation or protection of the public health, safety, welfare and morals," he said.

Bydalek said Pattno apparently seeks to put Thompson on trial and tap into "the growing institutional hostility" towards persons of faith and towards any public expression or reference to religion.

He said that religious references do not in themselves constitute bias or prejudice, and he noted the following examples:

- The Nebraska Supreme Court opens each session with a recognition of God;
- The Nebraska Legislature begins each day in prayer;
- The judges of The Nebraska Supreme Court sit in session beneath a large chiseled banner proclaiming that "Eyes and Ears are Poor Witnesses When the Soul is Barbarous;"
- Moses, Solomon and St. John greet those entering the south entrance of the Capitol to attend court;
- The second floor mosaic of the State Capitol forms an ornate cross;
- The Preamble to the Nebraska Constitution acknowledges the gratitude of the people of Nebraska to "Almighty God;"
- The Nebraska Constitution expressly states that religion and morality are "essential to good government."

Bydalek said psychological tests of Pattno prior to sentencing indicated "pedophile tendencies."

He said Pattno met his victim over the Internet, sent him love messages, spoke of marrying him, met with him several times without his parents' knowledge and followed the victim's family on vacation to Lake Okoboji, Iowa, to rendezvous with the victim, after his arrest.

He said Pattno pleaded guilty to the crime, but another sexual assault charge against him was dismissed.

Bydalek said the victim told police that Pattno and he kissed, and Pattno fondled him inappropriately.

Pattno is a "child predator" who is trying "to cloak himself in the mantel of civil rights and sexual orientation," he said. His crime would have been just as reprehensible had the victim been a girl, he said.

Judges, like everyone, form certain world views based upon their upbringing, experiences and education, he said. The world views of many judges are doubtless shaped to some extent by their religious beliefs, he said.

"The judge's strong remarks during sentencing were grounded solely on evidence that Pattno committed one of the most abhorrent crimes on the State's books: the sexual assault of a child by an adult," he said.

Overturning the sentence could have a "chilling effect and effectively result in a ban on religious expression by Nebraska judges," Bydalek said.

The Nebraska Constitution prohibits religious tests or qualifications on judges, he said.

"Judicial reference to the Bible is not a danger to the rule of law or to the impartiality of the judiciary," Bydalek said.

"On the contrary, the Bible is the source of these basic concepts."

Pattno's Omaha attorney, Mark Delman, appealed his sentence and said the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and abused his discretion.

Delman wants the Nebraska Court of Appeals to throw out his client's prison sentence.

Delman claims Thompson showed bias against his client when he read a Bible passage that refers to "men committing shameless acts with men."

Delman said Thompson should have removed himself from the case because of his strong feelings.

Delman asked the court to overturn Pattno's sentence of 20 months - 5 years in the Nebraska Department of Corrections. He said his client deserves probation, instead.

According to Delman's brief, Pattno was 25 years old last spring when he developed a "romantic" relationship with the 13-year-old boy that led to sexual contact between them.

Pattno pleaded guilty Aug. 12, 1997 to sexual assault of a child by contact.

Before Thompson pronounced sentence, he said, the judge read Scripture that included the following passage, Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Note from The King's Men: All Christians please beware: The above quote from Romans is a commercially copyrighted restatement of the Law. A restatement of the Law, is not The Law. Comparing the above with the authorized King James (authorized by the true church of England and America), we see the above restatement:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." Rom 1:26-27

Note also that Jesus, the Christ, is never mentioned from the bench. Is Christ's preeminence being usurped in this case? Is this intentional? Maxim of Law: "Outward acts indicate inward intent" We must inquire and know before we act: Are these officers from The State of Nebraska, of God, appearing to be of God, or is there another agenda involved?:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." I John 4:2-3
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:10-11

For those who want to put these important questions to Judge Thompson, Attorney-General Donald Stenberg and Assistant Attorney General David Bydalek. Their locations are:

George A. Thompson - 1210 Golden Gate Drive - Room 3125 - Papillion, Nebraska [68046] and,

Donald Stenberg/David Bydalek - Room 2115 - State Capitol Building - Lincoln, Nebraska [68509]

Doing God's Business

An open letter by John Anthony

The following is an open letter to all, received this month from our Brother John Anthony in Sacramento, California. For those who are seeking "to come out of her," it is our hope that you will find it to be edifying and encouraging in your Righteous quest.

Dear Friends and Brothers in Christ,

This communication is long overdue and only so because I want to be sure that God would be glorified, and not man.

When God through the Holy Spirit convicts men of sin there should be great sorrow, repentance, and change. All my life the theology of sanctification was never explained to me. It was some abstract thought wrapped up in an emotional experience that did not last. However, when I began to do some research into the early Reformed doctrines, I found that what was taught to me as I was growing up did not agree with what I was learning through Calvin's Institutes and other great men of faith. So, I asked God to help me change my mind (repent) and to do that which was according to God's Law and give no thought of ridicule and persecution that I would receive from family, friends, and so-called business associates.

Remember the old adage: blood is thicker than water? Well, "Spirit is thicker than blood."

When family and friends laughed and said "I told you so," there were Christian brothers and sisters to help us and lead us in the right direction.

Years ago I became caught up in the patriot movement, and in so doing my wife and family lost almost everything we owned to the IRS. Through this hardship, God was able to get a hold of my heart and guide me to the real truth.

The truth of the matter is that God's Law is the only law that works.

I have been in business for 22 years and lost it by seizure to the IRS, but through God's Providence, and prayers, was able to get God's business back (after 10 days of IRS confiscation had passed). It was during this time that after attending two Christian Liberty Seminars, and diligent study and prayer, I realized that 'business' was a bad place to be in. I knew what had to be done but fear said, "If you do things God's way, you'll stave to death." My fear was not trusting God that He would provide all my needs, Philippians 4:19. Now I began to shed some of the corporate underpinnings that were keeping me bound to the business world.

The bank account was dropped. No more credit cards were accepted, and no open accounts or written contracts. I began to understand that God had given me an earthly calling and that now I was a religious tradesman.

This concept was new and strange to me, but totally Biblical. How could I manage to work for cash and provide for my family? How could I disconnect my 20 year long phone number and give up a yellow pages ad that I relied on for so much business? We do have a phone Number, not a phone. It is not listed and is only given to those whom we have worked for in the past, and whom I know personally.

I knew what had to be done, and little by little began this new journey of faith!!!!!!!! At first the postman was upset that I had blocked my mailbox slot. Not having him around now is somewhat of a relief. There are no address numbers on our small walk-up shop. I am not in general delivery yet, but still working on it.

It has been a slow process--one that should be carefully thought out, prayed about, and studied.

My wife and myself have been working in this new manner for almost a year, and God has blessed us in spite of the ridicule and harassment of "former" associates. Such as, "well, you just can't run your business on a cash only basis"...blah! blah! blah!!!!!!!

Marilyn and I have been blessed by The King's Men. Especially John William, John Joseph, and Randy Lee for their encouragement, support, and the newsletter.

I trust that this communication will be of some help and encouragement to someone that is struggling to survive in the not so friendly work world.

Enclosed is a copy of a statement that was given to all of my former accounts receivable [*see below]. This was something I had to do because the Scripture makes clear we are to be paid at the end of the day. Leviticus 19:13.

Standing for Christ and God's Law in the world is not for the timid or weak hearted. One has to believe these concepts from their inner being, because they are Biblical principals, and they are spiritual truths.

I thank our God for giving me true repentance, and hope by the grace of God others will repent and change their mind about how they must conduct themselves in providing for their wives and families.

For His Glory, Honor, and kingdom on earth,

John Anthony

-------------------------

Dear _______________

It has been brought to my attention by the Word of God, that I must, Being a Good and Lawful Christian Man, be paid at the end of the working day. The premise of this is found in the Old Testament of the Bible in Leviticus 19:13: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until morning."

I personally thank you for your patronage in the past, and your prompt payments. However, in the future I will need to be paid at the end of the day. I hope we can still be of assistance to you and/or your company in the future.

Sincerely,

John Anthony: a Good and Lawful Christian Man working as a locksmith.

Rehabilitation through God's Holy Word

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"

presented by Randy Lee

We recently received the following letter from a Brother in Christ who is currently 'residing' in a Pennsylvania prison. It is our hope that you will partake of and support, as we are, the 'blessings by implication' of this Brother's labors.

-------------------------

The twenty-fifth day of the second month
in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen hundred ninety-eight.

John William
Randy Lee
John Joseph, et al.

Brothers in Christ, God Bless you in your righteous labors in His Holy Name:

Would you please send me a copy of whatever literature and books you may be able to spare me at this time. I am a dedicated Christian who teaches the inmates here Bible Studies in God's Holy Word, and as such, possess a very valuable opportunity to also teach them the Godly Christian Heritage of our Country's rich History, being founded, grounded, and established in the worship of our Great Creator, Sustainer, and Enabler of hearts to live for Him, our Father Jehovah God.

I have been blessed with a constant supply of those who are hungering for a greater depth of knowledge in both God's Word--and--God's awesome Blessings upon this people to whom He has given this great and vast inheritance; and I am enabled, by Him,--and through Him,--to present the teaching, not only of His Holy Word, but also the glorious example experienced by the founders of this great nation as is so deeply and richly ingrained in our glorious history (the true history from the old-old history perspective, not the newly and lately criminally adulterated versions produced and dispensed today) from it's Divinely Established origin to this present day sad scenario caused by the sinful apathy of this present age generation, and our evil satanic "leaders."

I have been allowed to read--digest--devour--some few pieces of your greatly commendable literature, which has impressed me tremendously as to your Godly Christian understanding of both our glorious beginnings, the intervening achievements (through Him) as well as the present-day disintegration of our once respected and revered government. I am greatly impressed by your dedication to Him, while building your teaching outreach upon His Holy Word. I greatly desire, upon my release from here, to not only continue studying your literature, but to be able and competent, at that time, to form and establish a Christian Jural Society and Common Law Court system in this area of the country, and bind it to and share it's success with others so likewise minded. I have unfortunately been separated from and cut off from my former (and only) source of your material. Would you be so kind as to supply me with whatever literature you may be able to spare to an indigent inmate at this time, and from time to time as you may be able to afford. I would so very much like to continue using your information to teach my students, as I also teach them God's Holy Word. I will not be able to repay you until approximately 2 1/2 years, at which time I will be released and can get a job and repay you. This may very well be before 2 1/2 years but I'm not sure.

I have read and practically memorized the following, so I do not need copies of them:

2. 'Law of Estoppel,'

3. 'Writ of Habeas Corpus,'

4. 'Military Government and Martial Law.'

Any others I will sincerely appreciate.

Thank you for your kindness and--May God Richly Bless You,

Lawrence William

-------------------------

As all Christians know, the only way for permanent 'rehabilitation' is through The Word of God. As evidenced above, they can take away your freedom, but they can never take away your liberty in Christ--that liberty being 'The Perfect Law of Liberty,' "for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee," Hebrews 13:5; And, "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body." Hebrews 13:3.

We hope that you will join with us in helping to supply this Brother with the spiritual and material needs for his ministry, in any way you can--those needs being most importantly; prayers and encouragement, and then with the blessings of the tools of knowledge that you can spare, for:"freely ye have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8b.

Timeline of Tyranny:

The Public School System

Part Two

Compiled by John Quade

1990

July 4: American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Albert Shanker addresses the 3200 delegates representing 743,000 members of the AFT at its 71st convention, and claims: "95% of the kids who go to college in the United States would not be admitted to college anywhere else in the world. Only 3-6% of high school graduates meet college standards on a worldwide basis. Only 3-6% know the stuff in their field." This is an important admission, because it shows that American students are being graduated without being educated, and most parents are unaware of this. A possible explanation is that while parents are told throughout their children's lives that they are scoring "above average" on nationally standardized achievement tests, they are not often told that those tests are "re-normed" about every 5 years, and the "norm" over the past 30 years has been declining.

1990

September 19: David Hornbeck presents his draft proposal for what becomes known as The Iowa Initiative for World-Class Schools. His proposal includes outcome-based education, working in groups, and testing related to feelings, behaviors, values, opinions and attitudes. Hornbeck is an attorney with 2 theological degrees (one from Union Theological Seminary and one from Oxford University) who has been State Superintendent of Schools in Maryland and Chairman of the Board of 1991.

"Educating for the New World Order" by B. K. Eakmaan, is published. She is a former liaison to the U. S. Department of Education and in her book are detailed incidents and information concerning a supercomputer known as Elementary and Secondary Integrated Data Systems (the ESIDS), brought on-line by the U. S. Department of Education in 1988. She describes the ominous threat that this supercomputer (which can, via students' Social Security numbers, access information concerning parental attitudes, etc.) system poses to every American's right to privacy. In her book, she warns: "Whatever faction winds up in control of American politics in the year 2000 will inherit this new supercomputer. With easy access to cross-referenceable personal information, including value judgments and political viewpoints, this faction will become powerful beyond imagination."

1991

February: Chronicles includes "In Loco Parentis" by Laura Rogers, describing a program where children are given a computer code number so that they can be tracked the rest of their lives. The program is the federally-funded "Parents as Teachers," now in about forty states, where a "parent educator" is assigned to the home and bonds with the family. A battery of tests are administered, free services are offered, and the "parent educator" must legally report any "suspected" child abuse, such as if the parents "refuse to take recommended services." The program also receives state tax dollars and funding from the Ford, Carnegie, New World, Rockefeller, and other foundations. The program is fully implemented by 1995 and ultimately is estimated to cost seventy-five to one hundred billion dollars. The Education Commission of the States announces eight spin-off programs with different names but similar goals.

1991

March: The Atlantic Monthly includes "Liberal Education" by Dinesh D'Souza, who comments, regarding a "new (politically correct, 'PC') thinking," that "a new world view is being consolidated .... It is no exaggeration to call it a revolution ... [that] seeks a fundamental restructuring of American society." He then identifies Duke University as one of the leaders in this "new thinking," and quotes Prof. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. there as one of its supporters who "identified what he called 'a rainbow coalition of Blacks, leftists, feminists, deconstructionists, and Marxists' who have now infiltrated academia and are 'ready to take control.' It will not be much longer. As the old guard retires, we will be in charge. Then, of course, the universities will become more liberal politically." D'Souza also repeatedly quotes Marxist writers.

1991

June 6: ABC Television's "Prime Time Live" features Thaddeus Lott, a principal of a school in Houston where phonics is used to teach reading. Nearly all of the students are poor Black youths working two grade levels above average. They are also using the Saxon method of teaching math, using drills and repetition. The principal and teachers say the school system's bureaucrats are shorting them and harassing them because of their traditional educational philosophy and show the bureaucrats' racist attitude that poor Black youths should not be scoring as well as affluent white students.

Ironically, this "Prime Time Live" program aired the same day as the National Assessment of Educational Progress math results are released showing how badly American students are doing in that subject. For example, 34% of the eighth graders and 23% of the twelfth graders tested could not add the prices of soup, hamburger with fries, and cola, which were given in the test. However, many of them watched several hours of television daily. Similarly, 7812 eleventh graders were given a test in history, and one-third thought Columbus discovered the New World after 1750, while 40% could not correctly name the half-century in which the First World War occurred.

1991

July 8: 'The New American Schools Development Corporation' is formally incorporated. It was formed by American business leaders at the request of President Bush; and based on 6 'National Education Goals,' NASDC on July 7, 1992 will select 11 Design Teams to produce "New American Schools." One of the award winning programs will be titled "Odyssey," and will include 'students from birth,' 'teaching world citizenship,' and will require 220 hours of community service by the time students graduate. Seven 'Council on Foreign Relations' members and 5 members of the 'Committee for Economic Development' are on the NASDC Board of Directors.

December: The Blumenfeld Education Letter contains information showing the results of the de-emphasis upon academic basics in schools, as Sam Blumenfeld points out regarding verbal SAT scores that "in 1972, 116,630 students scored between 600 and 800, the highest possible score, while 71,084 scored between 200 and 299 at the bottom of the scale. The total number of students who took the test in 1972 was 1,022,820. In 1991, the situation is exactly the reverse. The number of students achieving the highest score (600-800) had dropped precipitously to 74,836, and the number achieving the lowest score (200-299) had increased to over 134,600. The number of students who took the test in 1991 was 1,032,685. The dumbing down [of American education] has indeed taken place, and the figures are there to prove it." Is this any wonder, when studies indicate that a typical eighth grader watches twenty-one and a half hours of television each week, compared with just five and a half hours on homework and two hours on reading?

1991

December 5: With William Spady's Outcome-Based Education (OBE) gaining popularity around the country, proponents will begin to point to Jefferson County Schools as an example of OBE success. The draft of "Jefferson County School Student Exit Outcomes" dated this day shows the importance of values, as "we will be continuously developing individuals who adopts, assesses, articulates, and applies a value system which shapes a personal vision of life,...and an informed contributor who promotes and supports values, practices and policies that enhance the quality of life in a shrinking world" where "changing family structures" are a "future trend." Spady's ideas about values have been revealed in his September 1987 document, "Future Trends: Considerations in Developing Exit Outcomes," in which he states: "Despite the historical trend toward intellectual enlightenment and cultural pluralism, there has been a major rise in religious and political orthodoxy, intolerance, fundamentalism, and conservatism with which young people will have to be prepared to deal." Further along this line, Spady along with his co-worker Kit Marshall, in conjunction with the Department of Defense (Mediterranean Region), developed an assessment of the future that said the world would be characterized by "a fragile and global environment that requires altering economic consumption patterns and quality of life standards and taking collective responsibility for promoting health and wellness,...(and) transforming patterns of family and personal support systems that require expanding people's networks of meaningful relationships beyond traditional family boundaries." Approximately 20 years ago, Spady coined the term "Outcome-Based," and has written that "the real meaning of the term Outcome-Based is far different from the way most people think of it; the authentic meaning of the term has tremendous implications for the complete transformation of our educational system...(involving) orientations - the attitudinal, affective, motivational, and relational elements that also make up a performance... Its presence in our current schools has evolved out of the theoretical and applied research of John Carroll (1963) and Benjamin Bloom (1968)... What we know as Mastery Learning, Competency-Based Education, and Outcome-Based Education all set criterion-based performance standards identically for all students, and allow the time needed to reach that standard to vary... Subject content takes on the role of being a vehicle to assist in the cultivation and integration of higher-order competencies--things such as 'critical thinking'...Averaging systems and comparative grading will disappear as the concept of culminating achievement takes hold .... Textbooks will be replaced by intended outcomes of significance as the driving force in curriculum design and delivery, curriculum tracking will disappear, there will he far less reliance on norm-referenced standardized tests...." Spady will claim that James Block first introduced him to the basic principles of Mastery Learning in 1969. In Spady's "Mission-Driven Transformational Design," and "Strategic Planning for Strategic OBE Design" includes "a process that will create a set of beliefs and values." The Schwahn/Spady "Strategic Design Prototype" includes "Required (Value-Added) Life-Roles" such as the "(Self-Actualizing) Person." It should he noted that "self-actualization" is at the top of the hierarchy of needs developed by Abraham Maslow, the father of "Third Force" (Humanistic) Psychology. Spady has also been the Director of the federally-funded FarWest Laboratory Outcome-Based Education Project, and has said that the 3 main trends in Outcome-Based design and delivery models are Traditional OBE, Transitional OBE, and Transformational OBE.

1992

January 23: The Daily Express (Britain) publishes a report that "Kenneth Clarke yesterday gave the go-ahead for the biggest shake-up in junior education since the war by putting the 3Rs back on top of the curriculum. Now a classroom revolution is set to sweep through 23,000 primary schools in England and Wales as the Education Secretary calls for teachers to get back to basics. Mr. Clarke acted after giving first official confirmation of an alarming fall in reading, writing and arithmetic standards. It has prompted his demand for a return to old-fashioned lessons where teachers address the whole class... Out will go... the 'playschool' atmosphere in many schools where teachers help children individually learn at their own pace.... In will come... youngsters being taught specific subjects as a whole class by specialist teachers... Mr. Clarke aims to change the 'child-centered' techniques ... (that) swept through classrooms in the sixties and still prevails in most of them. At its heart is the belief that children learn best when they discover for themselves rather than being told.... The report (on educational reform) lends great weight to the principal of a 'knowledge base' and firmly dismisses modern trendy methods. It says: First there is a persistent and damaging belief children should never be told things, only asked questions.

Second, there is a belief children must never point out where a pupil is wrong. And finally the tendency has been to promote indirect teaching methods where pupils work on their own."

Educator Peg Luksik delivers a number of lectures around the nation concerning "Who Controls the Children?" Using her home state of Pennsylvania as an example, she describes the Educational Quality Assessment used there (and in many other states) from 1969 to 1989. Each school district had to meet the assessment's goals, which were not about factual knowledge, but focus of control. Only 30 EQA questions were academic and 385 were about attitudes. She stresses that the same types of assessments are still in use around the U. S. Under "citizenship," students were asked whether they would join a group known as the "Midnight Marauders" (spray painting vandals) if their best friend or the most popular students had joined, and the correct answer was "Yes." She says the government was scoring for "rapid emotional adjustment without protest," which was considered a desirable goal for the future.

During April 22-25, 1993, Spady's High Success Network will hold its second international conference on "Advancing the Frontiers of Outcome-Based Restructuring" with presentations and workshops on such topics as 'The Clinton Restructuring Priorities,' 'Criterion-Based Portfolios,' 'Performance-Based Credit,' and 'Site-Based Change Strategies.'

After an introduction about OBE, Peg Luksik then looks at the New American Schools Development Corporation proposals, and they seem to be OBE with computer assisted instruction as a common aspect. The computer pulls up biographical data and learning styles of students, which she says the states have compiled (the states can get federally approved programs targeted to specific student populations). The data was mandated by the National Center for Education Statistics (federal government), and includes such information as family responsibility, family social and cultural information, psychological test results (including students' stand on controversial issues). Data is accessed by government agencies through EXPRESS (Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically for Students and Schools). She describes programs around the U. S., such as one with an "honesty" scale piloted in Indiana, and a survey in Iowa asking under its "nationality" section questions such as "Which are more likely to have a large family?" and "Which is more likely to eliminate an entire race of people?"

She warns that some people feel that because their children are in private or home schools, they have no problem. However, she says, States are now beginning to require that schools be 'accredited' and teachers 'certified,' which the State will do only if the State's goals concerning the right 'attitudes' are met. States will take over schools not meeting State standards, and they can even take over taxing authority. And with OBE bankrupting school districts, the States will take over more and more schools. She indicates that more and more social services will be brought into the schools, and that will lessen the role of parents. She concludes by saying that the issue really comes down to "Who controls the children?"

Her account of the government's increasing attempts at control reminds one that H. G. Wells wrote in "New Worlds for Old" (1908) "that Socialism could be achieved without popular support through a slowly executed plan to install government bureaucracies which would actually run the nation, rather than elected officials running the country."

1992

June, "Under the Spell of Mother Earth," by Berit Kjos (author of "Your Child and the New Age") describes former U. N. Assistant Secretary-General (and now Chancellor of the University for Peace) Robert Muller's endorsement of Andy LePage's "Transforming Education" (1987). She writes: "Andy LePage's book," says Muller, "opens the curtain on one of the most exciting and promising philosophical educational debates there ever was on this planet." What planetary philosophy does LePage teach? He emphasizes the need to discard the 'disease of dualism' (dividing reality into two opposing forces - physical and spiritual). He challenges educators to awaken students to their oneness with the entire creation (monism) through models such as Hatha Yoga, witchcraft, and Native American spiritism. But do educators really buy this religious dogma? "LePage has written what may well become one of the most important books in education," says Professor Sidney B. Simon, father of 'values clarification,' "which should be given to every new teacher, every new principal, and certainly, to every new school board member. Should that happen, the education of our children would take a turn for the better that might he enough to save us all."

1992

July 23: Public Law 102-325 is passed, known as "The Higher Education Amendments of 1992," and includes a provision of $20 million appropriated for October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1997 for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards to "be used for research and development activities directly related to the development of teacher assessment and certification procedures for elementary and secondary school teachers."

1992

August: Dr. Walter Jordan-Davis of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) presents "A Question of Authenticity: Performance-Based Assessment and Its Impact on Teaching and Learning," in which he promotes Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy and 'critical thinking.' ETS administers the College Boards (SATS) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In this presentation, Dr. Jordan-Davis states: "The evolution from traditional standardized testing instruments to performance-based assessment will require points of light to guide developers of new assessments through the testing/assessment transition."

1993

March: In the premier issue of Right to Read Report, the president of the National Right to Read Foundation, Robert W. Sweet, Jr., states: "At present 80 to 90 percent of reading teachers use methods of instruction that are counterproductive, cannot be supported by research and actually, in many cases, contribute to illiteracy... Before 1930, there were no more than 3 million illiterates, and they were mostly over age 50 and had never been to school. By 1990, more than 30-35 million U.S. citizen could not read and most of them are under 50 and have attended school for at least 8 years... America need not have a reading problem because we know what works: intensive, systematic phonics."

1993

June: L.A. Times Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas quotes Chris Whittle as saying, "America can have 50,000 New Age elementary schools on-line by the year 2000." Whittle originated "The Edison Project" of innovative new schools across the country, as well as "Channel One" used by many schools around the nation; and he's a very close friend of U. S. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. Alexander has written that the book which has changed his own thinking the most, and which he has tried to read once a year since it was published, is New Ager Rene Dubos' "A God Within." In this, Plato is quoted as saying, "In reality the greatest blessings come to us through madness, when it is sent as a gift of the gods ... madness, which comes from god, is superior to sanity, which is of human origin." Dubos explains that "apparently certain drugs can help in generating this inspired state," and introduces reincarnation by quoting Mirandola: 'Thou shalt have the power to degenerate into lower forms of life, which are brutish. Thou shalt have the power ... to be reborn into higher forms, which are divine."

On June 14, 1986, Ted Turner said when addressing about 1000 "futurists" at John Denver's Windstar Institute at Snowmass Village, Colorado, that "America must elect a 'new age' president if it wants to survive through the year 2000" (according to "Broadcaster Ties Survival to 'New Age' President," The Denver Post, June 15, 1986). And an article in the January 25, 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine about President Clinton is titled "The New Age President." In addition, a New York Times headline for December 31, 1992 says: "The New Year at a New Age Retreat: The Clintons in Agreeable Company.' It is about the Clintons' attending the Renaissance Weekend at Hilton Head, South Carolina, for the past 8 years. Interestingly, the Clintons were introduced to this event 8 years ago by South Carolina Governor at the time Richard Riley, whom President Clinton will appoint as his Secretary of Education.

In conclusion, we will only add, that the entire slide of the educational system in this land and its "Timeline of Tyranny" could have been prevented if only the Christians and their church had been awake to speak out in the 1830's when Horace Mann began publishing his "Essays on Education." It is again the duty of the church to speak out to stem the tide.

The 501(c)-3 Corpse

Part One

by The King's Men

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27.

Apathy, commercial covetousness, self-righteousness, 'tolerance,' and anti-nomianism -- are the marks of the government sponsored, regulated, and monitored 501(c)-3 not-for-profit corporations that masquerade as 'The Church.'

Are the 'leaders' of these dead bodies in Law aware that they are following the traditions of the Masonic elders? We believe that they are very much aware, for, if they were following the Law of God, they would not be incorporated under the State.

"What does this have to do with the traditions of the Masonic elders?," you ask. From Jurisprudence of Freemasonry you see by comparison that it has everything to do with the traditions of the Masonic elders!!," to wit:

Landmark Seventh

"The Prerogative of the Grand Master to give Dispensations for opening and holding Lodges is another Landmark. He may grant, in virtue of this, to a sufficient number of Freemasons, the privilege of meeting together and conferring degrees. The Lodges thus established are called "Lodges under Dispensation." They are strictly creatures of the Grand Master, created by his authority, existing only during his will and pleasure, and liable at any moment to be dissolved at his command. They may be continued for a day, a month, or six months; but whatever be the period of their existence, they are indebted for that existence solely to the grace of the Grand Master." Jurisprudence of Freemasonry (1953) by Albert G. Mackey, page 8.

In the case of the 501(c)-3 corporate 'church,' the State is their 'graceful' Grand Master, not Jesus, the Christ.

Their sanctification has its source "in that which defileth a man."

Evidence of this is seen not only in the post-bellum closing of incorporated churches that wouldn't swear an oath to their Grand Master, The President of the United States (see 'The Political History of the U.S during the Great Rebellion,' (1865) by The Clerk of the House of Representatives Edward McPherson, pages 508-554), but also today in such cases as the closing of Pastor Everett Silevin's 501(c)-3 'church,' and so many others too numerous to document here.

These activities are based on the maxim of law, "the source of the right determines the governing law."

In other words, depending on which system of law a church "incorporates" under, determines what rights the pastor, elders, deacons, and members can look to for coverture of their liberty and property.

Thus, a 501(c)3 church cannot claim any of the protections found in Scripture or that are allegedly found in the Constitution of the United States. The reasons why are:

First, as we have shown elsewhere on many occasions, the 501(c)-3 corporation has no Constitutional rights even if the original Constitution was still in full force and effect, because the law of the 501(c)-3 corporation is commercial only! The corporation, its officers, board of directors, and its members have only civil rights, not Constitutional rights.

Thus, as Pastor Sileven found out (the hard way) there is no separation of the church and state when the church incorporates. Therefore, no one in the corporation has any First Amendment Rights!

Second, the instant a church incorporates, it gives up every form of protection due to the church through God's Law and Christian common law.

We know this because "no man can serve two masters" in the first place, and in the second place, to attempt to bring in God's Law and Christian common law into today's courts imports a conflict of law which every judge is bound to resolve in favor of that law over which he has jurisdiction, which is the commercial, statute law.

Third, many believe that one good reason for incorporating the church is to acquire certain benefits, privileges, and immunities which are always available to the church leadership and members.

If this is the case, how was Pastor Siliven arrested, and countless others the media never talks about? Where were their benefits, privileges, and immunities?

Thus, just as the corporations are legal fictions without any substance whatsoever, likewise are the myths of its benefits, privileges, and immunities.

Of course, the nature of these benefits which the church expects to exploit are checking and savings accounts (which any government agency, department, or bureau can seize without a trial), the 'convenient' processing of bequests and grants by private persons (which can also be seized on a whim), and certain other 'conveniences.'

But, the real benefit the 501(c)-3 looks for with incorporation is the ability to borrow large amounts of debt capital, commonly used to build a humongous structure and parking lot that does nothing more than clutter up the landscape.

Now, everyone can be proud of their new edifice, built on debt capital, that also enslaves every man, woman, and child, i.e., every family, whose name appears on the membership roles of the church.

How can this be?

Because every officer and member of the church pledges themselves as surety for the commercial debts of the church, whether they know it or not.

Why is this?

Because the member's name that appears on the church rolls is a beneficiary of the church 'services,' which are also construed as commercial by the government, and not Biblical. Additionally, the 'tax-deductible contributions' are further evidence of the commercial connection to the corporation

Thus, a maxim of law again comes into play here: "He who accepts the benefit must also bear the burden," meaning, if one accepts any benefit of the incorporated church one is also liable for the debts and acts of the church leadership.

If the church is sued and a cash settlement is ordered by the court, there is virtually no limit as to how far the court can extend its power to collect from the members, even if they are not the officers responsible for committing the civil crime.

The ethical problem for the incorporated church from all this commercial activity results in the congregation interpreting what the church does, allegedly through the Bible, though in actuality the Bible has nothing to do with it at any point. And none of the church leadership will ever tell the rank and file members the full extent of the commercial liability, for if they did the brand new church building would soon be empty of its congregation and thus none will be left to foot the bills.

The indebtedness to their Grand Master rules. Can this at all be considered the Christian or Biblical way to do things

Next month, we will examine a conversation by letter between a News Patron and a 501(c)-3 pastor, showing the mild set produced through the Masonic seminary system.

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom

Interpolated by John Joseph

Please note that interpolations not appearing in the original text are enclosed in "[*]". After reading this excerpt from the book "March of Faith," (1933), pp. 83-99 by Garrison, you will begin to understand why today's "pastors" cannot touch the classical teaching of Romans 13, and why you will have such a difficult time with them, unless you learn the proper Lawful techniques for closing them down.

March of Faith

"When the Congregational National Council met in Boston on June 14, 1865, it listened, we are told, "with profound attention for two full hours" to an opening sermon from the text: "Ask for the old paths." The discourse was "an able and fearless exposition of the influence of the Congregational Church order [*note the "privacy" or separation from Christ's church] in originating and forming our national character and institutions." To the approval of this council also was submitted a statement of Christian faith intended as a bulwark "for the defense of the Word of God now assailed by multiform and dangerous errors which strike at the foundations of our religion [*and state]." Strengthened and enlarged, this statement was adopted as a "Declaration of Apostolic and Primitive Faith and Order.'

This episode at the very beginning of our [*post bellum] period and having to do with a denomination which stood at the forefront in education and culture fairly represents the status of Christian thought in 1865. A large part even of New England conservatism had, to be sure, departed far enough from [*Jonathan Edwards'] Edwardian Calvinism to be viewed as heretical by the right wing, but as we look back on them now, the two seemed to constitute one almost solid body of conservative orthodoxy for the defense of the Gospel against the dangerous heresies of Unitarianism and Universalism [*communism].

But there were already at work certain influences which soon became much more potent than hitherto for the modification both of faith and of conduct. To begin with a bare mention of some of these influences, the first perhaps was the back-wash from the [*Lincoln's] War. In spite of all the work of the Christian commission and the chaplains, in spite of the evangelistic services that had been held in the camps and the part that the churches had played in sanctifying the cause of both contending parties, [*the Christian] religion had lost a good deal of its grip on the country and a good deal of its control over manners and morals as well as over thought.

The increase of immigration was a social phenomenon which had its effects on the moral codes and on religion as well as its economic consequences. Steam transportation across the Atlantic had been inaugurated some years earlier but not until now had the volume of trans-Atlantic travel by steam become impressive. The number of immigrants entering the country in 1865 was less than 250,000. By 1873, the number had almost doubled and it was to double again before the tide reached its full flood. In the decade following the war, the immigrants were still largely English, Irish, and German. The vast majority of the Irish and perhaps a third of the Germans were Roman Catholics. While a large per cent, of the earlier immigrants had passed on through the ports of entry to points west, as the Scandinavians still continued to do, increased opportunities for employment as industrial workers in the new [*militarily licensed] industries now held a larger proportion in the cities. A considerable fraction of the German immigrants, perhaps another third, were Freethinkers who, under the influence of the liberal social and political movements and the Hegelian and post-Hegelian philosophies, had cast off [*the Christian] religion as an outgrown superstition.

At the same time the influence of liberal German thought was making itself felt through the return of American students from their studies abroad. The migration of American students to German universities had already begun before the [*Lincoln's] War, though the stream was a very thin trickle. But before any American university had developed a graduate school of any importance, hundreds of young Americans had gone to Germany and brought back both the methods and the results of German scholarship. The influence of German thought on philosophy and theology soon far surpassed that of either England or France.

Most notable of all, perhaps, was the new position which science began to occupy in the minds of non-scientists. Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and the Duke of Argyle's Reign of Law was a new book in 1867. Not less significant than the new ideas which these gave to scientists was the new place that they gave to science in the minds of philosophers and theologians and all who were attempting to construct a [non-Christian] religious view of the world. Taking these influences together, there was enough dynamite in them to blow up the bulwarks of the old order. Not that the old order was necessarily wrong at all points, but its historic position of dominance was challenged, first among the intelligentsia and then in wider circles.

Perhaps Christians of the evangelical tradition were as much shocked by the tendency to give up the old-fashioned observance of Sunday as by any thing. The coming of the "continental Sunday" in place of the Puritan Sabbath was viewed with alarm. The influence of immigrants, the increase of the Roman Catholic populations in the cities and the general loosening of standards after the [*Lincoln's] War, all contributed to the breakdown of the Puritan practice, and the increase of drinking tended to make this breakdown the more odious to many, though the Puritan mind had always been more sensitive about Sunday than about liquor. The spectacle of German communities spending their Sunday evenings in beer gardens--which were often, in fact, pretty respectable places of family resort according to present standards--served as a symbol of moral degeneracy.

Throughout the 'seventies the churches generally were much concerned about this matter of Sabbath observance. The Presbyterian General Assembly had passed a resolution condemning members of that church who were the "responsible" owners or managers of concerns that worked on Sunday. A Mr. Levin, a member of a Presbyterian church in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, chief proprietor of a Pittsburgh paper, was disciplined by the session of his church at the order of the Allegheny presbytery for desecrating the Sabbath. Another Presbyterian, a certain Mr. Groff, who owned a large but not controlling interest in the Chicago Tribune, got by on the ground that since he owned only a minority interest, he was not "responsible." A critic asserted, probably untruly, that that word had been inserted in the Assembly's resolution to protect Deacon Groff and others like him who owned less than a controlling interest in companies which made a profit on the Sabbath. In the 'eighties and thereafter the interest of the church as a whole in this particular item of Christian morality diminished and it tended to become the concern chiefly of one or two minor denominations [*Seventh-Day Adventists] and of a few reformers who specialized on guarding the Sabbath, but the whole church could be aroused from time to time when the issue became conspicuous, as in the question about keeping the Chicago Exposition open on Sundays in 1893. The decision in that case was that the Exposition grounds might be kept open as a park but that the machinery must not run. The changed method of Sunday observance has come to be seen as a phenomenon of urbanization rather more than as a conflict between American and European cultures or between Christian and pagan ideals.

Immigration had another effect besides introducing the continental Sunday and besides reinforcing the Catholic, Lutheran and Freethinking constituencies, while adding little to the strength of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Liquor began to be a potent factor in politics and the foreign vote was one thing that helped to make it so. In 1873, a brewers journal said that the foreign element, especially the German, was large enough to hold the balance of power between the political parties. "The future is ours. The enormous influx of immigration will in a few years over-reach the puritanical element in every state in the Union." The seven million immigrants who came between 1865 and 1884 went far toward bringing this prophecy to realization.

It was not until some years later, in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first of the twentieth, that the liquor interests, grown now to great proportions and combined into immense corporations and closely knit associations, became a really powerful and sinister force in politics. By that time, the foreign element involved had been materially changed and the gentle German and the hilarious Irish were no longer the principal factors. (See Ernest Gordon: When the Brewer Had the Strangle-Hold, New York, 1930.)

There were other forms of iniquity so unsavory that not many nice people cared to soil their hands even by trying to curb them. Nice people, including church people, were willing to have laws passed declaring certain vicious practices to be misdemeanors and to take it for granted that the laws would somehow enforce themselves. But neither these nor the laws for Sunday closing and the regulation of saloons ever did enforce themselves.

Anthony Comstock, the "roundsman of the Lord," was probably the best example for all time of the volunteer agent for the suppression of immorality by legal process. In his youth a salesman for a dry goods house, he was pious with the untroubled devoutness of one who never knew that vexed questions of faith and morals existed. For him there was only white against black, purity versus sin, and down to old age no question vexed his mind except how to enforce the code [*Scripture] about which he had no question. Sunday closing, the suppression of immoral literature, and the enforcement of the liquor laws were the fields in which he specialized. The three were closely interrelated. By 1868, at the age of twenty-four, he had had two sellers of erotic books arrested. In 1871, he was making charges against saloons that kept open on Sunday and against police officers who would not close them. No one ever doubted either his moral or his physical courage. He was a devout believer in the police power as an instrument of righteousness. Arthur Train, who as assistant district attorney in New York knew Comstock for many years, says of him: "He was an enthusiastic smut-sleuth with a hound's nose for obscenity in either art or letters. I suspect that he enjoyed his calling, for he used to gloatingly exhibit with both pride and gusto to myself and other assistants of the district attorney peculiarly atrocious trophies of his various raids in the form of nasty photographs and obscene articles. Quantitatively, his career was a huge success, for he cased to be destroyed 15,000 pounds of [no matter what], over 60,000----------, 5,500----------, 3,000----------, 194,000----------, 134,000----------, and jailed enough sinners to have filled a train of sixty-one coaches, allowing sixty to each coach." (Train, Puritan's Progress, p. 286.)

The changes in religious thought which within the next half century amounted to nothing less than a revolution were the resultant of several influences, some of which have been mentioned above. For a good many years the official declarations of the churches, the utterances of a vast majority of the pulpits and the teachings of practically all the Sunday School teachers showed little deviation from the accepted patterns of orthodoxy. Nevertheless, the old bulwarks were shaken and cracked, not only by attacks from without, but by risings from within. Among the results were a mitigation of the rigors of Calvinism and the complete abandonment of the system by many within churches that had been traditionally Calvinistic; the acceptance of universalism, or quasi-universalism, or some moral equivalent of it, by so many outside of the Universalist denomination that the denomination itself reaped very little benefit from the diminished prestige of Hell; the application of scientific methods to the study of the history of religion with an accompanying decrease of emphasis upon the supernatural; the acceptance of the concept of evolution and its application in the field of religion [*and as a consequence in the laws of the state]; a changed view of religious authority growing out of the view of the Bible resulting from critical methods of study; and the substitution of educational for revivalistic methods by the church in dealing with its own young people.

Horace Bushnell, of Hartford, Connecticut, had started a new trend of thought with his Christian Nurture, revised and re-published in 1861. Unitarianism had, to be sure, long ago challenged the conception of original sin, human depravity, and miraculous regeneration, but it had challenged so many other things besides that its arguments carried little weight in orthodox circles. Bushnell was a Congregational minister of high repute, working in the very center of orthodoxy for Hanford Seminary, which had been established in 1834 because Yale was not orthodox enough. Revivalism in the period before the Civil War [*Lincoln's War], as well as in the period immediately after, and to a great extent down to now, was based on the assumption that the normal process of conversion involves a violent internal revolution and a sudden change in the nature, status, and character of the convert. The gist of Bushnell's teaching was that the child in a Christian community and a Christian home ought to develop naturally into a Christian without realizing that he has ever been any thing else, and without any shattering emotional experience of conversion. The implications of this humane idea were these: First, it laid stress upon the responsibility of the church and the home for Christian education, and gave a rational basis for that work of religious education which had already started in the Sunday School movement. Second, it intensified and rationalized the opposition to the revivalistic method of conversion, especially as applied to the young. While the great revivalists like Finney and Moody had had their most most spectacular success in winning sinners who obviously were sinners, the popular churches had come to rely very largely upon revivals as a means of harvesting the young who grew up within these and never became prodigals. The tendency was to treat all persons, young and old, who were not formally enrolled in the church as though they were prodigal sons. And third, it affected theological thought by stressing the moral in contrast to the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and by introducing a certain naturalism into the whole religious process. The fact that Bushnell was rated by many as a heretic and that his own church, in standing by him, was finally moved to withdraw from the Congregational consociation to which it had belonged, probably increased rather than diminished his influence in the long run, and he continued until 1876 to be a potent and beneficent influence upon the thinking and practice of the church. The views held by Bushnell and delivered by him to a local congregation and to the ministers who read his book were popularized by Beecher, who had the nation for his audience, and by other liberal-minded thinkers and writers who commanded smaller constituencies.

Through the 'seventies there was a good deal of preaching about future punishment, both pro and con, but mostly pro [*Future punishment does not exist unless taught in the context of sound Christian doctrine, and not Masonic dogma.] "The question of future punishment has been a favorite topic in the New York and Brooklyn pulpits for two or three Sundays past..." (Independent, January 17, 1878). Doctor Talmage was strong for hell. Rev. E. C. Sweetzer, Universalist, was naturally against it. Rev. Carlos Martyn, Dutch Reformed, Dr. R. S. MacArthur and Halsey W. Knapp, Baptists, and Doctors Hatfield and Finn, Methodists, all expressed faith in the orthodox view of eternal punishment. [*These all miss the mark--Faith is in Christ Jesus alone and not the consequences of unbelief. Proceed with Christ Jesus as the starting point, and not as a result of faith.]

In 1879, the Congregationalist (Boston) "does not see how any one can honestly belong to the denomination and not believe in eternal punishment." The editor of the Independent (undenominational by this time) believes in the doctrine but does not consider it an essential of Christian faith. Lyman Abbott, in the Christian Union, argues for conditional immortality. "Man is mortal and must put on immortality"--but he does not dogmatize. He considers that hell has ceased to be a live issue. Later he adds: "Belief in future punishment is growing more universal" with the understanding of the inexorable operation of law, but "belief in any definition of future punishment less so." The term, "the new theology," though it really meant much more, was sometimes used in a specific sense to refer to such view about punishment--that the only real hell is the one which a man creates for himself as the natural consequence of his evil deeds. While the great body of the ministry was still untouched by this idea, it had to be recognized as a Christian belief within the church and not as a form of infidelity [*See 2 Cor 11:14]. There were some who saw that, while the question of the future state occupied the center of the theological stage at the moment, another more important would soon take its place--that of the canon and inspiration of scripture. But even before the existence of a new view of the Bible became a matter of common knowledge, evolution began to make its impress upon religious thinkers and soon the welkin rang with the sound of the battle for and against it.

Darwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, made little immediate impression upon the American mind outside of scientific circles--though I find a record that young John Thomas Gulick, son of a missionary in Hawaii and himself later almost equally eminent as a missionary in Japan and as a contributor to scientific evolution through his own studies in zoology, read The Origin of Species in the year of its publication, while he was yet a student in Union Theological Seminary in New York. An American edition was soon published. Evolution came more vividly to the knowledge of Americans through the medium of Herbert Spencer's writings, which circulated more widely in the United States than in England. In 1865, E. L. Youmans raised $7,000 to assist in financing the publication of Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. Darwin's Descent of Man, published in 1871, made clear even to the non-scientific mind the implications of his earlier work. John Fiske delivered, in 1869 and 1871, the lectures which, later published as Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, attained a popularity which even that heavy title could not prevent. Conservative Boston would not allow the "agnostic Fiske" --who later turned out to be a rather ardent Christian evolutionist--to deliver the Lowell lectures until many years later.

A new phase in the long warfare of science with theology began promptly and vigorously. Harvard and Cornell were almost the only institutions of learning in which the new idea got even a fair hearing, and Presidents Eliot and White became targets for the orthodox. Tyndall made a lecture tour in America in 1872 and 1873; Spencer in 1872; Huxley in 1876. By that time the more popular and theistic interpretation of evolution by John Fiske had done much to assure the more liberal Christians that evolution was not incompatible with theism. When Drummond came a little later and toured the country with Moody, he seemed to demonstrate that it was compatible also with fervent evangelical Christianity. But meanwhile, also, J. W. Draper, a chemist by profession, who had already written a history of the intellectual development of Europe exhibiting the clergy to rather poor advantage, published in 1874 his Warfare of Science and Religion, which served as a standard text on that subject from the standpoint of the left wing until Andrew D. White's work in the same field in 1896.

The last quarter of the nineteenth century produced many and varied interpretations of evolution in its relation to philosophy of life and of the world, many types of anti-theistic theories based upon it, and many modes of reconciling evolution and Christianity. The extremes were occupied by the persistently skeptical Huxley and the persistently evangelical evolutionist Drummond. Huxley's visit was especially disturbing to the conservatives, and the more so since it appeared that he furnished much of the material out of which the famous infidel Robert G. Ingersoll forged the weapons for his attack upon Christianity, very much as Voltaire had furnished material for Tom Paine.

It began to be suggested that Christian students might profitably suspend their studies of the dead languages for a time and concentrate upon the living sciences so that they might be able to meet the unbelievers on their own ground [*Why? To do so grants recognition of the philosophy and argument of the unbeliever. This is contrary to sound basic principles of warfare.]; and also that the scientists who rejected Christianity as incompatible with evolution might be reasonably asked to familiarize themselves with the rudiments of the system which they attacked. [*This is such utter nonsense. Why step down into the mire of the wicked? Is the finite brain of Darwin greater than the Infinite Mind of God? Is the creature ever greater than the Creator?] Charles Hodge, whose reputation and prestige were great, but whose work soon ceased to be read outside of a limited circle of students in the most conservative theological seminaries, declared that "a more absolutely incredible theory (than evolution) was never propounded for acceptance among men." Mark Hopkins, ex-president of Williams--and ex-occupant of that famous pedagogical position on the end of a log with the youthful Garfield on the other--delivered a course of lectures at Princeton Seminary, the first of which was devoted to denouncing evolution as "essentially atheistic." But James McCosh, the president of Princeton, found it possible to think of evolution as God's method of continuing His creative work. [*How can this be for it impugns the immutability of God and His Testimony.] Dr. William Hayes Ward published the discovery that Dr. Taylor Lewis, anticipating Darwin, had declared, in 1855, that the "Miltonic [*John Milton] theory" of the sudden creation of each separate species was not scriptural and therefore not true. "Species grow out of species as individuals out of individuals."

Beecher's powerful influence was on the side of the modernists,. After preaching a liberal sermon in Chicago he received many anxious inquiries as to whether he really meant what he seemed to mean. In reply, he wrote: "I am a cordial Christian evolutionist" (Christian Union, August 2, 1883). Lyman Abbott, Beecher's great successor both in the pulpit and in the editorial chair, was early added to the list of Christian evolutionists, and his actual direct influence on Christian thought was perhaps greater than that of any of the others. Henry Drummond's The Natural Law in the Spiritual World (1883), pointed out one line of reconciliation with persuasive simplicity. Not only the more liberal theologians, but many of the scientists, insisted upon the compatibility of the new findings of science with all that was valuable in the old faith. [*Note 2 Cor 6:14-18.] Christian members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, interviewed at the 1884 meeting of the Association, declared their faith increased; and the reporter refers to a young infidel who began the study of geology to get arguments against God and the Bible, but found that "the agreement between Genesis and geology demonstrated the divine origin of the Bible" (Christian Union, September 18, 1884)--an episode which illustrates a transitional stage in the wrestle of religion with scientific truth before the processes and results of Biblical criticism had become widely known. The Genesis-and-geology discussion, of course, preceded the evolution controversy. Hugh Miller, who was a stone-mason before he became a geologist, had attempted to bring that to an orthodox conclusion with his Footprints of the Creator (1849), and Testimony of the Rocks (1857), but the question refused to stay closed.

If evolution did not win all the theologians, neither did it at once win all the scientists. Agassiz opposed it to the end of his life, and it was only as a new generation of scientists came on, trained under the influence of the new doctrine, that opposition came to be found almost exclusively in the ranks of the conservative theologians and the untutored laity. Through the 'eighties there was an almost constant discussion in liberal pulpits and papers of "the old and the new'--the new meaning, for the most part, evolution and the more recent discoveries in geology. The great names among the religious leaders who championed the "new" must not be allowed to conceal the fact that the vast body both of the ministry and of the working church members stood fast by the "old." The net result, however, was that the more intelligent, whether in the churches or out of them, found it generally impossible to maintain the simple cosmology and anthropology of Milton, and Christians with any pretensions to scholarship found it unnecessary to try to do so.

The first stage in the new era of science put the Christian apologists in the somewhat difficult position of having to defend religious concepts which were themselves about to undergo change through the application of scientific methods to the study of the documents upon which they were based. The results of the work of German Biblical scholarship began slowly to filter in and the study of the Bible by new methods, which treated it as a collection of literature whose date, authorship, and character were to be investigated critically, rather than as a book known in advance as the inerrant product of inspiration, presently found a place in the more liberal seminaries and a lodgment in the minds of many of the ministry. As good a statement as can be found any where of the entire course of the changing attitude towards the Bible is that given by William Newton Clarke in his Sixty Years with the Bible, in which he narrates autobiographically the development of his own views through six decades.

At the beginning of our period, such a statement as the following is fairly typical of what was considered a sound position: "We could say beforehand, if we have a revelation at all, it must be infallible for if not, the lie will ruin us before the truth can save us" (Rev. George B. Cheever, in the Independent, January 6, 1870). But in 1876, a minister of the Reformed Church could write in Scribner's Magazine on what he called "Protestant Vaticanism," inveighing against the suicidal folly of those church leaders who would suppress the doubts and queries of advanced Christian thinkers urging that the creed should be revised, and arguing that the new creed should not require faith in the whole Bible. Two years later, Professor Toy writes in the Sunday School Times of Deuteronomy as a late compilation. A Scottish professor was at that very moment on trial for heresy for saying no more than that, but the American churches did not yet know enough of higher criticism to be sensitive on the point. It should be noted that the important works of Wellhausen, who did more than any other German scholar to make the concept of higher criticism familiar to the American mind, and its very name a household word, were published in 1876 and 1878.

There were struggles over orthodoxy on Biblical interpretations at Andover Seminary (Congregational) in 1881 and at Newton Seminary (Baptist) in 1882. At Newton the conservative president, Hovey, undertook to oust the professor of New Testament Greek, Gould, a Biblical scholar of the new school--and did, by a trustees' vote of thirteen to nine. The publication of Professor Charles A. Briggs' Biblical Study: Its Principals, Methods, and History, in 1883, was the most important landmark in American Biblical scholarship for this period. It covered the whole field and stated the whole cause for the liberal side, but the conservative leaders were too busy fighting evolution just then to make an issue of Professor Briggs' views on the Bible, and he was not seriously molested until 1893, when he was made the defendant in a great heresy trial, the inevitable result of which he avoided by leaving the Presbyterian church for the Episcopalian [*Anglican].

Among the great liberalizing personalities in the pulpit in this period, and outside of the ranks of technical scholarship, four were perhaps preeminent. They were Henry Ward Beecher, Washington Gladden, Phillips Brooks, and George A. Gordon. Of these, Beecher was the most popular, the least scholarly, and the most pronounced in his advocacy of the new positions. He was a temperamental liberal before he was a theological liberal. In the North American Review for August, 1882, he summarized his view of the recent progress of his own views. The course of thought, he says, is not away from religion in America; religious sentiment was never so strong and active as now; but there is "a more diffused religion," less sectarian spirit, more liberty of thought. There is a transition in theology and a gradual substitution of a "theology of evolutionism" for Calvinism. Naturally, there is resistance from the old guard. These changes Beecher wholly approves. The Watchman and Reflector commented that with this article Beecher "has emphatically stepped down and out from any relation with Congregational authority. He definitely renounces the supreme authority of the Bible." At a meeting of the Congregational association of New York and Brooklyn on October 11, 1882, Beecher made a great affirmative statement of his faith and then resigned from the association. The association passed almost unanimously a resolution that his statement "indicates the propriety of his membership in this or any other Congregational association" and asked him to reconsider his resignation. But he did not. He continued for the remaining five years of his life, without personal denominational connection, though minister of a Congregational church (Christian Union, October 19, 1882).

(to be continued next month)

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Indifference, Insensibility, Apathy

Indifference signifies no difference; that is, having no difference of feeling for one thing more than another. Insensibility, from sense and able, signifies incapable of feeling. Apathy, from the Greek primitive a and paqoz, feeling, implies without feeling.

Indifference is a partial state of the mind; insensibility and apathy are general states of the mind; he who has indifference is not to be awakened to feeling by some objects, though he may by others; but he who has not sensibility is incapable of feeling; and he who has apathy is without any feeling. Indifference is mostly a temporary state; insensibility is either a temporary or permanent state; apathy is always a permanent state: indifference is either produced or natural; apathy is natural. A person may be in a state of indifference about a thing the value of which he is not aware of, or acquire an indifference for that which he knows to be of comparatively little value: he may be in a state of insensibility from some lethargic torpor which has seized his mind; or he may have a habitual insensibility arising either from the contractedness of his powers, or the physical bluntness of his understanding and deadness of his passions; his apathy is born with him, and forms a prominent feature in the constitution of his mind. Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), pages 542-543.

Remembering the Old Ways reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Our Father in Heaven

The Bible, says Bonnet, in his meditations on the Lord's Prayer, insists much upon this comparison of an earthly father, and our Father in Heaven; and it challenges the tenderest affections of a parent's heart to surpass in any respect the love and care of our Heavenly Father. "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven, give good things to them that ask Him" Does a suffering or an erring child meet with assistance or compassion from his father? "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him."

The Bible does not stop even here; the experience of the Christian contains still richer treasures of consolation. If there be found a father so unnatural as to abandon his own child, or if death, striking a beloved father, leave his child an unprotected orphan, the arms of a heavenly Father are stretched out to receive him, to surround him with love and paternal care: "When my father and mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up." And this assurance, which David had found so blessed a reality, when he pronounced these words, is the same to every soul whose confidence is in the Lord. Yes, I seen the young child returning sad and dejected, after accompanying its father to the tomb, and have heard it asked in the agony of grief-- "Who will now be my guide and my support, in this life of misery, upon which I am about to enter, alone, and poor, weak, and without hope?" And then, I have seen the hand of a faithful servant of God pointing upwards, while with accents of tenderness and sympathy he said-- "My child! remember that thou hast still a Father in Heaven;" and these words, these few words, found the way to that young heart, and never after departed from it; and these few words gave a direction to his whole future life by shedding over it a new light.

Bits and Pieces

Military Justice?

Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was determined to see that the people involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln were punished swiftly and severely. To this end, even though the civil courts of Washington, D.C., were fully functional and available, Stanton arranged for the eight 'conspirators' to be tried in a military court and for the verdict to be determined by a nine-member commission that he hand-picked. The commissioners set their own rules of procedure and determined that a two-thirds vote, instead of the customary unanimous decision, would be sufficient to convict.

It was not until the second day of their trial that they learned what charges they faced, and then two days after that before they were all supplied with defense attorneys.

April 19th

April 19, 1775: "Liberty Day." 'The shot heard 'round the world' fired at Lexington. Result: the first battle deaths in 'The War for Christian Liberty.'

April 19, 1861: Baltimore, Maryland. The scene of the first bloodshed of Lincoln's War. Lincoln's troops opened fire on a group of civilians. 16 deaths result before the troops are whisked away on a train.

April 19, 1994: multiple deaths, including 17 children, as federal troops set fire to the Branch Davidian church, Waco, Texas.

April 19, 1996: multiple deaths in terrorist bombing of federal building at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

And the war rages on!!!

Lawyers... and other reptiles

Origin of the Specious...

"I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of the monsters." John Keats (1795-1821), English poet.

---------------

Where's the Justice?...

"In 1560, there was one attorney for every 20,000 people in England; in 1606, there was one for every 4,000; and in 1640, one for every 2,500. No statistics recorded a proportionate increase in justice." C.W. Brooks, Pettyfoggers and Vipers of the Commonwealth, page 112.

---------------

Medieval Spanish Proverb...

"The Jews ruin themselves at the Passover, the Moors at their marriages, and the Christians in their lawsuits." cited in 'Racial Proverbs' by Champion, p 303.

---------------

Courts of what?...

"Poor people have access to American courts in the same sense that the Christians had access to the lions when they were dragged into a Roman arena." Judge Earl Johnson Jr., quoted in The L. A. Times, Feb. 19, 1984.

---------------

Virtue?...

"Virtue in the middle," said the Devil, as he sat down between two lawyers.

---------------

Ancient Curse

"May your life be filled with lawyers."

---------------

Ugh! It is!!

The United States is home to two-thirds of the world's lawyers.

The Last Name

A last, or family name is that which belongs to your family. It existed long before you were born, therefore it is not you and it does not describe you. It describes your relationship to a linage for historical purposes. It is not a 'God Given Name,' but a name designated by your family relating, usually, to a previous craft or commercial profession. In short, it is considered a 'legal fiction' in man's law. It does not describe, attach to, or have anything to do with the 'New Man' or 'New Woman' in Christ. "For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50.

Your only linage that is important 'in Law' is that relating to our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. That is not to say that your family is not, or should not be, important to you. But it is 'man's law' that makes these distinctions important. They look to earthly connections to attach 'legal personality' to you. It is the legal fiction known as 'legal personality' that we must always seek to avoid.

The same precepts apply to the 'birth date,' 'birth place,' 'residence,' 'ownership,' etc.

These are the marks of 'the old man' of the world, better known as 'a human being' or 'son of Adam.'

Issue the Twenty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Modern Gospels, Part Two...

Greg Loren Durand...

Fictions of law, Part Four ...

Posting the Land...

Conversations with a 501(c)-3 Corpse...

The King's Men on Truth Radio...

Broken Ramparts, conclusion...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Modern Gospel Versions

Part Two

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

One of the great short-comings in the average Christian's education is, they do not know the history of the Bible they all carry to church and Sunday school. But, even worse, the history of the Christian Bible is not a subject that many seem to care about. Yet, the history of any text or version of Scripture is absolutely vital if one really wants to know whether or not the version he reads or studies - is reliable!

Thus, we offer this short history of the Bible in English to help Our Readers decide if their current version is a good one, and to show why the King's Men all over the country - with one voice - prefer the Authorized, or King James Version, to all others. Our history begins with the work of John Wycliffe.

John Wycliffe (1320-84) had one goal in his life; to translate the Bible into the language of the English people, so that the common man could read the Scriptures for himself. Prior to this, the Scripture was printed only in the language of scholars, i.e., Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. Wycliffe wanted a Bible in common English so the people would know when anyone tampered with the meaning of the text, and the people would see that even kings are subject to the Law of God. He finished his work just two years before he died, in 1382. From this date, the Protestant Reformation began, and this is why Wycliffe is known as "The Morning Star of the Reformation."

Wycliffe's translation was based upon the Latin version of the Bible. Six years after Wycliffe's version was published, a revision of it was published (1388) and known as the Purvey Revision. Twenty years later, the popularity of the Bible in English was so great that it alarmed the powers that be. Thus, the Provincial Council at Oxford prohibited English translations of the Bible in 1408. Violations of the prohibition resulted in excommunication from the church, a trial for heresy, and often death.

William Tyndale (1492-1536), graduated from Oxford with a B.A. in 1512, and an M.A. in 1515. Later, he studied at Cambridge and became a tutor, during which time, he translated Erasmus's Enchiridion Militis Christiani, "The Christian Soldiers Handbook." One of its themes was, Christians are personally responsible to study the New Testament and deem the Bible the final authority for all matters of life and doctrine. Tyndale said to a friend: "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough should know more of the Scripture than thou dost."

Tyndale set out to translate the Scripture into English, but the Oxford Prohibition was still in effect. He sought a special permission to translate the Bible from the Bishop of London, who refused. A wealthy merchant agreed to support his work and Tyndale left England in 1524 to begin the task. He finished the New Testament in Germany in 1525, but, the government prohibited its publication. He moved to Worms where a new edition was published in 1526. By 1536 he had translated and published the whole Bible.

Both his translation idiom and his scholarship were so outstanding that, to this day, Tyndale's work has influenced the translation of every Bible in English. His translation was unique in that it did not rely on the Latin, but on the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture.

By 1534, English kings and ecclesiastics began to feel the heat of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's work. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer petitioned Henry VIII to form a committee to translate the Bible into the common tongue.

Miles Coverdale, who was not a scholar of the same class as Tyndale, and not an 'official' translators, did a new translation in 1535. His Bible was based on the Latin and Tyndale, and it was the first complete Bible in English printed in England. It was first to introduce chapter summaries at the head of chapters, and to separate Apochryphal Books from the Biblical text and put them after the Old Testament.

A translation by Thomas Matthew, based on Tyndale's work, was published in 1537, under "the King's most gracious license." It was the first to offer "aids" to study, that included a church calendar, an exhortation to Bible study, a summary of the main doctrines of the Bible, and a concordance. These ideas were borrowed from French Bible translators Lefevre (1534) and Olivetan (1535). It also used notes to understand the text taken from Tyndale, Lefevre, and Olivetan. By 1537, the Bible in English circulated freely in England, one hundred fifty years after Wycliffe's death.

Coverdale revised the Matthew translation using many excellent source materials. This version was known as The Great Bible. It was printed without notes or "aids" in Paris in 1538, but Roman Catholic authorities in the Inquisition seized all the copies they could lay their hands on. The printer returned to England where the Bible was finally published in 1539.

In 1540 a revision of The Great Bible was published with a preface by Archbishop Cranmer, and included the phrase: "This is the Bible appointed for use in the churches." In 1546, Henry forbid the use of the Tyndale Bible and all other annotated versions of the bible with notes in English.

When Mary, Queen of Scots, came to the English throne, the leaders of English Protestants and their Bibles fled or were executed. Those who fled, settled in English colonies in Germany and Switzerland. Anthony Gilbey and Christopher Goodman, the principal translators of the Geneva Bible were part of the group that settled at Basel, Switzerland.

For a time, there was a concerted effort to bring all the English exiles together in one city in Germany or Switzerland, but this effort failed. At Geneva was where the brilliant John Calvin and several Englishmen settled, and after a time, formed a church with John Knox, William Williams, William Whittington, Gilbey, and Goodman. They used Calvin's Order of Service rather than the English prayer book, and were influenced not only by Calvin, but by Beza and others in Calvin's circle of friends. At this time, Geneva was a center of Biblical scholarship and thus, when it came to the translation of the Bible there was no lack of men or scholarship. It was in Geneva that the first edition of the Greek New Testament with a verse number system was published in 1551.

Nine years later, the Geneva Bible was published in 1560, and in five years it became the most popular Bible in England in spite of the official sanctions against it. The Geneva Bible was assembled by the very same English exiles that Mary ran out of England. It is largely due to her efforts that so much Biblical talent and scholarship were concentrated in Geneva at one time. Before the King James version was published, the Geneva Bible went through more editions in England than all other Bibles combined! It continued to sell long after the King James was published.

The only problem with the English translation found in the Geneva Bible was its marginal notes and references. These made Queen Elizabeth I and especially her son James I, nervous. Thus, after James became king he informed all at the Hampton Roads Conference in 1604, that a new translation was due, - without the marginal notes and explanations of texts.

The Authorized Version, or more popularly, the King James Version, was translated by a group of the finest scholars of the age. It relies for about 61% of its wording on previous versions mentioned above and about 39% is new wording or translation, and it was published in 1611.

The KJV has been called one of the greatest translations ever. From 1611 to 1881, it stood the test of time, scholarship, and criticism, which was often intense. Not until the The Revised Standard Version (RSV), was there any consideration of replacing the King James.

The KJV was the most supported translation in history, not only in translation tools, concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries, but also in tools to integrate the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic with the King James. Today, there are about forty words in the KJV whose meaning no longer means what it did in 1611, but the work is still the best translation of the Bible in English, in spite of all the so-called 'new' translations that appeared to compete with it. The KJV was even given the sanction of Congress, when it bought thousands of copies for the American people.

Recently, a group of so-called patriots published a criticism of the KJV which cited not one textual scholar of any note. They even resorted to lifting fragments of "King James I," a history by Otto J. Scott, to blast the character of King James. When Mr. Scott saw this work, he was enraged at the treatment of his history of King James.

The contention of the patriots was, that the Geneva Bible is better than the KJV because King James allegedly tampered with its translation. In fact, this is a flat lie. As corrupt as James was, he never went near the translation committee for the simple reason that if any pastor in England had heard that James was influencing the translation, the KJV would never have been placed in a single church in England!!!

Of course, these patriot groups were lying about the KJV because they just happened to be selling the Geneva Bible.

We come now to the plethora of new translations of the Bible beginning with the Revised Standard Version of 1881. This work was also translated by a committee of scholars and their task was supposed to be only a modernization of the English in the KJV. In fact, under the domination of Westcott and Hort, the version that was produced was a completely new translation based upon recently discovered Greek and Hebrew texts. For the story of how this came about, we must go back a few years.

It seems that a certain Count Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin von Tischendorff (1815-1874), a New Testament textual critic went to Judea in 1844 and found at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai that monks were using pages from a book to start a fire. The un-used pages went back into a waste basket. The Count recognized the writing on the pages as parts of the New Testament in Greek. He took all he could find and returned to Europe. He kept the location of his find a secret during the excitement that followed his discovery. In 1853 and 1859 he went back to Judea under the sponsorship of the Russian Czar and collected many more texts. This text became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. The world was astonished at Tischendorff's find and the Czar gave him the title of "Count." Later, another text with the same style was found in the Vatican, hence its name, Codex Vaticanus.

Next month, we will take a close look at the true origins of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus to further demonstrate the folly of the today's Modern copyrighted Translations.

Greg Loren Durand

Author of "The Five Points of Christianity" 219 pages, Crown Rights Book Company

Preface to

"The Five Points of Christianity"

I am a recent convert to Christianity. Yes, I have been a believer in Jesus Christ for a little over a decade now, but the "gospel" that I had spent the majority of my Christian walk believing to be true was, at best, only half true, and at some very crucial points, totally wrong. I was spiritually "nurtured" in an environment where the biblical doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty in salvation was not only never taught, but the discussion of it was actually discouraged and often even forbidden. In short, I was raised an Arminian.

I was to later realize that Arminianism, though claiming to be Protestantism, has much more in common with the false teachings that initiated the Protestant Reformation in the first place. Granted, the subject of God's grace is commonly proclaimed from the Arminian pulpit, but the definition which it is given really denies its very essence and majesty. This denial is implicit in the claim that man plays some role, though it be ever so minute, in the process of salvation. The counter-statement of Calvinism, which I now accept, is simply that salvation is of the Lord. It is the sovereign grace of God in and of itself that does not merely entreat or "woo," but actually saves, those who, without such grace, would never be saved or even see their need of salvation. In the words of John Calvin, "Men come to God empty-handed."

Contrary to what I had formerly assumed, there is room for neither ecumenical dialogue nor "agreeable disagreement" between Calvinists and Arminians, for the differences between the two camps go far beyond the scope of reconciliation. The two theologies are, in fact, no less than opposing belief systems-- the former a preservation of God's truth, the latter a perversion thereof. The great evangelist Charles Spurgeon was absolutely correct when he declared Calvinism to be nothing less than the biblical Gospel.

It is to be expected that some will, at this point, voice their objections and attempt to affix the label of "imbalance" and "legalism" to this position. In response, I must insist that any compromise of the clear teachings of the Scripture can in no way be seen as "balance," but as apostate, heretical, and abominable in the sight of God. Likewise, the accusation of legalism is completely unfounded, though unfortunately nothing new. John Calvin himself was once condemned for "judaizing" in a 1593 tract published by the theological faculty at Wittenburg. This was because he insisted on allowing Scripture the opportunity to speak for itself, thus depriving the unlearned of their fanciful methods of proof-texting beliefs that had no real biblical foundation. Ironically, the entire Reformation was ignited by a rejection of the legalism of the Roman Catholic church, which had all but obliterated the grace of God beneath layers of man-made dogmas.

I believe that the predominantly Arminian church of today is a rather anemic caricature of that mighty fortress established by Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the first century. No longer does the prevailing message of modern evangelism "cut to the heart" of its hearers, nor does it exact the commitment to the precepts of God's Word that it once did. People are now led to believe in a God that knocks quietly and pathetically on the door of their hearts, passively hoping for the opportunity to bless them. Sinners are encouraged to focus on their supposed inherent self-worth and are presented with the cross as a means to elevate their downtrodden self-esteem. It is not surprising that this modern "gospel" proven to be a failure, simply because it appeals to the "good in men"-- an attribute that the Bible says does not even exist.

Today's church cultivates an overall religious atmosphere that builds crystal cathedrals and promises health and wealth, and yet leaves Christians weak in faith and untaught in sound doctrine. It is therefore my conviction that Arminianism is the modern-day Wittenburg Cathedral, to which the biblical Gospel must once again be nailed for all to see. As in Martin Luther's day, the offence of the ignorant and the obstinate is inevitable, but such should never deter the minister of God's Word from rendering faithful service to his Lord. It is time to restore the tradition of the Reformers to our pulpits and join in their cry of soli Deo gloria. Then, and only then, will the Body of Christ once again begin to witness a true "grace awakening."

Other books by Greg Loren Durand

In God We Trust? The Deadly Cancer of the "Health and Wealth Gospel"

De Legis et Gubernatis

The Christian's Duty to the Civil Magistrate

The God Who Isn't There: Examining the Process Theology of Modern Arminian Scholars

"Communion with the Gods" The Pagan Alter of Freemasonry

For a complete price listing of these and other available titles, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

-------------------------

The Battle Hymn of the Christian Republic

by Greg Loren Durand

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the presence of the Lord
In the hearts of brave and upright men, not chariot or sword
In Jesus let our treasures be, in honor our reward
For God shall have His day.

The heathen plot together now to fight against God's Name
Against the Lord's Anointed One to overthrow His fame
"Let us burst Their bands asunder"; God will mock them to their shame
And He shall have His day.

Though kings of earth devise their plans, God turns them to His will
The wicked shall not prosper, though righteous blood they spill
Force may crush the truth to earth, but truth remaineth still
Our God shall have His day.

The Cause of freedom is to us like fire in our veins
We won't retire from the fight while tyranny remains
Let us serve our Holy King, repeating this refrain
Our God shall have His day.

So let us laud our leaders Jackson, Stuart, Davis, Lee
And honor those our brothers dear who died for liberty
Let us quit ourselves now like men, rememb'ring constantly
Our God shall have His day.

If Truth has been our mantle, and to Christ we've bowed our knee
We shall not fear as others do, to face eternity
Let us cross the river Jordan and then rest beneath the tree
Our God has had His day.

Inversion of The Law by Fictions of law-

Part Four

by Randy Lee

Fictions of law are the direct result of the humanistic intellectualism of the law, and the resulting inversion thereof. That is, those who put The Word of God behind them, and instead look only to the wasteland of their autonomous 'human reason' for defining what law is, or what it should be, end up with the 'necessity' for legal fictions. As L.L. Fuller stated in 1930:

"...the fiction is the cement which is always at hand to plaster together the weak spots in our intellectual structure." 25 Illinois Law Review, 'Legal Fictions' page 515, Dec. 1930 by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

The legal fiction is the humanist tool used for the inversion of law and truth:

Inversion. Change of order, so that the last becomes first and the first last; a turning or change of the natural order of things. Change of places, so that each takes the place of the other. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

The Roman Catholic, 33rd Degree Mason and devotee of self-will, Roscoe Pound, who was Dean of Harvard Law School during the first half of the 20th century fully disclosed in 1959 how the fictions is used for the inversion of The Law under the guise of 'administering justice':

"It may be that some rule of law is still held in part or more or less, sacred. The law may not have passed out of a religious or semi-religious stage. Or it may be that the rule has a specially solemn form, such as a law of the XII Tables, having been incorporated in a permanent memorial of the settled customs of the community. Or, without coming under either of these heads, a rule or a body of rules may be protected against change by a widespread fear of return to a condition of justice without law still remembered with dread. Probably the hostility of American states toward equity was chiefly due to memory of the highhanded administrative tribunals of the Tudors and Stuarts. In any of these cases a tribunal will feel that a rule cannot be changed avowedly and consciously. It will persuade itself that it is making no change. Where the circumstances of 'administrating justice' require a change, the change will come indirectly and almost unconsciously in the form of a fiction." 'Jurisprudence' (1959) by Roscoe Pound, Volume III, pages 461 &462.

In the same Volume he clearly demonstrates how the legal fiction has been used, for instance, by Marxist's to subvert The Christian Common Law in America, by replacing it with their 'brand' of equity, administrative law, judge-made law, and other ungodly ilk of like kind:

"In a period of growth, when ideas are few and crude, they [fictions] enable a body of law to be molded gradually, without legislative action, to meet immediate wants as they arise and to conform to the end of the law. Legislative overhauling of the legal system is neither possible nor desirable in such period. It demands a thorough understanding of the old law, the mischief and the remedy and a stock of systematic legal ideas beyond the archaic legal order. In a sense they were devised to conceal the substance when the substance was not yet regarded as of legal consequence. They may operate still to conceal the substance after later ideas have made the substance almost the only thing of legal consequence.
The other cause operating to produce fictions, namely, poverty of general ideas in the times and places in which fictions arise, is connected with the development of juristic thinking. For a long time men do not so much reason as they associate. They are moved by association of this or that which is new with this or that with which they are familiar. Thus when a new political community was set up in antiquity it was founded on the model of a group of kindred. When a political organization of a society is set up today it is made to the model of the Middle Ages. Its legislative organ is made up of representatives of localities. In a city council there are representatives of wards. In the state legislature there is a territorial basis. There are representatives of soil more than of persons. So when changed circumstances and pressure of unrecognized or inadequately secured interests compel changed rules of law or new rules, men are not equal to the working out of a new legal doctrine, or of any legal doctrine, but endeavor to assimilate the new phenomenon in the administration of justice to something which they are familiar. Thus, in a sense, it might be said that dogmatic fictions represent first attempts of a legal system at classification and generalization." 'Jurisprudence' (1959) by Roscoe Pound, Volume III, pages 465 &466.

Earlier in his State-promoting and Law-inverting career, Roscoe Pound in 1936 showed the true colors of his 'unlimited' Marxist/humanist/Masonic thought, when addressing 150 professors, lawyers, and judges at Harvard's 'Conference on the Future of the Common Law':

"In the Psalm De Profundis, as it stands in the Vulgate, differing from the text with which we are familiar in King James's version, the psalmist cries out, in a noble passage, propter legem tuam sustinui te Domine --because of thy law have I abided thee, O Lord. The regularity of the operations of nature, as compared with the willfulness and inconsistency of human behavior; the steadfastness and predictability of the moral order, as compared with the want of principle and untrustworthiness of the ungodly, gave strength to the faith of the psalmist in an Eternal who makes for righteousness--in an Eternal who stands behind the regularity and certainty of the natural and the moral order. How to promote and maintain such regularity and certainty in human behavior, through morals or religion or education or government, has been a chief concern of humanity. How to promote and maintain them by the ordering of relations and adjustment of conflicting interests and determining of disputes has been the chief concern of organized humanity. Moreover, not the least part of that concern has been to insure regularity and certainty in the processes of ordering, adjusting, and determining. When one reflects on what has been done in the development of order and system in these processes, and weighs against the abuses incident to the political order, the gains which that order and system have brought us, he may well paraphrase the psalmist and say: "because of thy law am I content with thee, O state"." Lecture on "What is the Common Law" by Roscoe Pound, August 19, 1936.

What is so ironic in all of this, after considering the above blasphemous statement and last month's 'confessions of the law profession,' is the fact that these ungodly humanists, who joy it is to invert and perverter 'law' and 'truth' readily admit that 'their private law' is devoid of truth. They must admit it, for they are 'under the heel' of The Truth:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." 2 Cor 13:8

Through the Word of God, our Brother Paul instructed us concerning the inevitable fictions of fallen minds, and the avoidance thereof :

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-8

All of the above clearly demonstrates why the sanctuary of our Father's Word bestows upon us the blessings and gifts of Christian duty:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:17-18

The conclusion of 'Fictions of law' next month.

Posting the Land

by John Joseph

In reading the notice at the end of this article, you might think it says the same thing your commercial "NO TRESPASSING" sign says, and this is just so difficult to understand. I am here to tell you there is a universe of difference between the two--a great chasm separating them if you will. Chaff is not wheat, and wheat is not chaff. Just as in "IN VINCULIS" there are the three basic questions involved--again epistemology answered with ontology. I will not go into the three questions now, but will move on to what it is we are after. (If you want to know what those questions are, then acquire the pamphlets and tapes for that series from The Christian Jural Society Press.) This discourse will concern itself with four major passages of Scripture, each having a major impact on answering the same three basic questions.

Let's begin with our Blessed Lord's discourse with Nicodemus, for all must come to terms with Christ in the same way Nicodemus did. Brother Adam Clarke counts it this way:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8.
"Rabbi, 'My Master' or 'Teacher,' a title of respect given to the Jewish doctors, something like our 'Doctor of Divinity,' i.e., teacher of divine things. But as there may be many found among us who, though they bear the title, are no teachers, so it was among the Jews; and perhaps it was in reference to this that Nicodemus uses the word didaskalos immediately after, by which, in chap. I. 39, John translates the word rabbi. Rabbi, teacher, is often no more than a title of respect; didaskalos signifies a person who not only has the name of teacher but who actually does teach. We know that thou art a teacher sent from God. We, all the members of the grand Sanhedrin and all the rulers of the people, who have paid proper attention to Thy doctrine and miracles. We are all convinced of this, though we are not all candid enough to own it. It is possible, however, that we know signifies no more than 'it is known, it is generally acknowledged and allowed' that thou art a teacher come from God. No man can do these miracles. It is on the evidence of Thy miracles that I ground my opinion of Thee. No man can do what Thou dost unless the omnipotence of God be with him.
"3. Jesus answered. Not in the language of compliment; He saw the state of Nicodemus' soul , and He immediately addressed Himself to him on a subject the most interesting and important. But what connection is there between our Lord's reply and the address of Nicodemus? Probably our Lord saw that the object of his visit was to inquire about the Messiah's kingdom; and in reference to this He immediately says, Except a man be born again. The repetition of amen, or verily, verily, among the Jewish writers, was considered of equal import with the most solemn oath. Be born again. Or 'from above'; different to that new birth which the Jews supposed every baptized proselyte enjoyed; for they held that the Gentile who became a proselyte was like a newborn child. This birth was of water from below; the birth for which Christ contends is 'from above'--by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Every man must have two births: one from heaven, the other from earth--one of his body, the other of his soul. Without the first he cannot see nor enjoy this world; without the last he cannot see nor enjoy the kingdom of God. As there is an absolute necessity that a child should be born into the world, that he may see its light, contemplate its glories, and enjoy its good, so there is an absolute necessity that the soul should be brought out of its state of darkness and sin, through the light and power of the grace of Christ, that it may be able to see, or to 'discern,' the glories and excellencies of the kingdom of Christ here, and be prepared for the enjoyment of the Kingdom of glory hereafter. The Jews had some general notion of the new birth; but, like many among Christians, they put the acts of proselytism, baptism, etc., in the place of the Holy Spirit and His influence. They acknowledged that a man must be born again; but they made that new birth to consist in profession, confession, and external washing. The new birth which is here spoken of comprehends not only what is termed justification or pardon but also sanctification or holiness. Sin must be pardoned and the impurity of the heart washed away before any soul can possibly enter into the kingdom of God. As this new birth implies the renewing of the whole soul in righteousness and true holiness, it is not a matter that may be dispensed with. Heaven is a place of holiness, and nothing but what is like itself can ever into it.
"How can a man be born again when he is old? It is probable that Nicodemus was pretty advanced in age at this time; and from his answer we may plainly perceive that, like the rest of the Jews, and like multitudes of Christians, he rested in the letter, without paying proper attention to the spirit. The shadow, without the thing signified, had hitherto satisfied him. Our Lord knew him to be in this state, and this was the cause of His pointed address to him.
"Of water and of the Spirit. To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of the divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit. The soul was considered as in a state of defilement because of past sin. Now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, the soul was to be purified from its defilement and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness. When John came baptizing with water, he gave the Jews the plainest intimations that this would not suffice; that it was only typical of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, under the similitude of fire, which they must all receive from Jesus Christ. See Matt iii. 11. Therefore our Lord asserts that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, i.e., the Holy Ghost, which, represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul. Though baptism by water in to the Christian faith was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah, it is not necessary that by water and the Spirit (in this place) we should understand two different things. It is probably only an elliptical form of speech for the Holy Spirit under the similitude of water; as in Matt iii. 3, 'the Holy Ghost and fire' do not mean two things, but one, viz., the Holy Ghost under the similitude of fire--pervading every part refining and purifying the whole.
"6. That which is born of the flesh is of the flesh. This is the answer to the objection made by Nicodemus in v. 4. 'Can a man enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?'
"8. The wind bloweth. Though the manner in which this new birth is effected by the Divine Spirit be incomprehensible to us, yet we must not on this ground supposed it to be impossible. The wind blows in a variety of directions--we hear its sound, perceive its operation in the motion of the trees, etc., and feel it on ourselves--but we cannot discern the air itself; we only know that it exists by the effects which it produces. So is every one that is born of the Spirit; the effects are as discernible and as sensible as those of the wind, but itself we cannot see. But he who is born of God knows that he is thus born. 'The Spirit itself,' the grand Agent in this new birth, 'beareth witness with our spirit,' that he is born of God, Rom viii. 16; for 'he that believethhath the witness in himself,' 1 John iv. 13 and v. 10; Gal iv. 6. And so does this Spirit work in and by him that others, though they see not the principle, can easily discern the change produced; for 'whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world,' 1 John v. 4." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1983), pp. 513-515.

Truly, one cannot enter his mother's womb ever again, but one can enter again into that Righteous Relationship with God, through our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, by the Grace God gives to men called for His righteous Purposes. It is this relationship which is evidenced to the world by the outward acts: James 2:14-26; "Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta --Outward acts indicate inward intent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124; "Acts indicate the intention." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124. The Intent of a Good and Lawful Christian is twofold: One, to walk meekly before God our Father doing all things for His Glory and Majesty to the end of revealing to the world Him and the Superiority of His Ways; and, Two, to Lawfully execute the Duties and Powers appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Office of Christ, for the Glory of the Son. It is this relationship Brother Paul discoursed about in writing to both the Galatians and the Romans. But before we get to Brother Paul, Brother John, the Lord's beloved apostle, gives us that all important clue which Brother Paul amplifies later:

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on His Name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn 1:12-13.

Again, Brother Adam Clarke's remarks illuminate our understanding:

"12. Gave he power. 'Privilege, honor, dignity, or right.' He who is made a child of God enjoys the greatest 'privilege' which the Divine Being can confer on this side of eternity. Those who accept Jesus Christ as He is offered to them in the gospel have, through His blood, a 'right' to this sonship; for by that sacrifice this blessing was purchased, and the fullest promises of God confirm it to all who believe. And those who are engrafted in the heavenly family have the highest 'honor' and 'dignity' to which it is possible for a human soul to arrive." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 498-499.

Our esteemed Brother Matthew Henry quite agrees:

"3. He came to His own (v. 11); not only to the world, which was His own, but to the people of Israel, that were peculiarly His own. To them He was first sent. He came to His own, to seek and save them, because they were His own. The generality rejected Him; His own received Him not. He had reason to expect that those who were His own should have bidden him with signs and wonders, and Himself the greatest; and therefore it is not said of them, as it was of the world (v. 10), that they knew Him not. Many who in profession are Christ's own, yet do not receive Him, because they will not part with their sins, nor have Him to reign over them. Yet there was a remnant who owned Him, and were faithful to Him. There were those that received Him (v. 12); But as many as received Him. There were many of them that were wrought upon to submit to Christ, and many more that were not of that fold. The true Christian's description and property; and that is, that he receives Christ and believes on His Name. Believing in Christ's Name is receiving Him as a gift from God. We must receive His Doctrine as true and good; and we must receive the image of His Grace [*the Holy Spirit] and the impressions of His Love, as the governing principle of our affections and actions. The true Christians' dignity and privilege are twofold:
"First, The privilege of adoption: To them gave the power to become the sons of God. Hitherto, the adoption pertained to the Jews only; but now, by faith in Christ, Gentiles are the children of God. To them gave he a right; this power have all the saints. It is the unspeakable privilege of all good Christians, that they are become the children of God. If they be the children of God, they become so, are made so. Behold what manner of love is this, 1 John iii, 1. God calls them His children, they call Him Father. The privilege of adoption is entirely owing to Jesus Christ; He gave this power to them that believe on His Name. The Son of God became a Son of man, that the sons and daughters of men might become the sons and daughters of God Almighty.
"Secondly, The privilege of regeneration (v. 13): Which were born. All the children of God are born again; all that are adopted are regenerated. Now here we have an account of the original of this new birth. 1. Negatively. (1) It is not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, nor of corruptible seed. We do not become the children of God as we become the children of our natural parents. Grace does not run in the blood, as corruption does. (2) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will [*self-will]. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the the will of man. It is the grace of God that makes us willing to be His. But, 2. Positively; it is of God. This new birth is owing to the Word of God as the means and to the Spirit of God as the great and sole Author. True believers are born of God, 1 John iii, 9: v, 1." Matthew Henry, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 498-499.

Now if we notice in our Brothers' commentaries, we see that God, through His Son Christ Jesus, bestows conditionally Rights, Powers, Privileges and Immunities to those called by Him. Let us make no mistake about this--no one has any inherent Lawful right to adoption by God. Thus, it is not a matter of "self-will" or "choice." This is solely a matter of Grace of Him Who calls you to repentance. In this sense, you are under the Grace of God, for without it all would perish. But with it, men find that eternal life in Him Who called. Having once been called and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, a new creature is born in a Venue separate from the will of men; and are not subordinate to the will of men, but submissive or meek (praus) only to the voice of the Shepherd Christ Jesus, the Author of the call. To be born of the Spirit of God is not to be born of the spirit of codes, rules, and regulations. Therefore, the stranger is one who comes in the name or warrant of such things, which are not general laws emanating from the Body of Christ, the church. This may seem harsh at first, but because Christ Jesus is the Door then those who do not have that relationship with Him, or His several Ministerial Officers executing His Testament, stranger is the appropriate word:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation [*Christ Jesus is our Mediator]; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant [*establishing the Inheritance and adoption], nor bound by it [*Lawless, anomian and antinomians] are also said to be strangers to the covenant. Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Beware then, of those who come in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves, seeking whom they may devour:

"PERSONATE. In criminal law. To assume the person (character) of another, without his consent or knowledge, in order to deceive others, and, in such feigned character, to fraudulently do some act or gain some advantage, to the harm or prejudice of the person counterfeited. 2 East, P.C. 1010. To pass one's self off as another having a certain identity. Lane v. U.S., C.C.A.Ohio, 17 F.2d 923." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

The key phrase in the forgoing Scripture then is "not subordinate to the will of men." The stranger is of the will of man, for the Ways of God are not the ways of man: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is 55:8-9.

How is the called man regenerated? How is this "will of man" manifested? And how is this new creature to be reckoned? The answers to these questions are found in the Author Who is the Source of the Calling and Regeneration.

First, let us look at a few key words in the Greek, and as you read this definition, you might also turn your bibles over to the places mentioned and read there what is really being said. In the Greek there are more words translated to the singular English word of "mind."

"3563. NOUS. Mind; the organ of mental perception and apprehension the organ of conscious life; the organ of the consciousness preceding actions or recognizing and judging them; the understanding of word, concept, sense (Luke 24:56; Titus 1:15). Deriv.: verb noeo (3539), to perceive with the mind, as distinct from perception by feeling; dianoia (1271), the faculty of thought, from dianoeo, to agitate in the mind. Intellectual faculty, understanding or moral reflection. With an evil significance, a consciousness characterized by a perverted moral impulse, or with a good significance, the faculty renewed by the Holy Spirit. Dianoia also means a sentiment, disposition, not as a function but as a product with an evil sense or in a good sense. Dianoema (1270), reflection with machinations; ennoia (1771), from en (1722), in, and nous, mind, meaning an idea, consideration which denotes purpose, intention, design; noema (3540), thought, a purpose, device of the mind; epinoia (1963), a thought by way of evil design; anoetos (453), not applying the mind sometimes with moral reproach, contrast sophron (4998), self-controlled, one who governs his lusts; katanoeo (2657), from the intens. prep. kata (2596) and noeo, meaning to perceive making it the action of the mind in apprehending certain facts about a thing; pronoeo (4306), from pro (4253), before, and noeo, meaning to perceive thus to take thought of before, provide; pronoia (4307), forethought, providence, provision; huponoeo (5282) from hupo (5259), under, and noeo, denoting diminution, thus lack of proper knowledge and therefore to suspect, suppose; the noun huponoia, suspicion, surmising; anoia (454), without understanding, folly, senselessness (2 Tim 3:9), violent, mad rage, or madness resulting from it." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, New Testament (1994), p. 924. [Emphasis added.]
"3563. NOUS. Probably from the base of 1097; the intellect, i.e. mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication meaning: --mind, understanding. Compare 5590." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 50.

The Mind of Christ is manifested in the nous bestowed by God Almighty through Christ Jesus. There is no other way to acquire this Mind of Christ. We can then fully agree with Brother Paul:

"Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Rom 8:12-17. [Emphasis added.]

"Therefore, brethren. Dr. Taylor is of opinion that the apostle, having spoken separately to both Jews and Gentiles concerning holiness and the obligations to it, now addresses himself to both conjointly, and, (1) Draws the general conclusion from all his arguments upon the subject, v 12. (2) Proves the validity of their claims to eternal life, vv 14-17. (3) And as the affair of suffering persecution was a great stumbling block to the Jews, and might very much discourage the Gentiles, he introduces it to the best advantage, v 17, and advances several trials: as (a) That they suffered with Christ; (b) In order to be glorified with Him in a manner which will infinitely compensate al sufferings, vv 17-18. (c) All mankind are under various pressures, longing for a better state, vv 19-22. (d) Many of the most eminent Christians are in the same distressed condition, v 23. (e) According to the plan of the gospel, we are to be brought to glory after a course of patience exercised in a variety of trials, vv 24-25. (f) The Spirit of God will supply patience to every upright soul under persecution and suffering, vv 26-27. (g) All things, even the several trials, shall work together for their good, v 28. And this he proves by giving us a view of the several steps which the wisdom and goodness of God have settled in order to our complete salvation, vv 29-30. Thence he passes to the affair of our perseverance, concerning which he concludes, from the whole of his preceding arguments, that as we are brought into a state of pardon by the free grace of God, through the death of Christ, who is now our Mediator in heaven, no possible cause, providing we continue to love and serve God, shall be able to pervert our minds or separate us from His love in Christ Jesus, vv 31-39. Therefore is the grand inference from all that he has been arguing in relation to sanctity of life, both to the Gentiles, chap vi and to the Jews, caps vii and viii to this verse, where I suppose he begins to address himself to both, in a body, to the end of the chapter.
"13. But if ye through the Spirit--if you seek that grace and spiritual help which the gospel of Christ furnishes--resist, and, by resisting, mortify the deeds of the flesh, against which the law gave you no assistance, ye shall live a life of faith, love, and holy obedience here, and a life of glory hereafter.
"14. For as many as are led by the Spirit. No man who has not divine assistance can either find the way to heaven or walk in it when found. As Christ by His sacrificial offering has opened the kingdom of God to all believers, and as a Mediator transacts the concerns of their Kingdom before the Throne, so the Spirit of God is the great Agent here below to enlighten, quicken, strengthen, and guide the true disciples of Christ; and all that are born of this Spirit are led and guided by Him, and none can pretend to be the children of God who are not thus guided.
"15. Ye have not received the spirit of bondage. All that were under the law were under bondage to its rites and ceremonies; and as, through the prevalence of that corrupt nature with which the law gave no assistance, they were often transgressing, consequently they had forfeited their lives, and were continuously, through fear of death, subject to bondage, Heb ii, 15. The believers in Christ Jesus were brought from under that law and from under its condemnation, and consequently were freed from its bondage [*for they now live by, in and through Christ Jesus].
"But ye have received the Spirit of adoption. You are brought into the family of God by adoption; and the Agent that brought you into this family is the Holy Spirit; and this very Spirit continues to witness to you the grace in which you stand, by enabling you to call God your Father, with the utmost filial confidence and affection. The Spirit of adoption. Adoption was an act frequent among the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, by which a person was taken out of one family and incorporated with another. Persons of property, who had no children of their own, adopted those of another family. The child thus adopted ceased to belong to his own family and was in every respect bound to the person who had adopted him, as if he were his own child, and in consequence of the death of his adopting father he possessed his estates. If a person after he had adopted a child happened to have children of his own, then the estate was equally divided between the adopted and real children. The Romans had regular forms of law by which all these matters were settled. Whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It has been remarked that slaves were not permitted to use the term Abba, father, or Imma, mother, in accosting their masters and mistresses. And from this some suppose that the apostle intimates that being new brought from under the spirit of bondage, in which they durst not call God their Father, they are not only brought into a new state, but have got that language which is peculiar to that state. Some have supposed that the apostle, by using the Syriac and Greek words which express Father, shows the union of Jewish and Gentile believers in those devotions which were dictated by a filial spirit. Others have thought that these were the first words which those generally uttered who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. It is enough to know that it was the language of their sonship; and that it expressed the clear assurance they had of being received in to the divine favour, the affection and gratitude they felt for this extraordinary blessing and their complete readiness to come under the laws and regulations of the family, and to live in the spirit of obedience [*to the Law appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ].
"16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit. 'That same spirit,' the Spirit of adoption; that is, the Spirit who witnesses this adoption; which can be no other than the Holy Spirit himself, and certainly cannot mean any disposition or affection of mind which the adopted person may feel. With our spirit. In our understanding, the place or recipient of light and information, and the place or faculty to which such information can properly be brought. This is done that we may have the highest possible evidence of the work which God has wrought. As the window is the proper medium to let the light of the sun in to our apartments, so the understanding is the proper medium of conveying the Spirit's influence to the soul. We therefore have the utmost evidence of the fact of our adoption which we can possibly have; we have the word and Spirit of God, and he word sealed on our Spirit by the Spirit of God. And this is not a momentary influx. If we take care to walk with God and not grieve the Holy Spirit, we shall have an abiding testimony; and while we continue faithful to our adopting Father, the Spirit that witnesses that adoption will continue to witness it, and hereby we shall know that we are of God by the Spirit which He giveth us.
"17. And if children, then heirs. For the legitimate children alone can inherit the estate. This is not an estate to which they succeed in consequence of the death of the former possessor; it is like the Promised Land, given by God Himself, and divided among the children of the family. Heirs of God. It is neither an earthly portion nor a heavenly portion, but God Himself, who is to be their Portion. It is not heaven they are to inherit; it is God, who is infinitely greater and more glorious than heaven itself. Joint-heirs with Christ. Partaking of the same eternal glory with the glorified human nature of Christ. If so be that we suffer with Him. Observe, says Dr. Taylor, how prudently the apostle advances to the harsh affair of suffering. He does not mention it till he has raised up their thoughts to the highest object of joy and pleasure--the happiness and glory of a joint inheritance with the ever blessed Son of God. We are heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him. This with the additional consideration that we suffer with Christ, or as He Himself suffered, would greatly qualify the transitory afflictions of this world, and dispose them to attend to the other arguments He had to offer." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 926-928. [Emphasis added.]

If you are an heir, then you must manifest such by bearing the fruits of repentance--obedience and meekness--and claim that Inheritance of God given you through Christ Jesus, "for the meek shall inherit the earth." See Mt 5:5 and Ps 37:11. Such is the foregoing notice--but it is not the earth you Inherit--it is the Close you Inherit, that Righteous Warrant in the Law which establishes the Power to claim the land in His Name and not your own. We cannot, and, in deed must not, use any commercial counterfeits. Why? Because of the following maxims of Law:

"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.
"Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso --That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2166.

If you use a commercial counterfeit, then the source is not God's Law--it is the lex mercatoria. Thus, there is no sanctification or separation from and between yourself and the commercial world. You will have ignorantly imported the fiction over the Truth in Christ Jesus, thereby marring the Seal of, and grieving, the Holy Spirit of God our Father. You must declare the Law written on your heart having the Seal of the Spirit of God which evidences and witnesses your adoption by God our Father in and through Christ Jesus. It is the adoption and evidence or witness of the Holy Spirit which gives evidence or witness of interest in the Close declared by the Law. The two are like a hand in a glove. If you use a commercial counterfeit, the foot does not fit a glove made for the hand; neither does a sock properly fit a hand. You must use the law fit for the purpose and God's Law is the only law that governs the Close given you by Him through Christ Jesus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen 1:1. [This is the original act bringing the estate into being. All other derivative estates are necessarily dependent upon and governed by the Intent and Will of God, our Creator.]

"Le ley est le plus haut inheritance que le roy ad, car par le ley, il mesme et touts ses jujets sont rules, et si le ley ne fuit, nul roy ne nul inheritance serra --The law is the highest inheritance that the king possesses; for by the law both he and all his subjects are ruled; and if there were no law, there would be neither king nor inheritance." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142. [In commerce there is no law, and therefore, no inheritance.]
"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"But one who is prevented from doing a contemplated illegal act cannot maintain an action for damages for the interference with his illegal purpose." Bangor, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 49 Me. 9, 77 Am.D. 246.
"Trespass distinguished. Waste is an injury to the inheritance by one rightfully in possession of the property. Trespass is an injury to the estate or the use thereof by one who is a stranger to the title, with no right whatever in the property. [Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 109 So. 424, 425, 92 Fla. 347; Brigham v. Overstreet, 57 S.E. 484, 128 Ga. 447, 10 L.R.A.N.S. 452, 11 Ann.Cas. 75; Dahlquist v. Mattson, 233 P. 883, 886, 40 Idaho 378; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland 569, 18 Am.D. 350; Price v. Ward, 58 P. 849, 25 Nev. 203, 46 L.R.A. 459; Roots v. Boring Junction Lumber Co., 92 P. 811, 94 P. 182, 50 Or. 298; Walker v. Fox, 2 S.W. 98, 85 Tenn. 154; Lander v. Hall, 34 N.W. 80, 69 Wisc. 326; Lowndes v. Bettle (English), 33 L.J.Ch. 451.

-------------------------

Posted

Notice to All Breaking the Close over this land:

John Joseph, an obedient son of God our Father solely by His Grace through our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to all breaking this Close of and over this land, greetings from God our Father, and His Son Christ Jesus:

In the Blessed Name and Authority of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, by His Direction and Mandate and under His Warrant in His Testament, I hereby post the following at the gates to this Close of and over this land and on the door posts of the dwelling-house therein:

Whereas, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and His Intent manifested in His original Act in His Testament of bringing into being His Estate governs all derived from it; therefore when God our Father sent His Son to execute His Testament according to His Will, so His Son sent into the world those called by Him from the foundation of the world for His Dignity, Glory, Majesty and purposes; and,

Whereas, all Power in heaven and in earth hath been committed to Christ Jesus by God our Father, Who bestows the same upon those Whom He hath called and sent into the world in execution of, and to execute, the Righteous Judgments in His Holy Writ in His Name and under His Warrants contained therein; and,

Whereas, as many as believe in and on His Son He gives the power to become the sons of God by and through adoption, and a son hath Inheritance common in all other sons through and in Christ Jesus, therefore the Close of and over this land and all Rights in and of the Inheritance established by, through and in Christ Jesus, have been Willed by God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to John Joseph and his seed in perpetuity; and,

Whereas, the Will of our King and Testator in His Law and Testament instituting the Inheritance establishes and governs the Rights of those who Inherit the Close of and over this land instituted by our King in His Law and Testament, therefore those who act and do contrary to the Will of our King and Testator are not His sons, but bastards, having no Close or right in and to any Inheritance established by the Will of our Blessed King and Testator; and,

Whereas, the Law of God and the law of the land are all one, and both favour and preserve the common good of the land, therefore ignorance of God's Law is no excuse, for all men know God, even His eternal Power and Godhead, and are not presumed ignorant of their eternal welfare; and,

Wherefore, any and all who enter here without consent evidenced by Warrant in Law from God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and His several appointed Ministerial Officers having and being of one Mind in Christ, but enter either in their own name or by the name of a stranger having no Rights of and in the Inheritance common among Good and Lawful Christians: One, break this Close; Two, breach the Peace of our King, by violating His Law establishing this Close and all Powers appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ; Three, destroy the Domestic Tranquility of His son; Four, endanger His Inheritance in and of His son by adoption; and, Five, are, in His Law governing this Close, trespassers, thieves, and robbers having not entered through the Door; and,

Therefore, an action of trespass quare clausam fregit will lie against all such who break this Close through or under such pretenses or color of Law.

Conversations with a 501(c)-3 Corpse

presented by The King's Men

The following is a series of letters between Steven Milton and the Pastor of the "church" he and his family have been attending for some time, along with his introduction, and comments on the letters.

Steven Milton's Introduction

Approximately one year before I wrote the first letter to the "church,' I had approached one of the Deacons and asked him if he would see to it to have my name removed from the role of members. When the Pastor was selling the idea to the congregation of borrowing two (2) million dollars to expand, I told my wife I was glad I was not a voting member and responsible for that debt. Debbie, my wife, then showed me that our names were still in the church directory as members. This prompted me to write the first letter. I had no idea where it would lead.

First Letter

From: Steven Milton

To: First Baptist Church of __________

Please take note; The Creation can not be greater than the Creator.

In the last several years I have been involved in biblical studies, as well as studies in law. As a result of that study, I believe that God has revealed many things to me that have gone unnoticed and are a hindrance to the Christian life and growth. I have been vocal to many and have expressed the desire to openly confront these areas with others, but so far have found no one to take up the challenge with me.

Let me share with you some areas of conflict:

Is the body of Christ an Organism or an Organization

Organism

CHURCH

church

2. All those who join with an organization that is under corporation status accept the debt of that organization and become subject to that debt of another. I do not need to tell you what the scripture tells us about this debt.

3. Borrowing money, for expansion, from the ungodly bankers is not a biblical principle and as such can not be blessed by God.

4. Democracy is not a biblical principle for God's people. If God directs men to move in a fashion led by God, then no vote can change the will of God. And even if everyone voted to borrow two million federal reserve notes to expand, it violates God's Law, and as such can not be God's will. How can breaking God's Law be God's will. It can not!

These concerns cause me to insist that my name, and the names of those in my care, be removed from your membership role. I have a concern that my wife and daughter will feel pressure in that they must be members to teach or work with you, in areas they feel are a ministry. I hope that you will allow them to continue since they have exhibited a track record in the past, and both Debbie and Jessica have never proven to be a problem. I have no concern with any fellowship they have with you so long as they are not associated with the debt of others, or the 501(c)-3 status that is not part of 'God's' church.

I would also hope I can continue to come and fellowship with those who are the Church at your organization. I have always found friends there.

I would love the opportunity to sit down and study this matter with you. I am always excited to study God's Word. Law is a big part of His Word, and as such, His Law must be understood. Our lack of being in Covenant with Him is in large part because of our failure to know His Law.

I will enclose some material for your examination. I am sure you will study it because as men moved of God, as you desire to be, you need to understand (knowledge) the subject to make good decisions in your life. Do not fear the loss of your organization; this need not happen if you walk in the full council of God. I have found many ways to separate out from among them and be a special people unto the Lord. We are called out, not to join in. But be more concerned with the loss of the Organism of the body of Christ. My decisions have not been simple, and I have many challenges, however The Bible tells me that when I stand for God and His Law, I will be in conflict with the world and the rulers of darkness.

May God open ears to hear,

God Be with you, Steven Milton

Dated this thirteenth day of October in the year of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.

Steven Milton's comment on the first letter

Please note the October 30, 1997. The following Sunday the Pastor's sermon was very good. He preached about the 'church' as an 'Organism,' a living thing. I was exited that he had read the material. Then he ended with a very emphatic, "so now you should join the church here at ____ and be a part of God's work with us." O' well, I guess my letter was boring and he did not read it at all. I went home!

After the holiday season was over, and I had continued reading and studying this issue I realized that it was probably not their intent to deal with me. Their hope would be, I was guessing, "that this fanatic crazy would go away." They would not want to 'waste time on this stuff.' But I have too much Scotch and Irish in me to ignore the lack of a response. The second letter is not a threat, but rather a push to get them to attempt to deal with the subject I had raised. Some felt I was threatening, but I assure you the action I planned was not. I was going to legally cut my relationship with them. This letter was sent January 24, 1998.

Second Letter

Dear Pastor and Deacons:

Recently I sent you a letter expressing my concern about practices that violate The Scriptures. I expressed also that I was concerned that the created is not greater than the Creator, and as such, the 501(c)-3 church (a man-made entity) could never be greater that the state which gave it creation. As such, you are servants of the State, not the God whom you purport to be your Head. I sent you information about the church/State relationship for your study.

I never received any response from you, which has perplexed me. The common response would be, I assume, that I was in error. If so, I was willing to study the issue from your understanding. The other response is to ask me how the real "Church," a living body, could come out of Babylon.

If you do not respond at all, it is acquiescence to my information, as fact. In fact, you are stating that I am correct and you choose to do nothing about it. I would be very concerned if you chose that course.

So I am of the opinion at this time that you are unaware of the role you must play in a question raised about who your master is. You must answer me in one of the following manners:

2. Disagree with me about your role, and have an answer ready to support your position.

3. Agree to discuss the matter.

4. Avoid me (choose to remain blind) or ask me to not be a part of the body of Christ that meets in your building.

I hope we are all seeking the Truth from God and His Word.

I do need you to act quickly in one matter. I informed you that I insisted you remove my name and the name of my family from your role of membership. This was for the reasons set down in my previous letter. You need to respond to me "immediately." If you do not, I intend to take action to insure I am not a 'party' to the 'surety of debt' you are creating.

I have always cared for many people that are a part of your body. I am convinced that there are many Christians in your fellowship and I have chosen to believe Sam and Jim both desire to preach the true Word of God. I do not desire to cause any disharmony, and ask you to pray and seek God's face, humble yourself, and turn from your wicked ways, then God, Who is in Heaven, will hear us and heal our land.

Please have a Deacon hand-deliver a letter, with the signature of the Pastor and Hank, informing me that my name and the names of my family members has in fact been removed from the membership. We desire to continue to fellowship, so please attempt to answer other questions raised in the first letter.

I am anxious to seek the Truth that comes from the Word of God.

In Christ's Name, Steven Milton

Steven Milton's comment on the second letter

Well I guess I hit a spot because I did finally get a letter back. However, you may notice that the letter from the Pastor was not about my material concerning the church, or the debt, but off point. I was a little surprised because I thought that I would meet opposition about my material or points relating to them. I was relieved when I saw that I was not missing some great truth so simple and common to man, and I was the only fool that did not know it. He had to resort to attacking me personally. It seems funny that when when we get too close to the root of a problem, the attack will turn personal.

The Pastor's response

February 2, 1998

Dear Steve,

I want to apologize for not responding sooner to your letters and tapes. I want you to know that I have the highest regard and love for you and your family. I also believe that you are very sincere in your beliefs, but I must say from my study of the Scripture, that I believe you are sincerely wrong in some of your beliefs.

In your last letter, two times you say that we "must seek the Truth from God's Word." I agree. I ask you to read very carefully Romans 13:1-7. These verses are crystal clear as to God's desire that every believer live in submission to governmental authority. It is also clear that God expects believers to pay their taxes to the government.

I agree that there are many inequities in our government and tax system, but God didn't say that I am to pay my taxes if I agree with the government. He clearly said in these verses that I am to pay them. Our church lives under the Biblical mandate of Romans 13:1-7 in its relationship to the government. The way we are functioning and operating is Biblically-based.

If you, after prayer and consideration of these verses, still want your family's names removed from membership rolls of our church, then we will do so. I would hope that you would not make that insistence, because I believe that all families need the protective umbrella of membership in a New Testament church. I'm sending a copy of this letter to all of our deacons-- and, as far as I, and they, are concerned, this letter answers your questions and settles the matter.

The Bible says, "Speak the truth in love," and this I have done.

In the Grip of His Grace,

Your Pastor, __________

Steven Milton's third letter with response

To: Pastor and Deacons

Dear Pastor,

Thank you for your letter dated Feb. 2, 1998. I have been blessed with the opportunity to study the law of man, as well as the Law of God. This has led to a number of exiting and troubling revelations. Since I seek the Truth, I do not desire to ignore any of them. I have made many mistakes and have more than my share of sin, so please do not assume I am coming off with the attitude of being of a spiritual mind over anyone else. However, I seek the answers to my questions and a response from you, and must not relent yet.

First off may I ask, what beliefs of mine, do you believe are wrong? You stated in your letter of 2/2/98 that you believe I am "sincerely wrong in some beliefs." Would you elaborate more on this? Since nothing to the effect of paying taxes was discussed in any of my letters to you, I am concerned about what you believe I believe. This issue is dear to my heart and I do have a very solid biblical answer about it. I am unaware that anyone has attempted to talk with me on this subject. John __________, in passing, said he would like to get together with me on some matters, however I have been awaiting his renewed interest. Lanny __________ and I had some very good times in the past concerning our need to get involved in our community and work to stop the evil that was ever present, but God apparently did not want us to continue, and as such, we fizzled out. Ed __________ has always been very friendly and I consider him to be a friend as well as the others.

I do seek the truth of the Word and ask you if any of the Deacons and/or yourself are interested in setting aside a time to delve into the answers to questions raised by my letters? I am not at this time interested in the matter of taxes because God has shown me that we can major on minors and not accomplish what matters most. I sent 10 packets out to you and 9 Deacons. Each one was personally address to them and one to you. I left them at the church office and was expecting someone would get in touch with me to seek the truth and correct me if I was wrong, as is suggested in Scripture. I know several Deacons to be men who will face a challenge head on and have the love of God, so was I truly anticipating a response.

The Bible is clear that we are not under the law and our freedom comes from the work of the cross, however it also tells me that God has given me the earnest down payment of the Spirit to indwell within me and teach me truth. The double witness of this truth is found in the Word of God, and is clear about many areas of concern. How we are to live and conduct ourselves, as well as we are to stand against evil, is very clearly spelled out. We, when exposed to a lie must call it what it is, or we become--as in the eyes of God and even as the statutory legal system states--a party to the action of a wrong. I am sure that most of the Deacons are willing to seek the truth to know that they are acting in the correct manner. When we stand before God, I do not find anywhere in Scripture that He will say "I understand you did not know the truth so I will excuse you." I am sure that you do not support that idea.

The issues I raised in my decision to have my name and the names of my family removed from the rolls of your church were: 1. The created can not be greater than the creator. As such, who is the creator of the 501©3 church? 2. We are not to be surety for the debt of another, and we are not to be in debt to the un-godly. Please see my letters. I stated that no vote can correct a matter that is clearly spelled out in the Scriptures. God calls that "rebellion." I do find that I have the responsibility to stand against this incorrect teaching, and I have done so.

You stated in your letter that "all families need the protective umbrella of membership in a New Testament Church." I find this very interesting since I have given you much information about the church and its definition. If you read the packet I sent you, you will discover that the 501©3 "church" is not the "Church" described in the New Testament. AQs I explained to you before, the New Testament Church is a living body of believers. I am, and those in my family have made the same profession. We do fellowship with other believers, and as such, are in the family. However, the 501©3 church is a dead thing, (see my notes), and as such, is not the same as the church of the New Testament. This study has been confirmed by more than I wish to attempt to name, and it is now clear that a great deception has taken over the true "Church" that may be stealing much of the power the "Church" has at its disposal. Please do not mix these two separate entities up. One is alive in Christ Jesus, and one is dead in trespass and sin. One will be raised in glory, and one will burn as wood, hay, and stubble. In discussion about Romans 13:1-7. Are you saying that NO MATTER WHAT, we are to obey government? Are you ready to put Joseph Stalin's name in the place of government? How about any other wicked man or men that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people? If that is true, are we being "rebellious" when we go against Saddam Hussein, who by this interpretation is:

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:3-4

If the above is true, when are you and the Deacons sending a letter to President Clinton telling him that he is doing evil in resisting the lawful authority of a sovereign government? And when will you and the Deacons be sending a letter of condemnation to Sam Friend and all those who are sneaking Bibles and other illegal contraband into countries where the lawful government has forbid it? Or should we re-submit ourselves under England? I am sure you will not support that severe of an interpretation, and neither do I. I would be willing to study this out to find an answer that fits with correct Bible understanding. I am willing to follow whatever the Bible truly teaches.

I must insist that the names of me and my family be removed from the membership role, as we must seek to follow the examples set down in The Word. I am not interested in becoming a legalist, and do not believe that attempting to follow Bible mandates is doing that at all. I have basically found fellowship at your corporate association good. I hope this will not harm our fellowship in the future with you or those who are members.

I am very interested in your ideas about the subjects previously mentioned; however you will never begin to understand what I believe, without a study of the issues with me. Since you are very busy I am sure you will find it a challenge, but you or a Deacon(s) might benefit from study in these matters.

As an end to this letter, I am setting before all who have an ear to hear, a challenge to seek God in these matters, and fear not. For our God is The Maker and Creator of all things. We need not act like that great bird that fearing it cannot fly hides its head in the sand, for we have been given wings of eagles and with the power of the Holy Spirit of God can rise to any challenge. We have been given a great inheritance and am suggesting right now that we have failed to take it, just as the children of Israel filed to claim it and wandered in the wilderness for an additional 38 years. God called them a "rebellious" people.

I choose to take that which He has given me. I choose to enter the promise of His Son. As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord. Join me.

Your Brother in Christ, Steven Milton

On this Eleventh day of February in the year of the Lord Jesus Nineteen hundred and ninety eight, I declare this to be true before Almighty God. Amen, Amen.

Steven Milton's comments on third letter

By this time, I am becoming a lot more bold and my letter has increased in size. As I study new material, I desire to incorporate more material. I even end with double Amen's, showing a finality or double witness to what has been said. I have, by this time, begun to feel the Spirit of God moving in me. I am excited, and realize that God is using me to warn those who will hear, as well as create a finality for those who will not. I am convinced that He is in control. I am the Clay, and like it. Thank you Lord for your hands that mold me. I became personally aware that God had desired me to "step out in faith." I could not see what was going to happen. He then blessed me as I went on. He never forced me to do anything, but He directed me, and my faith grew.

The conversions above are part of a continuing process. Two additional lengthy letters by Steven Milton have been sent to the church. For those who are interested in these letters and further responses from 'the church,' you can contact Steven Milton by writing to:

Inheritance Ministries
6830 NE Bothell Way, suite 307
Bothell, Washington [98011]

Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom

(continued from Issue the Twenty-seventh)

Presented by John Joseph

Washington Gladden, born in 1836, one of the editors of the Independent from 1871 to 1875, did his great pastoral work with the First Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio, but a greater work still as a leader in the new movement for the socialization of religion. Theological thought was not his primary interest, but his liberal tendencies coupled with his devotion to social enterprises as not merely humanitarian but as an essential function of religion did much to win followers of the new views.

Phillips Brooks, born in 1835, was rector of Trinity Church, Boston, from 1869 until he became bishop of Massachusetts in 1891, less than two years before his death. He was a broad churchman whose influence in liberalizing religious thought grew not out of the fact that he accepted new ideas as evolution and Biblical criticism, as he probably did, or that he preached or expounded them, as he certainly did not, but out of the fact that he refused to allow himself to be gravely concerned about them. His unbounded capacity for maintaining Christian fellowship with men whose opinions were other than his own was an immense contribution toward the creation of an atmosphere in which religious thought could be really free. Besides that, he advanced the prestige of religion by the fact that he was loved as perhaps as no other American preacher has been loved by people in his own church, in other churches, and in no church.

George A. Gordon was installed as minister of the old South Church (Congregational) in Boston in 1884. The Christian Union called it at the time "a significant installation," but no one could know then how significant it was to be. "He is neither old school nor new school, Calvinist nor Arminian, Bushnellite or Parkite. He is equally ready to realize the possibility of verbal inspiration in one passage and to reject it in another; equally ready to admit the possibility of redemption after death and to refuse to assert it dogmatically." If this suggests that he was willing to teach that the earth is round or flat, as the trustees prefer, the impression is erroneous. He was a cautious liberal, but his influence was constantly on the side of more liberal positions than those of the majority.

Joseph Cook of Boston, was a mighty champion but it was sometimes hard to tell which side he was the champion of. Drawing immense audiences to his Monday lectures, which taxed the seating capacity of the largest hall in Boston, he first defended the old tenets by new methods; then, freed from the restraining influence of his old teacher, Professor Park, he moved forward so far that, while defending the Pentateuch against advanced German criticism, "he really goes farther in his abandonment of its Mosaic authorship than Professor Robertson Smith has done and farther than a careful literary criticism requires" (Christian Union February 1, 1883). Again swinging into reverse, he attacked the proposed new Congregational creed and "constituted himself the champion of reactionism in theology." But whichever side of any question he was on, Joseph Cook was never any thing less than oracular, and no one who knew Boston in the 'eighties can imagine a history of American Christianity which did not give him at least a page. Viewed in the perspective of the present, it seems that a short paragraph will do.

One of the results of the growth of more liberal theological ideas within the orthodox churches was a number of heresy trials. Nearly all of these were within the Presbyterian Church. The Congregationalists and Episcopalians developed a considerable degree of theological tolerance, the Methodists were more interested in administrative efficiency than in doctrinal uniformity, the Lutherans were practically unanimous in maintaining their old theology unmodified, the Baptists and Disciples had no ecclesiastical courts for dealing with heresy, and so threshed out the cases of their heretics in their religious papers without decisive results. Two cases of not much more than local importance occurred among the Presbyterians in 1883. Rev. W. W. McLane of Steubenville, Ohio, was put out of his pulpit by the presbytery for writing a book on The Cross in Light of Today, in which he maintained a theory other than that of the substitutionary atonement. Rev. J. W. White, of the presbytery of Huntington, Pennsylvania, was suspended from the ministry for lax views on the physical resurrection and on the atonement and in particular for saying that when Christ died "he was not smitten with the divine wrath, but filled with all the fullness of divine love." But the heresy cases which attained national publicity were those of Doctor Swing and Professors Briggs, H. P. Smith, A. C. McGiffert, Borden P. Bowne, and Hinckley G. Mitchell.

David Swing was minister of the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Chicago. Francis L. Patton, later president of Princeton and always a pillar of orthodoxy, instigated the charge of a general departure from the Calvinistic system; more specifically, the teaching of salvation by works, a "modal Trinity," denial of plenary inspiration, and a leaning toward Unitarianism. Swing was acquitted by his presbytery but, to save his church from embarrassment and secure his own greater freedom, he resigned his pulpit before the appeal of his accusers to the synod was brought to trial. He founded the independent Central Church, housed first in McVicker's Theatre, then in Central Music Hall which was built for the purpose. The new church took on many social activities--charities, classes and industrial schools--and became an "institutional" church. Doctor Swing was a great soul but no theologian.

Charles A. Briggs was a professor in Union Theological Seminary. He had been under suspicion for a long time because of his advocacy of the higher criticism and his publications in this field. But the New York presbytery refused to bring him to trial until compelled to do so by the General Assembly. The trial was held in November, 1892, chiefly on the charge of denying the inerrancy of the Bible, even in the original document. The presbytery acquitted him, but on appeal to the Assembly he was convicted and suspended from the ministry "until he could give satisfactory evidence of repentance." He did not repent but joined the Episcopal church and kept his professorship at Union.

Professor Henry Preserved Smith of Lane Theological Seminary in Cincinnati was also found guilty of denying the inerrancy of the lost original manuscripts of the Scriptures and the sentence was confirmed by the synod and, in 1893, by the General Assembly.

The case of Dr. A. C. McGiffert, a professor in, and later president of, Union Theological Seminary, was recurrent from 1898 to 1900. It never came to a formal trial and the proceedings of the Assembly which called his views in question were confined to condemning some of his opinions, re-affirming the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and referring the matter to the New York presbytery. The defendant relieved the church of its embarrassment by withdrawing from its ministry.

The only heresy cases of importance outside of the Presbyterian Church were those of Professors Borden P. Bowne and Hinckley G. Mitchell, Methodists, of Boston University. These came to a head somewhat later, in 1904 and 1905, but the issues were those of the period under consideration. The explosion against Professor Bowne hung fire until the time had passed when it could do him any harm. As a matter of fact, it did a great deal of good. He was a philosopher and theologian supremely concerned to make a reasonable and persuasive statement of the personality of God against whatever mechanistic and pantheistic theories of the universe there might be, and to exalt the worth and freedom of human personality against all mechanistic interpretations of human nature. While he was neither a scientist nor a Semitic scholar, he believed in the principles of evolution and of Biblical criticism. Most of all, he believed in freedom of thought and of scholarship, and was sure that neither the discovery of the late date or composite authorship of any book in the Bible, nor doubt as to the historicity of any or all of the miracles, nor the denial of any particular theory of the atonement, touched the central matters of Christianity. (I speak feelingly of him as a defender of the faith, for his writings were, more than those of any other, an aid to my own faith in the days of my youthful quests and questionings.) Bowne first drew the fire of the conservatives by his spirited defense of his colleague, Professor H. G. Mitchell, who, after teaching without molestation for nearly fifteen years the modern views of the Old Testament which he had learned in Germany, was attacked as a heretic in 1895, again in 1900, and was finally removed in 1905. The trial of Professor Bowne before a "select number" of the New York East Conference resulted in his acquittal by unanimous vote. More than that, it served to clear the air and to make the Methodist Church reasonably safe for scholarship--after Mitchell had been flung to the lions. Some of the staunchest of the moderate conservatives, including most of the real leaders in that church, were on Bowne's side. Dr. J. M. Buckley, the leading Methodist editor and any thing but a radical, was attorney for his defense. But the sacrifice of Mitchell by the bishops the next year made Bowne a sharp critic of the ecclesiastical machinery of his church, and especially of the power of its bishops, for the rest of his life. (See F. J. McConnell: Borden P. Bowne, and H. G. Mitchell: For the Benefit of My Creditors.)

Dr. Daniel Dorchester, himself reasonably conservative, summed the matter up in 1887 by saying: "There is a growing disbelief in the supernatural, and a revolutionary spirit has entered every department of thought and action. Yet-- Divested of the husk of scholasticism and delivered from the spirit of dogmatism, the spirituality of the American churches is many fold greater than one hundred years ago.'" Garrison, The March of Faith (1933), pp. 83-99.

The King's Men

now on Truth Radio four days a month

At 11:05 a.m. PST on Tuesday and Wednesday of every second and fourth week of each month, The Truth Radio Network features live-on-the-air interviews of The King's Men on it's show 'Free Indeed,' hosted by Nicklas Arthur. TRN may be picked up on Satellite C Band GE-1, Transponder 7, Audio 7.58.

Note from 'Free Indeed' host Nicklas Arthur:

The following conclusion came to me after interviewing John Quade on 'Free Indeed.':

Statism is Idolatry

Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego were thrown into the fire because they would not bow to an Idol (a fictious entity). Everyone else who bowed did so under threat and duress of being thrown into that same fire. The children of Israel constantly fell into idol worship--the contemporary Christian might wonder how they could have been so stupid as to bow to ficticious entities made of wood, stone or metal! Peter and the other Apostles were thrown into prison for preaching in Jesus' name; they did not ask the authorities what they were 'legally' permitted to say--rather, Peter proclaimed, "We must Obey God rather than men." Likewise the early Church suffered great persecution because they would simply not bow to the lordship of Caesar.

John Bunyun wrote The Pilgims Progress from prison because he would not take a license from government to preach that which he was commanded by the authority of God. To the contemporary church these are just fanciful stories for the amusement of children; in practice they mean nothing! The modern American Christian thinks nothing of identifying himself with the 'Caesar State' by claiming to be a resident of a fictional 'STATE OF...' or the 'U.S.' Resident defined in law means "thing identified." To be a thing identified (resident) of a fictitious entity or world principality (STATE OF...) is to be in the world and of it.

To bring a congregation (called a church) under the authority of a fictitious world principality can by no means be a determination of separation, but in reality this marriage begets the illegitimate creation of a new fictitious entity, a STATE CORPORATION. The Prophet of old proclaimed, "My people are destoyed for lack of knowledge," but there will be no excuse for willful ignorance. Is it time to "come out of her my people," or do they mock the Word of God, turning it to mere cliche, by spouting an obvious lie, "we are in the world but not of it"?

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Redemption

In New Testament Greek, apolutrosis (ap-ol-oo'-tro-sis);

(the act) ransom in full, i.e. (figuratively) riddance, or (specially) Christian salvation: deliverance, redemption.

"Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverence of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt." Zondervan's Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Do Not Deceive Children

A mother was once trying to persuade her little son to take some medicine. The medicine was very unpalatable, and she, to induce him to take it, declared that it did not taste bad. He did not believe her. He knew by sad experience, that her word was not to be trusted. A gentleman and friend who was present, took the spoon and said: "James, this is medicine, and it tastes very badly. I should not like to take it, but I would if necessary. Do you have courage enough to swallow something which does not taste good?"

"Yes," said James, looking a little less sulky, "but this is very bad indeed."

"I know it," said the gentleman. "I presume you never tasted anything much worse." The gentleman then tasted of the medicine himself, and said, it is really very unpleasant. "But now let us see if you have not resolution enough to take it, bad as it is."

The boy hesitatingly took the spoon.

"It is, really, rather bad," said the gentlemen, "but the best way is to summon all your resolution and down with it at once, like a man."

James made, in reality, a great effort for a child, and swallowed the dose. And whom will this child most respect, his deceitful mother, or the honest dealing stranger? And whom will he hereafter most readily believe? It ought, however, to be remarked, that had the child been properly governed, he should at once, and without a murmur, have taken what his mother presented. It is certainly, however, a supposable case, that the child might, after all the arguments, refuse to do his duty. What course would then be pursued? Resort to compulsion, but never to deceit. We cannot deceive our children, without seriously injuring them and destroying our own influence. Frank and open dealing is the only safe policy in family government, as well as on the wider theatre of life. The underhand acts and cunning manoeuvres of the intrigue, are sure in the end to promote his own overthrow. Be sincere and honest, and you are safe. The only sure way of securing beneficial results is by virtuous and honorable means.

Bits and Pieces

compiled by Randy Lee

The 13th Amendment Ruse

Another myth of the Patriot movement is the so-called 'Missing 13th Amendment." Because this amendment forbade 'titles of nobility,' the 'conspiracy theory' behind it stems from the idea that it had to be 'hidden by the lawyers,' and removed from The Constitution, otherwise lawyers wouldn't be allowed in The United States.

This idea, like so many other misconceptions propagated by these 'guru's for hire,' is founded on absolutely false notions.

The false notion is that 'Esq.' or 'esquire,' which lawyers use after their name, is a 'title of nobility.'

A 'knight' is at the bottom of the totem pole in the line of 'titles of nobility.' The word 'esquire' means 'shield-bearer' in the Latin. An esquire was one who attended a knight & carried the knight's shield. In short, an esquire was the knight's 'boy.'

I have but one thing to say to these propagators of myths and Babylonian confusion -- close, but no cigar.

The 3 Points of State Religion

1. The first duty of every State officer is to protect The State, not the people.

2. Other States are temporary enemies; their own people are the permanent enemy.

3. The purpose of taxation is:

a. Confiscation, and control.
b. Redistribution of wealth, and control.
c. Support of Civil Affairs, and control.

A Recent Fax

"This is a test of the emergency fax operating system. This is only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would have been instructed to load up your fax machine with a new roll of paper to accept a 2,312 page essay on the conspiratorial ties between Monica Luwinsky, Hillary Clinton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Mary Todd Lincoln, Bella Abzug, Ayn Rand, Shirley MacLaine, and countless others. This is some of the best drivel ever from the presses of The New Nation Printing Co., the same folks who brought you "Lincoln's Five Card Stud, One Card Short, 1861-1865."

Lawyers... and other reptiles

Iniquitous Maximus:

"It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again, and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions..." --Jonathan Swift

---------------

Trouble, Trouble, Trouble...

"The trouble with law is lawyers." Clarence Darrow

---------------

Question:

How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer:

How many can you afford?

---------------

The Warmth of Lawyers...

Undistinguished and often shabby in appearance, Ulysses S. Grant did not impress strangers by his looks.

He once entered an inn on a stormy winter night. A number of lawyers, in town for a court session, were clustered around the fire. One looked up as Grant appeared and said, "Here's a stranger, gentlemen, and by the looks of him he's traveled through hell itself to get here."

"That's right," said Grant cheerfully.

"And how did you find things to be down there?"

"Just like here," replied Grant, "lawyers all closest to the fire."

Judicial District

A 'Judicial District' is another one of those man-made fictions designed to obtain jurisdiction where it would not otherwise exist.

One of the 'Patriot blue widget myths' that has done more harm to the unsuspecting and unlearned is the ubiquitous address addition of 'Judicial District.' Typically it would be in the following form:

John Smith
20th Judicial District
666 E. Commerce Circle
Humanville, California
[Zip exempt, TDC]

The premise of using the 'Judicial District' designation is that it puts you into a pre-Civil War/ non-14th Amendment jurisdiction that the current government can't reach. What those who buy into this myth don't know is that a Judicial District, whether pre-Civil War or otherwise, has always been a commercial venue which carries with it the rules and regulations of the commercial government that is in power at the time. On top of that, they are receiving the government benefit of free mail delivery on a 'postal route,' which is also a commercial venue.

Within a 'Judicial District,' you are a 'resident,' thereby leaving 'the country,' and joining 'The State.' It is a foreign venue to the Good and Lawful Christian, who should be 'calling for their First-Class Matter in general delivery' (and always did before Lincoln's War).

Issue the Twenty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part One...

The Modern Gospel versions, Part Three...

The U. S. Constitution--America's Covenantal Apostacy...

Fictions of law, conclusion...

Etymologicum Anglicanum ...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Almighty God vs. the mighty god

Part One

by John Joseph

In this corner, weighing in at a little under three pounds is the Holy Scripture, with references, and containing the words of Christ in red, commonly called God's Word; and in this corner, weighing in at a little over six hundred three score and six tons is the United States Codes, State codes, rules, regulations, bulletins, and registers. This fight is a long fight and there is no set limit on the number of rounds. It is a real knock down, drag 'em out fight, with plenty of bloodshed, intrigue, deceit, double-dealing, exploitation, high finance, corruption, and dialog that will just have you in vinculis. I could not leave out the humor, even though the situation is not humorous. To many people this is just like Monday night football, and they will wait and see what happens to you; or they are sitting on the fence and need a little nudge to fall one way or the other; or they are engaged in a fight already and need to see some light at the end of the tunnel. This is why this essay is being written.

In this essay we will explore essentially four separate, but interlocking, areas:

-Two, traditionally vested rights in common;

-Three, God's Law; and

-Four, administrative law.

Some of these are indeed covered in other articles in The News, but we are concerned here with how each is related to the other, and the fight we find our selves in today.

First, let us define a few terms, for this is the main reason We get what We deserve--we do not know the meaning of words when used in a particular venue and jurisdiction. For example, the word "law."

To a Good and Lawful Christian this means the Word of God--"Lex est ab aeterno --The law is from everlasting." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143; and,
"They [the Puritans] acknowledged a Divine Sovereignty. They believed that law, if not particular laws, is eternal; and that the American people of themselves have no authority to create law and justice, but the intelligence and authority to legislate in the light of the [law of nature]--discovered in the divine law, conscience, moral principles, ethical doctrines, and even immemorial customs. These things are the common possession [common wealth] of [Good and Lawful Christian M]en; and all [M]en have held them to be given, or deduced from what was given. This puts the sovereignty ultimately in an authority higher than man and makes man responsible to an authority outside of himself. The old name for this authority was God.
"Law is therefore intimately related to religion; and any attempt to sever the relationship is an attempt to divide Man. But however inseparable the relationship, the two must not be confused. This may be made clear in illustration of the statement that an act may be illegal but not immoral, immoral but not illegal, and both illegal and immoral." Clark, The Soul of the Law (1942), pp. 61-62.

Did you notice that law is intimately connected to religion? Notice also, if you will, that the ultimate Authority of Law is outside of man. This is the Good and Lawful Christian's point of view with respect to law and religion. This has serious political implications both for the Christian and non-Christian alike, because it points to the Liberation of both from the imposition of slavery by 'human beings.'

Now let us look at what "law" is to an administrative official and see if it coincides with the concept of Law of the Christian:

"Law has another meaning, however, to administrative officials who exercise wide undifferentiated powers of rule making, application of rules, and determination of controversies. To them, law is whatever is done officially, and so administrative law is whatever is done by administrative agencies. What they do is law because they do it. Whereas we had understood that officials should act according to law, but might act without law or even against law, and the common law afforded remedies to those aggrieved by official action without or against law, yet today there are many who teach that the administrative official, as one recent writer put it, has the touch of Midas. What he touches becomes law when he touches it.
"Such ideas come to us chiefly from the modern Roman administrative regime of continental Europe. In the polity of the eastern Roman empire which was set forth in the law books of Justinian, the emperor was free from laws and his will had the force of a statute." Roscoe Pound, "Administrative Agencies and the Law," American Affairs Pamphlet, April 1946, p. 5.

Is there something said here that We have missed in the past? Dean Pound is saying here that the administrative official's concept of law is that all law is within himself--he creates law from within himself when he exercises it according to the necessity of the situation. In other words, the law of the administrative official does not exist until he "speaks the word."

Let us now open our eyes to see what the Word of God says to the Christian: "In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1. When God spoke the Word bringing substance in to being, He also spoke the law which governed those things brought into being, else they would probably have not lasted very long. Accordingly then, the administrative official is acting as God does--he creates "substance" in his particular "venue" by speaking a "law" having jurisdiction over that which is created by him, or in his image and likeness, when he speaks his word. Therefore, the following Scripture passage has been literally misapplied and abused by today's modern teaching of it: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25. Are you to render to Caesar the firstfruits of your labors, or just the fiction he has created to glorify himself? Indeed this has some very serious political consequences when we look to the mode of exercising such wide discretionary powers by administrative officials, and differentiate them from "judicial powers":

"Informal discretionary action includes initiating, investigating, prosecuting, negotiating, settling, contracting, dealing, advising, threatening, publicizing, concealing, planning, recommending, and supervising." Davis, Administrative Law and Government (1975), pp. 216.
"One would have thought it perfectly obvious that no one employed in an administrative capacity ought to be entrusted with judicial duties in matters connected with his administrative duties. The respective duties are incompatible. It is too much to expect in such circumstances that he should perform the judicial duties impartially. Even if he acts in good faith, and does his best to come to a right decision, he cannot help bringing what may be called an official or departmental mind, which is a very different thing from a judicial mind, as every body who has any dealings with public officials knows, to bear on the matter he has to decide. More than that, it is his duty, as an official, to obey any instructions [codes] given him by his superiors [the contractors of the debt], and, in the absence of special instructions, to further what he knows to be the policy of his Department [owned by the bondholder or other creditor]. His position makes it inevitable that he should be subject to political influences [of the bondholder or other creditor]." Lord Hewart of Bury, in The New Despotism (1929), p. 46. [Insertions and emphasis added.]

This has the flavor of military structure and "law," and indeed it is very difficult to separate the two "jurisdictions" from each other. Notice what is said in the following quote:

"in addition to these systematized rules there is an enormous mass of individual regulations, knowledge of which is limited to the few persons who have to apply them and to those whom they affect.
"[*205] 'It is difficult to form a true conception of the vastness and importance of all this great body of executive regulation law, controlling, as it does the administration of all the executive departments with its rules of action. And when we consider that these rules of action are in general made, construed and applied by the same authority, thus combining quasi - legislative, quasi-judicial and executive authority, we cannot fail to be impressed with the extent of jurisdiction covered by them.' [G. N. Lieber: Remarks on the Army Regulations, p. 47.]" Fairlee, Administrative Powers of the President (1904), 2 Mich.L.Rev. 190, pp. 204-205.

Are deceit and threats compatible with the character of God? Are these the attributes of our Loving Almighty God? "It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is Thy faithfulness." Lam 3:22-23; and again, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Mal 3:6. We can thus see there is a world of difference between the two.

The administrative official is not a "sojourner" as God is:

"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers [*not of the earth] and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land." Lev. 25:23-24.

He therefore is the "resident," the stranger among Good and Lawful Christians. The administrative official is practicing religion based on his own faulty "infinite wisdom," derived solely from within himself, as though he has the hotline to all the accumulated wisdom of the ages. The question you have to ask your Self is, "How does all accumulated human wisdom from the days of Adam compare with the Wisdom of God?" Not a whit. Notice also the merger of powers--quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and executive authority all residing within one man or "elite" group of men. Does any one, in their right mind fully compos mentis, still think there is not a religious war? By the way, G. N. Lieber is Guido Norman Lieber, who was Judge Advocate General of the Army and the son of Francis Lieber, author of the Lieber Code, a.k.a. "General Orders No. 100," which gave Lincoln the excuses he needed to prosecute a religious war against all Christian states, thereby overturning the Godly Policy found in the Christian traditions, customs and usages in the states. This leaves a big clue in your understanding of the construction of the federal administrative structure--that being that all administrative agencies are under the commander-in-chief. Where does this impact the individual the most? Let's look at the place where this has the greatest effect:

"When we speak of a person having a civil right we must necessarily refer to a civil right as distinguished from the elemental idea of rights absolute. We must have in mind a rights given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law which creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 82 CA 369. [Emphasis added.]

Most people do not realize that "civil rights" are the nexus for virtually all their problems:

" 4. Analysis of a Legal Relation. (1) A legal relation (ante, 2) may be termed a Nexus. The converse fact, i.e., that the State force will not interfere to compel or protect the parties, is a non-Nexus. Theoretically, to define the nexus is to state the law sufficiently; practically, the organs of the law are constantly stating a non-Nexus, i.e., that the State force will not interfere.
"(2) A Nexus has two elements: the Persons, and the Interest. The Persons to a Nexus are two. From the side of the person by whom State force is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Right. From the side of the person against whom it is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Burden, Duty, Obligation, or Liability. The former person is termed Obligee, the latter Obligor." Wigmore, A Summary of the Principles of Torts, (Select Cases on the Law of Torts, vol. II, Appendix A.)

Whence came these "civil rights?"

"The Federal Civil Rights Statutes created rights which may be protected by federal courts in the exercise of their normal equity jurisdiction." Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell (1960), 182 F.Supp. 681, 711. [Emphasis added.]

Any one see any thing here? Notice that these "statutes" created these so-called "civil rights." And although they are called the "civil rights" statutes, they actually are part and parcel of the larger picture called "Reconstruction." Remember, the source of the rights in this case--it says the 1866 Civil Rights Acts, as amended (arbitrary and fickle), created these "rights." For whom? We must go back further in this whole spaghetti mess to find out, because all these individuals collectively were merely carrying out the policy expressed by the infidel and eversor A. Lincoln:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress any such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom." Excerpt from the proclamation of A. Lincoln, given September 22, 1862. [Emphasis added.]

Did you catch all that? Those who had been "liberated" from their private slavery were now under the public slavery of the person occupying the Executive department, "human resources," which are now the "capital" and "stakeholders" as security for the debt taken on by the "United States" Government during the catastrophic event of Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. Now this has nothing to do with race--but has every thing to do with the destruction of valid state laws. Which raises the political question: "Does the federal executive department have the authority to overturn or abate valid state laws concerning subject-matter wholly and solely without the jurisdiction of the federal executive?" The distinctions between the states are found in their adopted Law and legislation. Therefore, to abate valid state laws is to destroy the states themselves--a political question, and consolidates a congealed mass of chaotic political ooze:

"I have always been apprehensive that through the weakness of the human Mind often discovered even in the wisest and best of Men, or the perverseness of the interested, and designing, in as well as out of Government; Misconstructions would be given to the federal constitution, which would disappoint the Views, and expectations of the honest among those who acceded to it, and hazard the Liberty, Independence and Happiness of the People. I was particularly afraid [sic] that unless great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution in the Administration of it would gradually, but swiftly and imperceptably run into a consolidated Government pervading and legislating through all the States, not for federal purposes only as it professes, but in all cases whatsoever: such a Government would soon totally annihilate the Sovereignty of the several States so necessary to the Support of the confederated Commonwealth, and sink both in despotism." Sam Adams, 1789. [Emphasis added.]

Notice the subject-matter and the persons to whom both acts applied are one and the same. The nexus has been established to the Executive department, because the "benefit" of protection or security given by the person in the Executive department is established by the concept of "quasi-contract" and the feudal relation of homage or fealty:

"But to whom may the quasi-contract attach? In order for a quasi-contract to attach, a benefit must be conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant must have displayed an appreciation of the benefit, and accept and retain that benefit so as to make it inequitable for him to retain that benefit without payment for the value of the benefit." Moll v. Wayne County (1952), 332 Mich. 274, 50 N.W.2d 881. [Emphasis added.]
"A person confers a benefit upon another as respects liability in quasi-contracts for restitution if he gives to another possession of or some interest in money, land, chattels, or choses in action; performs services beneficial to or at the request of another; or in any way adds to the other's security or advantage; and he confers a benefit not only where he adds to the property of another but also where he saves the other from expense or loss." Olwell v. Nye & Nissan Co., 173 P.2d 652; Chandler v. Washington Toll Bridge Authority, 137 P.2d 97. [Emphasis added.]

What kind of remedy can one expect in enforcing these rights against the "grantor" or "lord of the manor?" Let us first remember, that these "rights" are all granted to a "persona" which looks to the creator of the right in the relation of homage or fealty; not a Good and Lawful Christian who looks to God, for without them the persona has no existence. The Good and Lawful Christian looks to God's Word for the declaration of his rights vested by Almighty God commencing in Genesis 2:7 and continuing through the Gospel of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ recorded by our Brothers in Christ. And with regard to redressing violations of "civil rights" against the grantor, read and understand the following:

"A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Car on peut bien recovoir loy d'autruy, mais il est impossible par nature de se donner loy. Bodin, Republique, 1, Chap. 8, ed. 1629, p. 132; Sir John Eliot, De Jure Maiestitis, chap. 3. Nemo suo statuto ligatur necessitative. Baldus, De Leg. et Const. Digna Vox, 2 ed. 1496, fol. 51b, ed. 1539." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank (1907), 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S.Ct. 526, 527, 51 L.Ed. 834.

Many of you will scream that government is not sovereign, and you have thousands of court cites that back you up. Great. You miss the fact that this relationship, upon which the civil rights are founded, is created outside of any constitutional limitations. This is easily seen:

"The [Federal] Civil Rights Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. Grace v. Moseley, 112 Ill.App. 100." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, "Civil Rights," p. 500.

This derogation has everything to do with how your character is perceived. Since the Good and Lawful Christian Man is not found in any of the Civil Rights Acts, then his character must be different from those who are found therein. The god of the venue will make the determination, and enforce the appropriate law. This will be taken up again later, when we speak of "novation." Therefore your arguments are frivolous and meritless. How do we know this? Let's look at the opinion of United States Attorney General Henry Stanbery:

"A person charged with crime in any of these military districts has rights to be protected, rights the most sacred and inviolable, and among these is the right of trial by jury, according to the laws of the land. When a citizen is arraigned before a military commission on a criminal charge he is no longer under the protection of the law, nor surrounded with those safeguards which are provided in the Constitution. This act, passed in a time of peace, when all the courts, State and Federal, are in the undisturbed exercise of their jurisdiction, authorizes, at the discretion of a military officer, the seizure, trial, and condemnation of the citizen. The accused may be sentenced to death, and the sentence may be executed without a judge. A sentence which forfeits all the property of the accused requires no approval. If it affects the liberty of the accused, it requires the approval of the commanding general; and if it affects his life, it requires the approval of the general and of the President. Military and executive authority rule throughout in the trial, the sentence, and the execution. No habeas corpus from any State court can be invoked; for this law declares, that "all interference, under color of State authority, with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void."
"I repeat it, that nothing short of an absolute necessity can give any color of authority to a military commander [*200] to call into exercise such a power. It is a power the exercise of which may involve him, and every one concerned, in the greatest responsibilities. The occasion for its exercise should be reported at once to the Executive, for such instructions as may be deemed necessary and proper." 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182, (1867). [Emphasis added.]

Any one want their day in "court" now? In the case of Good and Lawful Christians, this is done through the irreligious practice of "novation":

"NOVATION. The substitution of a new obligation for an old one, which is thereby extinguished.It is a mode of extinguishing one obligation by another--the substitution, not of a new paper or note, but of a new obligation in lieu of an old one--the effect of which is to pay, dissolve, or otherwise discharge it. McDonnell v. Ins. Co. 85 Ala. 401, 5 South. 120.
"In Civil Law. There are three kinds of novation.
"Third, where the debt [of allegiance] remains the same, but a new creditor is substituted for the old. This is also called a delegatio, for the reason adduced above, to wit: that all three parties [Christ, and government as two separate creditors, and Christians as debtors to either one or the other] must assent to the new bargain." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2375. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Notice that "novation" applies to the fleshly character of presumably all, because it is a dogma or doctrine of man, for which Christ displayed the highest contempt, for it is not of Our Father. The fact of the matter which has been overlooked is that Christ never assented to this substitution or novation. Therefore, the obligation is not perfected. Looking, then, to Christ, the Author and Finisher of our Faith, let's see what His Record declares:

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." John 6:39.
"if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh [*not to man's earthly novation], to live after the flesh." Romans 8:10-12. [*Insertion added].

See the Record at 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23; Gal 3:12-13; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 2 Pet 2:1. Is there any assent from Christ? Clearly there is not. Is novation complete? Clearly not, until you answer or move in the fleshly character, demanding "civil rights." It is an "imperfect obligation," which you perfect:

"REI INTERVENTUS. When a party is imperfectly bound in an obligation, he may, in general, annul such imperfect obligation; but when he has permitted the opposite party to act as if his obligation or agreement were complete, such things have intervened as to deprive him of the right to rescind such obligation; these circumstances are the rei interventus; 1 Bell, Com., 5th ed. 328, 329; Burton, Man. 128." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2861.

Now, can you see why you are constantly badgered by Us not to file Title 42 actions? And why you are badgered by the de facto powers? Once you commence the action, you have novated your self and become the bond servant of another god. How does man sue God for a violation of a right originating in God, belonging to God, and is given for use only to those who belong to Him? How do you summon the Sovereign either into his own court, or a court which depends on his grant of existence as well?

(to be continued next month)

The Modern Gospel Versions

Part Three

Written and Compiled by The King's Men

The unique thing about these texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) was, they represented a different manuscript tradition than the Textus Receptus (Received Text). There were, for example, more than 3,000 scribal errors, repeated corrections, mis-spelled words, and simple blunders on every page. But, there were also differences from the KJV that could be critical in some places.

Thus, for example, there is a difference of words in the Greek of John's Gospel, at John 1:18. The KJV reads:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He hath declared Him."

But, the new texts read:

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father. He hath declared Him." From the New American Standard, published by the Holman Foundation, and based upon the Nestle-Aland's version of the texts.

Notice in the KJV the "Son" is changed to "God" in the new texts. This is significant because the new text version is utterly inconsistent with every other similar phrase in Scripture which never cite Christ as the 'begotten God.' A little thought shows that the verse does not even make sense, because this entire section of verses discusses the relationship between the Father and the Son and then suddenly switches to calling the Son - God.

Next, in the new texts, are missing the last 17 verses of Mark. But, here is the strange part.

At the time these texts were written, paper was scarce and expensive. Thus, Scribes used every inch of a sheet for writing, to the extent that where one book of the Bible ends, another begins immediately, with only one line of space in between.

Now, in the new texts, there are two columns of text on each page, but, where the end of Mark comes, there is nearly a full column of blank space on the page. And, if one counts the number of lines and spaces in the open column, one finds out that there is just enough space to insert the missing, last 17 verses of Mark.

What's going on here???

Clearly, there was some doubt in the scribe's mind when he copied this text. He was told to leave the verses out, but just in case some authority told him to put them back in, there was space for them.

Thus, the last 17 verses of Mark had to be in the scribes original copy or he would not have known how much of a column to leave blank!!!

Further, this is not the only place in the text where verses are missing. Again, the verses that tell the story of the woman taken in adultery are missing as well!

Clearly, these differences are important. Read them and compare for yourselves, then think about it.

At any rate, the Count's discoveries launched a search for more manuscripts in the same textual tradition as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and several more turned up, including one version which had an entirely different ending for the Gospel of Mark. The texts were apparently copies created by one school of scribes, and all bore similar errors in the same places, and so on.

But, compared to the thousands of Greek and Hebrew texts that make up the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based, the new texts were a mere drop in the bucket.

To make a long story much shorter, the new texts constitute less than 2% of all Biblical manuscripts discovered in the history of the world.

The real contradiction comes however when we realize that the 1881 revision committee - where it is handy - inserts readings from the KJV, and in many places of their version it is obviously marked in the marginal notes. For example, check the last 17 verses of Mark in a New American Standard, the Revised Version, or any of the other modern texts based on Westcort and Hort, or the Nestle-Aland version and you will see a reference which reads something like: "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 10." See, The New American Standard edition of the Bible, published by Foundation Press Publications, La Habra, California, and The Lockman Foundation.

What these marginal notes in the new versions imply is, the new version is the best--The King James, that contains the verses without comment or note, is not. This is a very subtle sales tool which this author became a victim of, thirty years ago.

Now, back to the 1881 revision. Remember, the translation was to be merely an update of KJV English. Instead, they used the new texts as the basis of an entirely new English translation. The 1881 committee did a bait and switch and the question must be asked as to why? The answer lies in several factors.

First, Westcott and Hort hated the KJV for reasons that have never been fully explained.

Second, neither Westcott or Hort were Christians by their own admission.

Third, the KJV had more Bible study aids than any text. By producing a new translation based on a new text, this meant that, for a time at least, a handful of scholars were the only source for the original languages beneath the RSV.

Fourth, the KJV text was in the public domain. With a new translation and underlying text, a copyright on the Bible could be issued and this, more than any other reason seems the most likely cause to explain the 1881 committee's action. In the end, it came down to money and fame.

Westcott and Hort justified their tactics by asserting that the new texts were better because they came from older and better manuscripts than the KJV. But, as H.R.A. Scrivenor, and Dean John Burgon of Chichester College so brilliantly proved in very detailed studies, the new texts were neither older than the Received Text tradition, nor are they any better because of all the errors and scribal mistakes, and the obvious editing of the texts.

The controversy continues to rage among Biblical scholars over the quality of the RSV texts, versus the Received Text. In part this is because the new texts clearly bear the marks of being tampered with for sectarian purposes, i.e., in order to advance particular types of doctrine.

Unknown to most Christians, twenty-seven fragments from seven books of the New Testament were found in the Dead Sea caves. These fragments usually consist of not more than a few words of any part of the New Testament and there date is about 50 A.D., i.e., about the time of the Jerusalem Conference that Paul speaks of. These fragments have blown a major hole in schools of Biblical criticism that say that the New Testament did not exist until late in the First or early Second Centuries. To date, no one has refuted the identification of these fragments. Sadly, no one has yet seen fit to make a comparison of these fragments with the Received Text version of the New Testament, or with the new textual version mentioned above.

In the last century, we have seen many new translations of the Bible, all purporting to be better than the King James, none of which are, in fact, better, and the King James is still alive and well.

But, this is not the end of the list of reasons why The Kings Men insist on holding to the KJV in all matters of faith and practice.

Which edition of the Bible one uses determines whether or not legal process, or Lawful process if served under Christian Law, makes all the difference in the world as to whether or not the process one serves will stand, especially in the current 'legal' climate.

First, is the question of the Legal Memory of Man at 1189 A.D. Law that predates 1189 A.D. cannot be challenged in any court in England or America. The Received Text and the Vulgate by Jerome, both pre-date the Legal Memory of Man, and are thus determinative on what Law the Scripture proclaims, and since the Received Text is used in England and America, it has been given 'official' sanction by the United States Congress, [Randy, get the cite from John Joseph to insert here as to when Congress bought the KJV) it is the only work which is authoritative in America.

For this reason alone, none of the new translations have the standing of law in today's courts, for they are all based upon translations of the Bible based upon a text that was not 'officially' recognized by any Christian church until the Revision Committee of 1881. In other words, all the modern translations of the Bible based on the new texts came into being after Lincoln's War. The modern texts, as pointed out above, still harken for corrections and additions, back to the Received Text.

Thus, none of the new translations can qualify as a valid legal reference for law under the Ancient Document Rule, and thus, none are admissible as anything more than mere opinion, which can be over-turned with counter-evidence, such as the KJV.

Second, the modern translations have changed key translations of verses in a way that makes them more 'politically correct.'

Compare, for example, the first clause in Romans 13:1.

In the KJV this verse reads:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."

But, the New American Standard (based on the Nestle-Alands text) reads:

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities."

Compare 'soul' and 'person.' Which one would a Good and Lawful Christian want to be? A 'person' is a fiction, but a 'soul' is real and substantive under God.

Then, compare the phrases 'be subject unto' with 'be in subjection to' and 'the higher powers' with 'the governing authorities,' and the political correctness of the New American Standard becomes clear.

Third, while a text without the 'thee' and 'thou' words may be more modern and easier to read, do the modern versions really help our understanding when, after we do a comparison in many places, between the New American Standard and King James, we find that by eliminating the thee's and thou's, one no longer knows whether one is dealing with a singular or plural case!!!

It is clear from the whole warp and woof of Christian history, that each apostasy of the church since the time of Moses has been accompanied with a decline in the quality of Christian thought and when the level of ignorance rises in the church, Paul's warning comes back to haunt us:

"That, we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Ephesians 4:14.

This is seen, with respect to the text of the Scripture, in the fact that, when the Jews returned from captivity in God's Time to Israel, they preferred the Babylonian Talmud, a series of commentaries written in captivity, even though Ezra re-discovered the Law of God in the ruins of Jerusalem.

Again, within one century after Christ, the early Christians began to fall into apostasy and thus became victims of many different translations of the Bible and many new "inspired" writings that we know as the Apocryphal writings.

Further, after the Great Reformation and the advent of the Authorized Version or, King James Version of the Bible, when the Christian church in America began to aposticize after the Colonial and Civil Wars, there came another flood of new versions which continues to this day.

Each of these new versions seeks to exploit the ignorance of Christians by offering a new version that is "easier to read and understand than the King James." Even the New King James version has borrowed a once venerable textual tradition to produce a new version, but it bears no real connection to the original.

All these new versions are, of course, copyrighted for commercial purposes and thus, their prices are higher than a copy of the original King James. This should tell you something of the real motivation of those who publish new versions. In the end, there seems to be a complete lack of concern for the original text and genuine textual scholarship, perhaps because it's not "profitable."

Nothing we can say on the manifold virtues of the Authorized Version will make a dent in this passion for the "new" at the expense of the old, accurate, reliable, and trustworthy text of the Bible. In the lust for the "ease" and "convenience" of the new versions that challenge no one and provide the basis for new interpretations that amount to nothing less than heresy.

The only thing that will check this "rush to easy believism" is the Holy Spirit Himself, who will bring upon the church the rod of correction for its slothfulness:

"Slothfulness casteth into a deep sleep; and an idle soul shall suffer hunger." Proverbs 19:15
"By much slothfulness the building decayeth;" Ecclesiastes 10:18

For the rest of us, we will:

"Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Jeremiah 6:16

The U. S. Constitution-

America's Covenantal Apostasy

by Greg Loren Durand

An Oath is an Act of Worship

Below is the oath of allegiance which every officer of the United States must swear before entering upon their duties and before receiving any salary:

I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) defines "oath" as follows:

"Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully." p. 1071.

The phrase "bound in conscience" is noteworthy here. According to the overall theme of the Bible, a Christian's conscience is to be bound only by the Word of God. "Liberty of conscience" exists only insofar as it is in harmony with God's Law. The great German Reformer Martin Luther understood this principle. When it was demanded of him at the Diet of Worms to recant of his opposition to papal authority, his response was as follows:

"Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments... I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen." quoted by Phillip Sehaff, History of the Christian Church Vol VII, pp. 304-305.

This binding of the conscience was symbolized in the Old Testament in God's instructions to the Israelites to bind His Law on their hands and between their eyes:

Hear, 0 Israel: The LORD your God, the LORD is one! You shall love thee LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you liest down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. (Deuteronomy 6:4-8)

It is interesting to note that the "mark of the Beast" in Revelation 13:16 is said to be on the "right hand" or "forehead" of the enemies of the Lamb of God precisely the same places that God's people were to "bind" His Law. The meaning of Revelation 13:16 is clear: God's enemies have bound their consciences by the ungodly law of the State rather than by His Law and have "kissed" a false god rather than His Son (Psalm 2:12). For this act of rebellion against the prerogative rule of the only true God, eternal damnation is decreed in Revelation 14:9-10:

If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation.

We must not miss the fact that the binding of the conscience to any other law but God's Law is equated in the above passage with false worship, or idolatry; the same sin for which Israel was constantly judged throughout the Old Testament record and for which Jerusalem was eventually destroyed in A.D. 70. The Israelites were God's chosen people; the pagan nations around them had their oaths to their false gods, which God overlooked due to their ignorance (Acts 17:29-30), but the Israelites themselves were to swear their oaths in the Name of the Lord God only (Deuteronomy 6:13-14). However, since the post-resurrection installment of the Lord Jesus Christ as ruler over the nations, God commands "all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained" (Acts 17:30-31). All oaths and pledges of allegiance henceforth must be made explicitly in the Name of Jesus Christ. No longer will God allow the people of the nations to serve any other deity but His Son "whom He has appointed heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2).

The late Reformed theologian of the nineteenth century, A.A. Hodge, wrote:

"A lawful oath consists in calling upon God.... Hence an oath is an act of supreme religious worship, since it recognizes the omnipresence, omniscience, absolute justice and sovereignty of the Person whose august witness is invoked, and whose judgment is appealed to as final.
It hence follows that it is a sin equivalent to that of worshipping a false god as we swear by any other than the only true and living God; and a sin of idolatry if we swear by any thing or place, although it is associated with the true God.... It is evident that none who believe in the true God can, consistently with their integrity, swear by a false god." A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, p. 287.

Christians must not join with the enemies of God in worshipping at the altar of the "unknown god," which was the capstone of the pagan system that so provoked the spirit of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:16). Rather, they must do all in their power to tear down such a monument to religio-political pluralism. There can be no religiously neutral pledges of allegiance; all oaths must be made explicitly in the Name of Jesus Christ or they are acts of idolatrous rebellion against God's Kingdom.

The Christian Charters

of the Early Colonies

There was once a time in American history when the people understood this principle of explicit submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the civil realm. Most of the constitutions of the original thirteen states following the War for Independence required either an explicit oath of faith in Jesus Christ, or at least a public affirmation of the Protestant religion. For example, the Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated the following:

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust shall make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."

Likewise, the Vermont Constitution of 1777 required the following oath:

"I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion."

Because it mentioned only "the christian religion," the oath required by the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was mild in comparison to many of the other states. However, it should be kept in mind that Puritan Massachusetts in the 1600s had been a self-conscious Christocracy whose law code had been taken nearly word-for-word out of the Old Testament case laws. It therefore would have been unlikely that a candidate for office in Massachusetts in the late 1700s would have interpreted 'the christian religion" to mean anything other than the Protestantism of his forefathers when he swore the following:

"I, ______, do declare, that I believe the christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the Constitution as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

Such explicitly Christian oaths were merely the by-product of an earlier public covenant made by the Puritan and Pilgrim settlers of the colonies over a century before. As the colonists sought to establish a true theocracy in the New World according to the principles of Psalm 2, Psalm 72, Psalm 110, and other passages of Scripture which declare the universal reign of Christ over the nations, they made a public covenant with the God of the Bible and with His Son to build their commonwealths upon biblical Law. The original Americans had a single goal in mind, which was expressed in the words of the Mayflower Compact of 1620: "The Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith." Most, if not all, of the original charters and articles for the colonies were very clear in declaring their purpose to advance God's Kingdom by evangelizing the natives and bringing them to a saving faith in the King of kings, and obedience to His Laws. This was a self-conscious attempt to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18. Below are given a few examples which will substantiate this fact:

...[A]ll and every the Subiects of [Charles, King of England]... which shall... inhabite within saide Landes..., shall have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects within any of the Domynions of Vs.... And... its shall and maie be lawfull... from tyme to tyme, to make, ordeine, and establishe all Manner of Wholesome and reasonable Orders, Lawes, Statutes, and Ordinances, Direccons, and Instruccons, not contrarie to the Lawes of this our Realme of England, as well for setling of the Formes and Ceremonies of Government and Magistracy... and for the directing... of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People... may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversaccon, maic wynn and incite the Natives of the Country, to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Sauior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth, which in our Royalle Intencon, and the Adventurers free Profession, is the principall Ende of this Plantacion.... First Charter of the Mass. Bay Colony, 4 March, 1629.

---------------

Whereas our well beloved and right trusty Subject Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland... being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion, and also the Territories of our Empire, hath humbly besought Leave of Us, that he may transport, by his own Industry, and Expense, a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to a certain Region, herein after described, in a Country hitherto uncultivated, in the Parts of America, and partly occupied by Savages, having no Knowledge of the Divine Being, and that all that Region, with some certain Privileges, and Jurisdictions, appertaining unto the wholesome Government, and State of his Colony and Region aforesaid, may by our Royal Highness be given, granted, and confirmed unto him, and his Heirs....
Now, That the aforesaid Region... may be eminently distinguished above all other Regions of that Territory.... Know Ye, that... We do... Erect and Incorporate the same into a Province, and nominate the same Maryland, by which name We will that it shall from henceforth be called. Charter of Maryland, 20 June, 1632.

---------------

Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his divyne disposition of his divyne pruvidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in a uppon the River of Connectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selves to be one Publike State or Commonwealth; and doe, for our selves and our Successors and suchas shall be adioyned to us att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation toga ther, to mayntayne and presearve the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus which we now professe, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised among us. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 14, Jan., 1639.

The U.S. Constitution

is a Rival Covenant

Although it was the stated intent of the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to merely amend the existing Articles of Confederation, under which the Christian states were united following the War for Independence, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States two years later completely altered the very nature of the American civil structure:

"The framers of the Constitution ignored the purposes for which they were delegated; they acted without any authority whatever; and the document, which the warring factions finally evolved from their quarrels and dissensions, was revolutionary....
"Had the idea of a total change [in government] been stated," asserts the trustworthy Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, "probably no state would have appointed members to the Convention.... Probably not one man in ten thousand in the United States... had an idea that the old ship was to be destroyed." Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall, Vol. I, pp.323-325.

The document which was birthed by the Convention was indeed "revolutionary," for it scuttled the "old ship" of a civil covenant with Jesus Christ and replaced it with the "secular republic" dreamt of by the apostate James Madison. (Reference: Robert A. Rutland, article: "James Madison's Dream: A Secular Republic," Free Inquiry, September 1983, pp.8-1l). This paradigm shift away from Christianity is glaringly apparent in Article VI, Clause 3:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

In the historical context of the era, the "religious Test" cannot be understood as referring to anything other than the Christian oaths required by the state constitutions. The framers of the Constitution, most of whom were members of the occult religion of Freemasonry who had, in its Lodges, sworn self-maledictory oaths to overthrow Christianity, were well aware of the implications of their actions. A national emergency was said to have been caused by the weaknesses of the existing system under the Articles, and the exaggerated, if not contrived, crisis culminated in the design of a more "energetic government" behind the closed doors of the Convention-- a government in which explicit allegiance to Jesus Christ was relegated to the garbage heap of past 'intolerance." In one fell swoop, the public covenant which the early Americans had made with the True and Living God was swept away and was replaced by an apostate covenant with the "any god" of "religious neutrality." Such was the dawning of a Novus Ordo Seclorum--a New World Order based upon the sovereignty of man's own reason over the revelation of God in His Word.

This crafty "bait and switch' game did not go entirely unnoticed by some of the more observant patriots of that day. At the North Carolina ratifying convention, Henry Abbot complained:

[I]f there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans [Muslims] might obtain offices among us, and... the Senators and Representatives might all be pagans. Henry Abbot, quoted by Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution Vol. IV, p. 192.

The word "might," which appears twice in Abbot's above warning, should have been replaced by the more definite "shall," for his observation was much more accurate than perhaps he himself realized. All kings and judges of the earth are instructed in Psalm 2 to "serve the LORD with fear" and to "kiss the Son, lest He be angry" (verses 10-11). It was this same Son who said in Matthew 12:30, "He who is not for Me is against Me." Therefore, the elimination of a public oath to uphold the Kingship and Law of Jesus Christ in the civil realm automatically erected an ethical "wall of separation" between the Crown Rights of Christ and the new Federal Government, thereby barring all Christians from ever holding public office from that time forward. The fact that professing, and no doubt many genuine, Christians continued in the new system to hold such offices does not negate this assertion. It only demonstrates the "intellectual schizophrenia" (the term is R.J. Rushdoony's) among Christians that has plagued the Church for the last two thousand years; the white flag of a "political cease-fire with the enemies of God in the civil realm.

Conclusion

In the words of the great Reformer John Calvin:

"[Civil government] is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, [and] to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church....
Its object is not merely... to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed... but it is, that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people... [and] to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy....
[Civil rulers] have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority, and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act.... How will they admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that band which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behooves them to watch with all care, diligence, and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XX:2-6.

Contrary to this historically accepted Reformed teaching that it is the duty of the civil ruler, as "God's minister" (Romans 13:4), to preserve the worship of the true God within his jurisdiction and to defend His Church from harm, the so-called "Founding Fathers" presupposed that the American government may ignore its biblical requirement to covenant and submit itself to the enthroned Son of God and yet still claim "the Blessings of Liberty" which only Christ may grant to a people and their posterity. As time went on, the folly of this presupposition became more and more evident as America matured in its "epistemological self-consciousness" (the term is Dr. Gary North's) as an inherently Christ-rejecting nation. One is reminded of Christ's words to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:6 by the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration, "The [religious] test oath is abhorrent to our tradition." (Girourd v. U.S. (1946), 328 U.S. 61, 69). Even more recently, the following decision was handed down which solidified this rejection of Christianity by the Federal Government:

The history of this Nation, it is perhaps sad to say, contains numerous examples of official acts that endorsed Christianity specifically.... This Court, however, squarely has rejected... any favoritism for Christianity that may have existed among the [Puritan] Founders of the Republic. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), 492 U.S. 573, 604, 501-502, 109 S.Ct. 3086).

The United States' insistence that its citizens render "unqualified allegiance to the nation and obedience to the laws of the land...." (U.S. V. Macintosh (1931), 283 U.S. 605, 625), even when it explicitly refuses to "kiss the Son," creates a dilemma for American Christians, who must understand that "unqualified allegiance' belongs only to the King of kings. It is not the purpose of this article to solve this problem in the minds of the readers or to even offer counsel in this regard, but to merely raise the question that should have been raised by the American churches in the late eighteenth century: Can a nation which turns from God and His Law demand "unqualified allegiance' from its citizens without usurping His throne and inciting His wrath and judgment? Let us conclude with the following warning from the pages of Scripture:

[T]hey have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they went and served other gods and worshipped them, gods that they did not know and that He had not given to them. Then the anger of the LORD was aroused against this land, to bring on it every curse that is written in this book. And the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger, in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day."Deuteronomy 29;25-29

For a complete listing of books written by Greg Loren Durand, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

Fictions of law-

Conclusion

by Randy Lee

This final article on 'Fictions of law,' here presented, is not to be construed to be a dead issue for us. We will, solely by the Grace of God, continue to attempt to fill the unseen vacuum 'created' by those 'wasters' who have taken it upon themselves to subvert the Law through deception, misappropriation and avarice.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

Over the past five or six months, we have partially examined the foundation upon which the natural man's law is built; a foundation of fiction, likened to a house built of straw upon the sand. As Law Professor L. L. Fuller in 1930 so bluntly put it:

"The influence of the fiction extends to every department of the jurist's activity. Yet it cannot be said that this circumstance has ever caused the legal profession much embarrassment. Laymen frequently complain of the law; they very seldom complain that it is founded upon fictions." 25 Illinois Law Review, Dec. 1930 'Legal Fictions' by Univ. of Ill. Law Professor L. L. Fuller.

Fictions of law are the 'natural necessity' resulting from a humanist society of 'lawgivers' attempting, in an inverted way, to mimic Almighty God--the Only True Lawgiver. Their man-created fictions are a manifestation of humanism's explicit or implicit denial of Him. It is the direct application of this depravity which has resulted in the system of 'law' and 'philosophy' that now claims to 'rule the world.'

But, things are not always what they appear to be!! In Truth, these systems do not rule the world, for The Word and The Truth has already spoken of these things:

"And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell:" Matthew 7:26-27

How does a system founded on fiction continue to stand?

The straw man's straw house--that which has been manifested as illusion of law--has in the past decade claimed more victims than Europe's Black Plague. It is a straw house built upon the sand, propped up and strengthened by the victims themselves.

The natural man's straw house is strengthened by those partaking of his natural trinity: 'recognition,' 'joinder,' and 'prosecution.' These are the props which strengthen it and save it from destruction.

A typical example of the straw man's house is the following:

"Despite repeated statements to the contrary, it is the source of the right sued upon, and not the ground upon which federal jurisdiction is founded, which determines the governing law." Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts.

In short, "the source of the right determines the governing law."

For example, when you claim to have a 'civil right' to do some thing, the federal law merchant becomes the governing law of that thing, because The Civil Rights Acts were 'created' under that law.

Another example would be in the case of 'persons.' Persons are a fictional 'creation' of the 'Roman civil law.' Therefore, when you claim the rights of a 'person,' the governing law becomes the Roman civil law of today's commercial world, to wit:

"person. An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings... 1. A human being. This person is the central figure in law....with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person... Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479, by David Mellinkoff (Professor of Law Emeritus, U. C. L. A.).

But when living in Truth, we see a completely different picture. A true picture devoid of illusion and grounded in Truth:

"We avoid the use of the Latin word 'Person,' because it is not Biblical, and is calculated to introduce ideas into Scripture, and thus hinder us in drawing our knowledge out of Scripture." 'The Knowledge of God' (1920), by E. W. Bullinger. page 6,

It becomes clear that 'blind ignorance' is the hinderer of that knowledge, hindering also our avoidance of the evil of 'this world' that continually seeks a host.

We are all sufferers of this malaise, at one time or another. The discomfort caused by this condition can become very painful. When the pain level from it continues to rise, we must remember:

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me." Psalm 23:4

'The commercial world,' along with all of its 'glory,' is, and always has been, the ladder leading to 'the kingdoms of the world.' These kingdoms, which are the idols of fiction producing fallen minds, were offered by Satan to Our Master, and rejected by Him as an example for us:

"Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Matt 4:8-10

The 'commercial world' of fictions is the same 'world' that all Christians are mandated not to partake of. It is that 'world' that We are mandated to exercise 'due diligence' upon, and expose for all to see, for it is not of Our Father:

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." II Jn 1:7-11

Due diligence!! "Who sent you here?" "Who is the Governor of your Law?" "From Whom does the Law you follow, originate?" "In Who's Name do you come?" These are the questions all Christians must ask before giving recognition to, or joining with, anyone or anything.

Without these questions, you receive without knowing. "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse," not only in the eyes of man, but most importantly, in eyes of God. Ignorance of the Law is slothfulness when one fails to exercise due diligence.

"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute." Proverbs 12:24

We are to follow the lighted path of The Way, The Truth and The Life--and to avoid like the plague the false ways of 'the fictionmakers,' at all times:

"How sweet are Thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through Thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Ps 119:103-105

The winding road of commerce and its fictions is a long and dangerous path to follow in a crooked world. The straight road of The Truth is an easy path to follow when taking on His full yoke. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus":

"I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." John 17:14-17

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:18-19

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

"OPINION. 1a. A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter or particular matters. 1b. Favorable impression or estimation (as of a person): APPROVAL, ESTEEM--usually used negatively or with adjectives of degree. 2a. Belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge: settled judgment in regard to any point: a notion or conviction founded on probable evidence: a belief or view based on interpretation of observed facts and experience [*naturalism]. 2b. Something that is generally or widely accepted as factual: a generally held or popular view. 3a. A formal expression by an expert (as a professional authority) for of his though upon or judgment or advice concerning a matter (decided to obtain a medical opinion of the case). 3b. The formal expression (as by a judge, court, referee) of a legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based; also, the judgment or decision so based. 4. Obs.: estimation in which one is held by others; esp.: favorable reputation. 5. Obs.: EXPECTATION, ANTICIPATION. 6. Platonism: conjecture or belief based on experience and perception." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), vol. II, p. 1582. [Emphasis and *insertions added. Note the lack of Truth and substance--belief, conjecture, feelings experienced--all human.]

"OPINION. 1. What one opines; judgment resting on grounds insufficient for complete demonstration; belief or something as probable or as seeming to one's own mind to be true [*perception of truth, not the truth itself]. (Distinguished from knowledge, conviction, or certainty; occas.= belief.) b. What is generally thought about something. Often qualified by common, general, public, or vulgar, late M.E. 2. (With an and pl.) What one thinks about a particular thing,subject, or point; a judgment formed; a belief, view, notion. (Sometimes denoting a systematic belief, and then = conviction.) 3.The formal statement by an expert or professional man of what he thinks, judges, or advises upon a matter submitted to him; considered advice 1470. 4. Estimation, or an estimate of a person or thing, late M.E. b. spec. Favourable estimate, esteem. (Now only with neg., or such adjs. as great.) 1597. c. Self-conceit, arrogance, dogmatism; or, in good sense, self-confidence. SHAKS. 5. What is thought of one by others; standing; reputation, repute,character, credit (of being so and so, or of possessing some quality) -1705. 6. Expectation; apprehension." Oxford's Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 1376.

"OPINION. In Latin opinio, to think or judge, is the work of the head. SENTIMENT, from sentio, to feel, is the work of the heart. NOTION, in Latin notio, from nosco, to know, is a simple operation of the thinking faculty.

"We form opinions, we have sentiments: we get notions. Opinions are formed on speculative matters; they are the result of reading, experience, and reflection: sentiments are entertained on matters of practice; they are the consequence of habits and circumstances; notions are gathered upon sensible objects, and arise out of the casualties of hearing and seeing. One forms opinions on religion, as respects its doctrines; one has sentiments on religion as respects its practice and its precepts. The heathens formed opinions respecting the immortality of the soul, but they amounted to nothing more than opinions. Christians entertain sentiments of reverence toward God as their creator, and of dependence upon Him as their preserver.

From Crabbe's English Synonymes (1904), p. 644:

"Opinions are more liable to error than sentiments. The opinion springs from the imagination, and in all cases is but an inference or deduction which falls short of certain knowledge: opinions, therefore, as individual opinions, are mostly false; sentiments, on the other hand, depend upon the moral constitution or habits; they may, therefore, be good or bad according to the character or temper of the person. Notions are still more liable to error than either; they are the immatured decisions of the uninformed mind on the appearances of things. The difference of opinion among men, on the most important questions of human life, is a sufficient evidence that the mind of man is very easily led astray in matters of opinion: whatever difference of opinion there may be among Christians, there is but one sentiment of love and good will among those who follow the example of Christ, rather than their own passions: the notions of a Deity are so imperfect among savages in general, that they seem to amount to little more than an indistinct idea of some superior agent [*the Masonic idea of the Architect of the Universe--a heathen concept].

"Time wears out the fictions of opinion, and doth by degrees discover and unmask that fallacy of ungrounded persuasions, but confirms the dictates and sentiments of nature. Wilkins.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

The Way to Settle Difficulties

Two neighbors (who were brothers by marriage), had a difficulty respecting their partition fence. Although they had mutually erected a substantial fence four and one-half feet in height on the line separating the sheep pasture of one, from the grain field of the other, yet the lambs would creep through the crevices and destroy the grain.

Each asserted it to be the duty of the other to chink the fence; after the preliminaries of demands, refusals, threats, challenges, and mutual recriminations, they resolved to try the glorious uncertainty of the law. They were, however, persuaded by their friends to the more amicable mode of submitting the defence to the final determination of a very worthy and intelligent neighbor, who was forthwith conducted to the scene of the trouble, and in full view of the premises; each party in turn, in a speech of some length, asserted his rights, and set forth the law and the facts; at the conclusion of which the arbitrator very gravely remarked-- "Gentlemen, the case involves questions of great nicety and importance, not only to the parties in interest, but to the community at large, and it is my desire to take suitable time for deliberation, and, also, for advisement with those who are learned in the law, and most expert in the customs of neighbors; in the mean time, however I will just clap a billet or two of wood into the sheep holes;" --and in ten minutes time, with his hands, he effectually closed every gap.

The parties silently retired, each evidently heartily ashamed of his own folly and obstinacy. The umpire has never been called upon to pronounce final judgment in the case--so the law remains unsettled to this day.

Bits and Pieces

Written and compiled by Randy Lee

The Christian state

"a state does not become Christian when it incorporates the name of Christ in its constitution or opens the sessions of Congress with prayer; neither is a state Christian when certain theological ideas are embodied in its legislation and certain ecclesiastical functionaries dictate the policy of cabinets. In any real sense a state is Christian when it possesses the Spirit of Christ and seeks certain great Christian ends in and through its life and service." S. Z. Batten, The Christian State (Philadelphia: Griffith and Rowland, 1909), p. 408.

The Kind We Don't Want

"When a minister is in search of popularity and a big salary, I don't blame him for leaving the Christian Church and going to some other denomination. He can't be a success in the Christian Church, and is not needed among us. We want ministers whose chief aim is to save souls--ministers who are willing to preach the Gospel to the poor, even for a small salary. Men who after large salaries may get their reward. I honor the minister who labors to save souls, and will not leave a field of usefulness for 'filthy lucre's sake.'"--Rev. H. M. Eaton, Herald of Gospel Liberty (1908), p. 209.

The Christian Name

"How pleasant is the name Christian! It is expressive of much which is of interest to us. It is worn out of respect to the great Redeemer--Christ, the Anointed--anointed to be a Prince and a Saviour. The name is adopted as expressive of peculiar attachment to Christ, and of humble dependence upon Him for salvation. No other Name can be equally expressive of the same idea.

"Friend is a name which may express friendship with Christ and man. Disciple may intimate that one follows, learns of, and loves Christ. But Christian comprehends every idea embraced in the others, and also has this advantage--under no circumstances can its import be mistaken. The Christian, like the Lord, is anointed from above. The spirit and power of the Highest is given him, by measure, from above. He is anointed for the especial work of saving the lost world, and bringing it back to God. He is in the world, though not of it; but, in a higher sense, he is in Christ--dedicating himself, body, soul, and spirit to Him in whom he lives.

"Probably many true Christians have adorned other and sectarian names. It is a misfortune, however. They are not expressive of Christian sentiment or work. Take the name Congregational--it only expresses a democratic idea--that the majority is right, but is awfully destructive of every thing which is Christian, if the majority is wrong. The name Baptist comprehends but a single idea-- immersion in water. But the name Christian covers the idea of full faith in all which Christ said, did, or suffered.

"Another thought--the name was divinely given as the distinctive family name of the church. The child who discards the name which his father gave him does not show particular respect to the father in so doing. He calls in question a father's judgment. Is not the judgment of God questioned when His people forsake the name He gave them, or make another of their adoption more prominent? Let us reflect!"--Rev. B. F. Carter, Herald of Gospel Liberty, February 17, 1859, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 162-163.

Serving Two Masters-

The Get Rich Gospel of the State's 501©3 Mammon Church

"3126. MAMMON. masc. noun. Wealth, the personification of riches. Mammon, the comprehensive word for all kinds of possessions, earnings, and gains, a designation of material value, the god of materialism. In Luke 16:9, 11, it denotes riches, equivalent to ploutos (4149), wealth. In Matt. 6:24 and Luke 16:13, the Lord personifies mammon, the god of materialism." Zodhiates, Complete Word Study of The New Testament (1994), p. 941.

Licenses are for the Lawless

License. "An authority to do a particular act or series of acts on another's land without possessing any estate therein." Cook v. Stearns, 11 Mass. 533; Wolfe v. Frost, 4 Sandf.Ch.(N.Y.) 72; Clarke v. Glidden, 60 Vt. 702, 15 A. 358; 1 Washb.R.P. 398." 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) 1974.

Education and Religion

"Education should never be divorced from pure religion. United they become the voice of heavenly wisdom, which 'utters her voice' loudly in our streets and plants the standard of Biblical Christianity 'in the openings of the gates,' as the rallying point of safety for the youth of our country."--Rev. D. P. Pike, in the Herald of Gospel Liberty, May 4, 1855, from The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 141.

God--Nothing

"The name of God means power, and we may read, Power said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.' The infidel denies that God, or power, created all things, but admits that nothing produced all things. Thus the unbeliever is driven to the absurdity that his nothing is greater than all worlds--is as powerful as power itself. The infidel, therefore, is more credulous than the Christian, ascribing his own, and all other existences, to nothing; and as the producer is at least equal to what it produces, he is at least nothing, and by his own probabilities, is on the way to make himself less than nothing."--Rev. O. J. Wait, Herald of Gospel Liberty, August 6, 1857, cited in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 157.

Liberum Tenementum

484. General issue in trespass to real property.--In trespass to real property, a freehold or mere possessory right in the defendant may be given in evidence under the general issue, though it is often advisable to plead liberum tenementum." Trial of Title to Land (1882), page 303, Cooley v. O'Connor, 12 Wall. 391-399.

Liberum Tenementum. "In common law pleading, a plea of freehold. A plea by the defendant in an action of trespass to real property that the locus in quo is his freehold, or that of a third person, under whom he acted." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 919.

Issue the Thirtieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Maintaining general delivery, Part One...

Returning Unwanted Letters...

The Money Question...

A Short History on Land Titles...

Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Maintaining general delivery

by Randy Lee

With the increasing attempts by Postmasters and Postal Legal Counsels to deny general delivery to those who have a vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, the two letters below will hopefully be of assistance to those who may be confronted with such an attempt.

It is suggested that you should always attempt to arrange an appointment with the Postmaster himself and avoid a letter writing campaign. Letters should only be used in cases where the Postmaster refuses to meet with you. Never meet with or write letters to the Legal Counsel/Manager.

In the first letter, note the subtleties of commercial and military terms used by the Manager, and the importance of rebutting his manufactured presumptions in the letter I have composed on Page two.

For additional information on maintaining general delivery, there is a 'Postal Pack' with a 90 min. audio tape available, and we will continue on this subject in Part Two next month.

United States Postal Service
March 30, 1998

Mr. John Robert Murdock
C/O General Service
56 Main St.
Bennicia, Pa 18504-9998

Dear Mr. Murdock:

This will serve as response to your inquiry, dispatched to Mr. Matthew Johnson, Postmaster of Philadelphia Pa. Mr. Johnson has referred the matter to me for disposition, and I am now responding to you as the Manager of the Benecia Station.

I have enclosed a photo copy (single page) of a Postal Manual entitled "Domestic Mail Manual" which basically governs the Postal Service in many matters, this being just one. I have also taken the time to highlight excerpts from that one page, which deals/interprets with General Service, so that you may be able to comprehend the decision given.

I realize, and understand that you have been receiving this General Service for a period of time now. Considering all that you have stated in your correspondence, I aim to grant you an extended period of the same service so that you can begin to prepare to receive your mail in some other manner. I am willing to extend you an additional 90 days from the writing of this correspondence. I will notify the Main Street station as well, and I sincerely hope that the additional time frame given to you, will enable you to arrange your mailing matters as should be.

Sincerely;

R. J. Finnegan

R. J. Finnegan
Manager, Benecia Station
100 Jones St.
Benecia, Pa 18504-9998

(Return Letter)

From:

John Robert: Murdock
to be called for in general delivery
Benecia, Pennsylvania

On the < > day of the < > month in the
Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year of
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:

Postmaster Matthew Johnson
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

After having received postal matter in general delivery marked March 30, 1998 from R.J. Finnegan, Manager of Benecia Station, with a copy of the (1/98) version of D930 (see attached), I was deeply disturbed by its contents. I find that R.J. Finnegan expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on his part are as follows:

2. That I have been receiving 'General Service.'

3. That calling for my First-Class Matter in general delivery is a 'service.'

4. That transients are the same as customers.

5. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

I will here address these presumptive errors in his beliefs:

2. I have never received 'General Service.' I have always exercised my vested Right in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established by the church existed prior to the creation of The Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator?

3. Being a Good and Lawful Christian calling for my First-Class Matter in general delivery is not a service delivered by The Postal Service, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service from The Post Office Department. History and the nonexistence of legislation concerning general delivery clearly shows this.

4. Please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not transients or the homeless. Please note the significance of that in Law.

5. Being a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who I minister for.

Since I am a sojourner on the land, homeless and transient, and not a resident with a fixed address, I would draw your attention to Postal Bulletin 21877 (see circled area attached) wherein it is directed that I am to receive indefinite general delivery.

Since R.J. Finnegan's decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery through his erroneous presumptions is based on facts not in evidence, I pray that you will intercede on my behalf as Postmaster in the Philadelphia area representing not only The Postal Service, but The Post Office Department under The Postmaster General, and reconsider and reverse R.J. Finnegan's decision in order that I can continue to fellowship with the body of believers and live under The Law of Peace.

With having no other way of accessing my First-Class Matter except in general delivery, I would appreciate it if you would direct A.J. Finnegan to not violate my vested and Inherited Right to call for my First-Class matter at the main post office at Benecia.

God's Richest Blessings upon you,

John Robert: Murdock

Returning Unwanted Letters

by Randy Lee

Below and to the right you will find the most common stamps used by the post office to return letters. You can make a photocopy of one, or all of them, and take the copy to a stamp maker. These impressions are not copyrighted by the Postal Service. They are available for everyone's use, but they must be used honestly.

For those in general delivery, and the letter received addresses you improperly, the most common type of return would be "Not Deliverable As Addressed," and if the mailbox and numbers have been removed from the dwelling-house, and a letter is left on the porch, "No Such Number" or "Insufficient Address" can be used.

"No Such Person At This Address" should no longer be used because it does not abate their so-called "due process." The above three designations do.

To return the letter, stamp the front, check the appropriate box, and simply drop it in a remote dropbox in another town.

The Money Question

Inheritance of Illusion or Illusion of Inheritance

Inheritance of Right or Right of Inheritance

by John Joseph

This article is one I know is a hot topic in the patriot world, and so I will deal with this issue as quickly as possible, leaving the ultimate decision to you as to what the solution ought to be, if in fact a solution is to be sought at all. I will tell you this from the outset: that unless you are right with God, in Christ, there is no solution. You may think you understand the money question, through and through, but you will never have Inheritable Right without Christ, for Christ Jesus said, "without Me, ye can do nothing."

The money question is a side issue wherein, although it impacts upon all of us, unless you possess that quality of a Good and Lawful Christian, you have nothing, and, in Truth and deed, are nothing--you are civilly dead. Both outlaws and bankrupts are civilly dead. Your relationship to God our Father, by, in and through Christ Jesus, is first and foremost just as He told us:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33. See also Luke 12:31.

To the limited secular mind this is such a narrow-minded view of things, especially of this one issue. To put these objections to rest, Christ Jesus Himself addressed this very issue:

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Mt 7:13-14.
"Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and He shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets. But He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:24-27.
"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?" Proverbs 24:21-22.

That modern calamitous open mind of the pagan is clearly the path to destruction. To whom do you entrust such matters: the statutory guru or Christ Jesus? How dangerous that modern open mind really is. It is strange that those who espouse open mindedness have such a closed mind when their own opinions are challenged. The same is true of those who espouse tolerance of all religions--they are open minded to all until Christianity is opened to them. "Verily, they have their reward."

Having addressed the modern objections squarely, let us now proceed to the matter at hand--money. What is it? what is it for? what does it do? how does it accomplish its appointed task?

First, for all Good and Lawful Christians, money is what God our Father declared it to be among us. This is not a matter of opinion, speculation, conjecture, sentiment, view, or personal judgment. He did not declare currency, debit cards, credit cards, checks, notes, bills, negotiable instruments, legal tender, barcodes, electronic bytes or bits to be Lawful Money among us. Those 'legal fictions' are one of the many evil things that come out of the man and defile him. If you believe otherwise, then please either reconsider your position or "prove all things," to quote Scripture again. Remember, if you try to mix and match Scripture with your human concepts, you are fatally a sinner without repentance and offer no true solution:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15.
"He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.

It is a given that you will serve either God or mammon, Christ or lust, but you cannot do both simultaneously:

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 9:9.

Second, we must define a term which has lost its original meaning among us, that term being "lawful." This term is specific in Law, relating to our present discourse, and will reveal much to us that has been removed from our learning, knowledge and Christian ways:

"LAWFUL. The principal distinction between the terms 'lawful' and 'legal' is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is 'lawful' implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense 'illegal' approaches the meaning of 'invalid.' For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word 'lawful' more clearly implies an ethical content, than does 'legal.' The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word 'legal' is used as the synonym of 'constructive,' which 'lawful' is not. Thus 'legal fraud' is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. 'Lawful fraud' would be a contradiction in terms. Again, 'legal' is used as the antithesis of 'equitable.' Thus, we speak of 'legal assets,' or 'legal estate,' etc., but not of 'lawful assets,' or 'lawful estate.' But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a 'lawful' writ, warrant, or process is the same as a 'legal' writ, warrant, or process." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1032.

A piece of paper currency, note, bill, check, debit card, credit card, or negotiable instrument is only prima facie evidence of the substance, but it is not the substance itself. It is notice that deceit is taking place and a further diligent inquiry must be made by the one about to be deceived. Electronic signals are not evidence of any thing, not even debts. See Clomon v. Jackson (1993), 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir.). The virtual world is a world of illusion and an illusion of a world.

When we say 'lawful money,' what is it we are really saying? We are saying that the substance has precedence over form. The crux of the matter, which no one has ever touched on concerning the money issue is--what is the substance? Is it the metal? On the surface this appears to be the case. But on closer examination, the metal is only a part of the answer. So what is the rest? Christ Jesus addressed this issue as follows:

"They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matthew 22:21.

We are all very familiar with this passage from Scripture. But what is it Christ Jesus is saying?

He is actually touching on the question of 'being.' And our esteemed Brother Jonathan Edwards in his lecture on being (obtainable in its entirety from the Christian Liberty Library under the filename of EDWDSBNG.ZIP) gives us a clue as to what it is Christ is saying:

Of Being

"That there should absolutely be Nothing at all, is utterly impossible. The mind, let it stretch its conceptions ever so far, can never so much as bring itself to conceive of a state of perfect Nothing. It puts the mind into mere convulsion and confusion, to think of such a state: and it contradicts the very nature of the soul, to think that such a state should be. It is the greatest of contradictions, and the aggregate of all contradictions to say that THING should not be. It is true, we cannot so distinctly show the contradiction in words; because we cannot talk about it, without speaking strict nonsense, and contradicting ourselves at every way: and because Nothing is that, whereby we distinctly show other particular contradictions. But here we are run up to our first principle, and have no other to explain the nothingness, or not being of Nothing by. Indeed we can mean nothing else by Nothing, but a state of absolute contradiction; and if any man thinks, that he can conceive well enough how there should be Nothing, I will engage, that what he means by Nothing, is as much Something, as any thing that he ever thought of in his life; and I believe, that if he knew what Nothing was, it would be intuitively evident to him that it could not be.--Thus we see it is necessary that some being should eternally be. And it is a more palpable contradiction still to say, that there must be Being somewhere, and not otherwhere, for the words Absolute Nothing, and Where, contradict each other. And, besides, it gives as great a shock to the mind, to think of pure Nothing being in any one place, as it does to think of it in all places: and it is self-evident, that there can be Nothing in one place, as well as in another; and if there can be in one, there can be all. So that we see that this Necessary, Eternal Being must be Infinite and Omnipresent.
"This Infinite and Omnipresent being cannot be solid. Let us see how contradictory it is, to say that an Infinite being is solid; for solidity surely is nothing, but resistance to other solidities.--Space is this necessary, eternal, infinite, and omnipresent being. We find that we can, with ease, conceive how all other beings should not be. We can remove them out of our minds, and place some other in the room of them; but Space is the very thing, that we can never remove, and conceive of its not being. If a man would imagine Space any where to be divided, so as there remains Space between, not with standing, and so the man contradicts himself. And it is self-evident I believe to every man, that Space is necessary, eternal, infinite and omnipresent. But I had as good speak plain: I have already said as much as, that Space is God. And it is indeed clear to me, that all the Space there is, not proper to body, all the Space there is without the bounds of Creation, all the Space there was before the Creation, is God himself; and no body would in the least pick at it, if it were not because of the gross conceptions that we have of Space.
"A state of absolute nothing is a state of absolute contradiction. Absolute nothing is the aggregate of all the contradictions in the world: a state, wherein there is neither body, nor spirit, nor space, neither empty space nor full space, neither little nor great, narrow nor broad, neither infinite space nor finite space, not even a mathematical point, neither up nor down, neither north nor south, (I do not mean, as it is with respect to the body of the earth, or some other great body,) but no contrary points, positions or directions, no such thing as either here or there, this way or that way, or any way. When we go about to form an idea of perfect Nothing, we must shut out all these things: we must shut out of our minds both space that has something in it, and space that has nothing in it. We must now allow ourselves to think of the least part of Space, be it ever so small. Nor must we suffer our thoughts to take sanctuary in a mathematical point. We go to expel being out of our thoughts, we must be careful not to leave empty space in the room of it; and when we go to expel emptiness from our thoughts, we must not think to squeeze it out by any thing close, hard and solid; but we must think of the same, that the sleeping rocks do dream of; and not till then, shall we get a complete idea of Nothing.
"When we go to enquire, Whether or no, there can be absolutely Nothing? we utter nonsense, in so enquiring. The stating of the question is nonsense; because we make a disjunction where there is none. Either Being, or absolute Nothing, is no disjunction; no more than whether a triangle is a triangle, or not a triangle. There is no other way, but only for there to be existence: there is no such thing as absolute Nothing. There is such a thing, as Nothing, with respect to this ink and paper: there is such a thing, as Nothing, with respect to this globe of earth, and with respect to this Universe. There is another way, beside these things, having existence; but there is no such thing, as Nothing, with respect to Entity, of being, absolutely considered. We do not know what we say, if we say, that we think it possible in itself, that there should not be Entity.
"And how doth it grate upon the mind, to think that Something should be from all eternity, and yet Nothing all the while remain conscious of it. To illustrate this: Let us suppose that the World had a being from all eternity, and had many great changes, and wonderful revolutions, and all the while Nothing knew it, there was no knowledge in the Universe of any such thing. How is it possible to bring the mind to imagine this? Yea, it is really impossible it should be, that any thing should exist, and Nothing know it. Then you will say, If it be so, it is, because Nothing has existence but in consciousness: No, certainly, now where else, but either in created or uncreated consciousness.
"Suppose there were another Universe, merely of bodies, created, at a great distance from this; created in excellent order, harmonious motions, and a beautiful variety; and there was no created intelligence in it, nothing but senseless bodies, and nothing but God knew any thing of it. I demand where else that Universe would have a being, but only in the Divine consciousness? Certainly, in no other respect. There would be figures, and magnitudes, and motions, and proportions; but, where else, except in the Almighty's knowledge? How is it possible there should be?--But then you will say, For the same reason, in a room closely shut up, which nobody sees, there is nothing, except in God's knowledge.--I answer, Created beings are conscious of the effects of what is in the room; for, perhaps, there is not one leaf of a tree, nor a spire of grass, but what produces effects, all over the Universe and will produce them, to the end of eternity. But any otherwise, there is nothing in a room to shut up, but only on God's consciousness. How can any thing be there, any other way? This will appear to be truly so, to any one who thinks of it, with the whole united strength of his mind. Let us suppose, for illustration, this impossibility, that all the spirits in the Universe were, for a time, deprived of their consciousness, and that God's consciousness, at the same time, were intermitted. I say the Universe, for that time, would cease to be, of itself; and this not merely, as we speak, because the Almighty cold not attend to uphold it; but because God would know nothing of it. It is our foolish imagination that will not suffer us to see it. We fancy there may be figures and magnitudes, relations and properties, without any one knowing of it. But it is our imagination hurts us. We do not know what figures and properties are.
"Our imagination makes us fancy, that we see shapes, and colours, and magnitudes, though nobody is there to behold it. But to help our imagination, let us thus state the case: Let us suppose the creation deprived of every ray of light, so that there should not be the least glimmering of light in the Universe. Now all will own, that, in such case, the Universe would really be immediately deprived of all its colours. NO one part of the Universe is any more red, or blue, or green, or yellow, or black, or white, or light, or dark, or transparent, or opake. There would no visible distinction, between the Universe and the rest of the incomprehensible void: yea, there would be no difference, in these respects, between the Universe and the infinite void; so that any part of that void would really be as light and as dark, as white and as black, as red and as green, as blue and as brown, as transparent and as opake, as any part of the Universe: so that, in such case, there would be no difference, in these respects, between the Universe and Nothing. So also, there would be no difference, between one part of the Universe and another: all, in these respects, is alike confounded with, and undistinguished from, infinite emptiness.
"At the same time, also, let us suppose the Universe to be altogether deprived of motion, and all parts of it to be at perfect rest. Then, the Universe would not differ from the void, in this respect: there would be no more motion in the one, that in the other. Then, also, solidity would cease. All that we mean, or can be meant, by solidity, is resistance; resistance to touch, the resistance of some parts of space. This is all the knowledge we get of solidity, by our senses, and, I am sure, all that we can get, any other way. But solidity shall be shown to be nothing else, more fully, hereafter. But there can be no resistance, if there is no motion. One body cannot resist another, if there is no motion. One body cannot resist another, when there is perfect rest among them. But, you will say, Though there is no actual resistance, yet there is potential resistance: that is, such and such parts of space would resist upon occasion. But this is all that I would have, that there is no solidity now; not but that God could cause there to be, on occasion. And if there is no solidity, there is no extension, for extension is the extendedness of solidity. Then, all figures, and magnitude, and proportion, immediately cease. Put, then, both these suppositions together: that is, deprive the Universe of light, and motion, and the case would stand thus, with the Universe: There would be neither white nor black, neither blue nor brown, neither bright nor shaded, pellucid nor opake, no noise nor sound, neither heat nor cold, neither fluid nor solid, neither wet nor dry, neither hard nor soft, nor solidity, nor extension, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor proportion, nor body, nor spirit. What, then, is to become of the Universe? Certainly it exists no where, but in the Divine mind. This will be abundantly clearer to one, after having read what I have further to say of solidity, etc.: so that we see that a Universe, without motion, can exist no where else, but in the mind--either infinite or finite.
"Corollary. It follows from hence, that those beings, which have knowledge and consciousness, are the only proper and real, and substantial beings; inasmuch as the being of other things is only by these. From hence, we may see the gross mistake of those, who think material things the most substantial beings, and spirits more like a shadow; whereas, spirits only are properly substance." Jonathan Edwards in 1719-1720? from Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards: Selections from their Writings (1920), edited by Carl Van Doren, pp. 222-227. [Emphasis added.]

It is Brother Edwards' last statement which is key to the money question. We should all ponder that statement and thoroughly understand it before we move on. Too many people have placed their emphasis on the metals constituting the money, but have given no thought as to the spiritual world which rules the physical world. The Good and Lawful Christian already has the knowledge and knows "that the law is spiritual:" Romans 7:14. Therefore, the substance of Spirit is governed by the spiritual Law. To think of the opposite is what Brother Edwards was saying about absolute nothing--the ultimate contradiction which man can never resolve. As a matter of fact, it has been stated elsewhere:

God--Nothing

"The name of God means power, and we may read, Power said, 'Let there be light, and there was light.' The infidel denies that God, or power, created all things, but admits that nothing produced all things. Thus the unbeliever is driven to the absurdity that his nothing is greater than all worlds--is as powerful as power itself. The infidel, therefore, is more credulous than the Christian, ascribing his own, and all other existences, to nothing; and as the producer is at least equal to what it produces, he is at least nothing, and by his own probabilities, is on the way to make himself less than nothing."--Rev. O. J. Wait, Herald of Gospel Liberty, August 6, 1857, cited in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 157.

What is the substance of the Spirit? This raises the question of Source, Cause, and Origin of all things:

"Scire proprie est rem ratione et per causam cognoscere --To know properly is to know a thing by its cause and in its reason." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2162.
"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

We can see then that Christ Jesus was raising the issue of being: What is the source, cause and origin of the inscription on the metal coin? Therefore, give to Caesar that which he is the source, cause, and origin of; and to God those things for which He is the Source, Cause, and Origin. For the Good and Lawful Christian, everything he touches is to have its Source, Cause and Origin in Christ Jesus, and not in a foreign source or venue:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:1-4. [Emphasis added.]

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Colossians 1:16-20. [Emphasis added.]

The metal is sustained by the Power of God Himself. Caesar stamped the coin to show he was the maker of the coin, but did he obtain or retain jurisdiction over the metal of which the coin consists? Certainly not. The metal being sustained by His Power could be changed into something base, like lead or aluminum, depending on what His Law declares, and His Law does not change. Thus, the substance of Spirit is God Himself. Thus, if the currency has not this Spirit, can it be substance to be used by the Good and Lawful Christian? Certainly not. Remember, He that made the visible also made the invisible. What is it that is invisible? Rights in and of Inheritance by, in, and through Christ Jesus. That is, if the coins have a Source, Cause and Origin in Christ Jesus, through Good and Lawful Christians, then Rights in and of Inheritance in Christ Jesus are able to be conveyed in parity. The parity is the parity of Right in Inheritance, and has nothing to do with commerce, or assigned hypothetical commercial values based on the mind of the natural man. Why? First Scripture gives the answer:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15.

The natural man then receives nothing having any substance in Spirit originating in God our Father, through Christ Jesus. Therefore, Scripture declares:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witch- craft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings [*com- merce], murders, drunkenness [*commerce -note Mystery Babylon], revellings [*commerce], and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Gal. 5:19-21. [*Insertions and emphasis added.]

Now, to this implementation:

"The original meaning of a perpetuity is an unalienable, indestructible interest." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2570.
"PERPETUITY. Any limitation [*imposed by covenant evidenced in Scripture, or in the constitution] tending to take the subject of it [*the Rights vested by God and all property in the dominion held in common by Good and Lawful Christians] out of commerce for a longer period than a life or lives in being, and twenty-one years beyond;or it is such a limitation of property [*in the Good and Lawful Christian Man's dominion] as renders it unalienable beyond the period allowed by law. Gilbert on Uses, by Sugden, 260, note." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. II, p. 332. [Emphasis and *insertions added. Retention of Common Right established perpetuity to be passed on to Posterity.]
"When a grantor makes a valid exception, the thing excepted remains the property of himself or his heirs; but if he has no valid title to it, neither he nor his heirs can recover; Fisher v. Min. Co., 97 N.C. 95, 4 S.E. 772." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1108. [Emphasis added]

To the natural man, assigned hypothetical commercial value is everything because it is something which comes from within himself, and he gives himself the ability to determine parity based on the value he assigns. What is the thing excepted whenever using currency or other forms passing as money? Clearly, Inheritable Right, for the courts have stated, in compliance with Scripture:

"There is a distinction between a debt discharged and one paid. When discharged, the debt still exists, though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge." Stanek v. White (1927), 172 Minn. 390, 215 N.W. 781.

Thus, if the debt still exists, then Right of Inheritance could never be conveyed. What this means is that those federal reserve notes in your pocket give no Right in Inheritance--but the labor you expend does, because it is God's labor. Generally, you are giving up your Right of Inheritance to whomever you labor for, in exchange for federal reserve notes or any other non-substantial 'legal fiction' received:

"In this part of the House debate, which, as mercifully as I can, I am presenting only in fragments, Samuel Hooper adverted to the unrealistic habit the legal tender opponents had of denouncing legal tender paper as inimical to coin--unrealistic because there was no currency of coin. Currency of coin was a legal fiction. 'Every intelligent man,' Hooper said, 'knows that coined money is not the currency of the country.' Irredeemable and depreciated state bank notes or state banks or notes of the federal government should serve not only as an actual medium of payment but as a legal one. This was an indirect but substantial argument for making the federal government's domestic sovereignty a reality." Hammond, Sovereignty and an Empty Purse (1970), p. 188, quoting Congressional Globe, 37th Cong. 2d Sess., 6 Feb. 1862, p. 691.

Shortly, thereafter, the National Banking Acts (12 Stat. 665, and 13 Stat. 99) came into being. It now makes sense that the whole reason for the banking acts was an act of invasion by A. Lincoln and his Congress which sat at his pleasure, and still sits at the pleasure of each and every President. This clearly shows the intent of A. Lincoln and his Congress--to extend jurisdiction into the states and give to those who know no Law (those emancipated by presidential proclamation) a "medium of exchange" to use, but giving the grantor-- hidden, although ever present in all transactions--the true "title."

"Contracts "implied in law" imply a promise to pay, whether or not any such promise was made or intended." In Re Altmann's Will, 266 N. Y. S. 773, 779, 149 Misc. 115.
"An obligation similar in character to that of a contract, but which arises not from an agreement of parties but from some relation with them, or from a voluntary act of one of them [*using Federal Reserve Notes]." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi-Contract," p. 2781. [*Insertion added]

How did and does this affect Christ's church? It affects the Right in Inheritance as noted above because it is never conveyed or passed because the debt is never paid. This is how a people are thrown off the land because of the curse of God given Moses in Deuteronomy 28 for failure of the church to "walk in the old ways." But the way for repentance is open:

"Quasi-contracts were a well defined class under the civil law. By the civil code of Louisiana they are defined to be "the lawful and purely voluntary acts of man, from which there results any obligation whatever to a third person and sometimes a reciprocal obligation between parties. In quasi-contracts the obligation arises not from consent, as in the case of contracts, but from the law of natural equity." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, id.

Note the law invoked--the foe of God: civil law from Rome found in the lawlessness of natural equity. This being the case then, it is based solely in reason of the natural man. Reason of the natural man is simply conjecture because the natural man has no knowledge of the things of the Spirit of God. Note 1 Corinthians 2:14. All the arguments which patriots and politicians use are arguments founded in the same conjectures and speculation of the natural mind. And for this reason they are incomplete, and in error, for they deny the sole Source of all Law which created Inheritable Right and all Substance: God our Father by and through Christ Jesus. The "law" of quasi-contracts is that law which was, and is, condemned in the Revivor of Judgment by Christ Jesus. Therefore, that 'law' has no standing, even in the 'mind' of the natural man:

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:20.

A Short History of the Law of Land Titles

by John William

We have often pointed out that true title to land only comes by descent, i.e., inheritance, and not by purchase, regardless of whether or not the land was purchased by fiat currency such as Federal Reserve Notes, or whether purchased by dollars in silver.

This has been true of land titles since at least the 15th century as we see in the very important work often cited as "Coke on Littleton," the full title of which is found in The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England or, a Commentary Upon Littleton, by Sir Edward Coke, Volume One.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) is seen as one of the three or four greatest legal minds in the last thousand years of the history of law and is equally famous for having stopped martial law in England by his Petition of Right in 1628, published against King Charles I. This fact we have also mentioned in The News on previous occasions. We have cited Coke's Petition in Non-Statutory Abatements almost from the beginning. Thus, even though Coke lived and died more than three hundred and fifty years ago, his work influences us today, and in his Institutes we find extended commentary on the works of Littleton, another English jurist that predates Coke by nearly two hundred years.

Sir Thomas de Littleton (1407-1481) wrote a massive work on English common law as it regards lands, houses, tenements, and hereditaments in a work called "Treatise on Tenures" that systematized English law as it concerns land, its acquisition, and use. This work has been called the very first textbook on the law of property which was mainly concerned with rights over land. Land law in England and America is still based, to a great extent, upon the collation of English law compiled by Littleton and explained by Coke.

Thus, the law upon which we base our research on ways to recover true title to land is at least six hundred years old, with roots that likely go even further back into the ancient customs and usages of Christian England. It is for this reason that the history of law is important, because the further we go back in time, the more likely we are to find the root and origin of law and the reasons for its existence in the first place, and the more likely it is that we will find the connection between the law of land and Scripture.

Scripture tells us what the Law is in order that we can avoid sin through the keeping of God's Law. But, Scripture does not always tell us why God does things in one way and not another. In these cases, He has left us the task of figuring out why His Law is written the way it is, and He has left the implementation of His Law to the Christian. It is this implementation of God's Law in which man works out his salvation "in fear and trembling," and it is the implementation which, over time, becomes Our custom and usage, which is also known as the lex non scripta, the unwritten or common law of all Good and Lawful Christians throughout the world.

Coke, of course, does not deal in this work in Volume I of the Institutes with fiat currency. It is assumed that all money used in the purchase of land is based on English coinage, usually pounds sterling, i.e., silver.

In the Institutes, Coke treats Littleton's previous work very systematically and logically and, in Part One, he sets forth a series of charts that illustrate the connections between the various parts of land law and how one part or action follows upon another.

"Littleton's treatise was written in that peculiar dialect compounded of Norman-French and English phrases called law French. Although it had been provided by a statute of 36 Edward III, that viva voce proceedings in court should not longer be conducted in the French tongue, 'which was much unknown in the realm,' the practice of reporting proceedings in that language, and of using it in legal treatises, lingered till a much later period, and was at length prohibited by a statute passed in the time of the Commonwealth in 1650." The Encyclopedia Brittanica: a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, and General Information, Published by Encyclopedia Britannica, New York, 342 Madison Avenue. Eleventh Edition, 1911.

Littleton's original work borrows nothing from the sources of Roman civil law or the commentators. He dealt exclusively with English law as it was in his day. Coke translated a good deal of Littleton's work into English to assist readers and often presents, in very few words, an entire overview of land law.

Thus, in summarizing the whole of land law in England in Littleton's time, Coke says:

"...every man that hath a fee simple, hath it either by right or by wrong. If by right, then he hath it either by purchase or descent. If by wrong, then either by disseisin, intrusion, abatement, usurpation, &c. L.1 C.1 Sect. 1. 2.a."

Coke then proceeded to explain the various ways and means of acquiring land by all the above methods and also explains which is the strongest title to land and gives the reasons why.

Clearly, in the above cite, Coke asserts that the only right ways to own land are by purchase or descent, i.e., inheritance. All other ways, which including acts that range from actions in a court to outright usurpation or seizure by conquest, are wrong ways to hold land. Indeed, Coke clearly states just prior to the above cite that:

"For a disseisor, abator, intruder, usurper, &c, [*may] have a fee simple, but it is not a lawfull fee. L1. C.1. Sect. 1. 2a." [*Insertion added].

This helps to explain why, if the I.R.S. or Sheriff seizes land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments, they will not guarantee true title to the new land "owner" after the land is re-sold.

Just as clearly, the right ways to hold land are fully consistent with the Law of God and all other ways are contrary to the Law of God.

Coke then proceeds to tell us who can purchase lands, houses, tenements, or hereditaments:

"Persons capable of purchase are of two sorts, persons natural created of God,... and persons incorporate or politique created by the policy of man (and therefore called bodies politique); and those be of two sorts, viz. Either sole, or aggregate of many: again, aggregate of many, either of all persons capable, or of one person capable, and the rest incapable or dead in law ... Some men have capacitie to purchase, but not abilitie to hold: some, capacity to purchase, and ability to hold or not to hold, at the election of them or others: some, capacitie to take and to hold: some, neither capacitie to take nor to hold: and some, especially disabled to take some particular thing." L.1. C.1. Sect.1. 2a.

The corporation sole was usually either the King, a bishop, or member of royalty who formed a corporation of just one person. Today, this type of corporation no longer exists in America and the nearest equivalent to it would be the formation of a Limited Corporation which may be owned by one man but governed by a Board of Directors of at least three persons.

Note also that a body politic is created by the "policy of men" and that such a corporation is grouped as an "aggregate" corporation along with all other corporations that have many owners or stock-holders. In America, the body politic is owned by the people within the jurisdiction of the body politic--at least in theory.

The only alternative to a government created by the policy of men, is a government created under and controlled by, the Law of God, the possibility of which neither Coke nor Littleton considers in their works. The reason why is, both Coke and Littleton were dealing with the law of England as it actually was and not theoretically, as it should be. Thus, in Coke's commentary on Littleton there is virtually no discussion of God's Law as it applied to the law of England, and yet, it is clear that the law of the land was based, at least in the common law, on Scripture to a great extent. Apparently, by the time Littleton wrote his Treatise on Tenures and Coke wrote his commentary on Littleton, the law was already considered something separate from the authority of Scripture and the Law of God.

In other words, less than three hundred years had elapsed since the commentaries of Bracton and Phillip of Salisbury with their heavy reliance on the Canon law of Christianity, and already the root and ground of law had been lost. But, this should not surprise us, since in America, it took somewhat less time for the Americans to lose their Biblical roots of law.

At any rate, Coke then follows his listing of those who may purchase with examples of why they cannot hold:

"If an alien Christian or infidel purchase houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments to him and his heires, albeit he can have no heires, yet he is of capacitie to take a fee simple but not to hold." Ibid.

Thus, if an alien Christian or infidel purchases houses, lands, tenements, or hereditaments for himself and his heirs - but if neither has a Lawful heir - they cannot hold their purchase. The land then reverts to the king upon the king's service of an office found in the case of an alien Christian. If the infidel dies without heir, the land automatically reverts to the king and no action on an office found is necessary. In some cases, however, the land will revert to the original owner and not the king, whether an office found is made or not, especially in the case of an infidel.

A corporation sole can take land, houses, tenements, and hereditaments as we mentioned above, by purchase, but unless some special provision is made in the purchase or in the articles of incorporation, the corporation sole cannot hold. And it makes no difference if the corporation sole is ecclesiastical or temporal, the law treats all in the same manner.

If the land or house, and/or its habitation is leased for commercial purposes by an infidel, the king shall have it for the term of the lease and no longer. In sum, an alien infidel has few rights in land, houses, tenements or hereditaments, and though he may take by purchase, he will, in many cases, have a difficult time holding it.

Coke also discusses attaintment of blood and which, in American law, has no relevance. As to:

"An infant or minor (whom we call any that is under the age of 21 yeares) hath, without consent of any other, capacity to purchase, for it is intended for his benefit, and at his full age he may either agree thereunto, and perfect it, or without any cause to be alleged, waive or disagree to the purchase; and so may his heirs after him, if he agreed not thereunto after his full age." Ibid.

Coke then discusses briefly, the rights of those of unsound mind, those physically deformed, a wife (excluding the Queen), parishioners, church-wardens, a bastard, and others on their rights to purchase or not to purchase land and their various abilities to hold or not to hold. He states that lands purchased at rates of interest amounting to usury are void and contracts for the same cannot be enforced.

Of course, the laws on usury cannot be enforced against anything but Lawful money, such as dollars in silver. Thus, one advantage for the lenders in lending fictitious money, whether in Federal Reserve Notes or merely in debit entries, is that they avoid actions based upon violations of the laws of usury.

It is clear from Coke's discussion that all those who purchase land, as opposed to those who inherit it, purchase only a limited title for a limited period of time, usually the life of the purchaser, or for a specific term, and then the land either passes to the heirs, or reverts to the king or original land-owner under certain conditions.

Thus, Our original premise, that true title to land only passes by inheritance is still valid and even the great Coke and Littleton confirm it by all they say. Coke then passes to a discussion of the land itself and what will pass with the land and how the land contract should be written if the land is acquired by purchase.

In the general sense, then:

"Land, Terra in the legal signification, comprehendeth any ground, soile, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moores, waters, marishes, furses, and heath.... It legally includeth also castles, houses, and other buildings: for castles, houses, &c. consist upon two things, viz. Land or ground, as the foundation or structure thereupon; so as passing the land or ground, the structure or building thereupon passeth therewith." Ibid.

But, from the discussion that follows on the next few pages in this section, we learn that the more detailed a description of the rights conveyed in a land purchase, the more likely it is that all or part of the land can be attacked, by a subsequent action or claim in court, from the original land purchase contract even years after the sale of the land is made. This is true even down to specifying the types of trees that may exist on the land at the time of purchase.

Thus, it is best that in any purchase agreement for land, the contract must be structured in as broad and general a manner as possible. The wording should therefore state that all land lying within the defined boundaries of the close, and all houses and appurtenances thereto with all plants of every kind and description along with all land that lies beneath any rivers, streams, lakes, etc., that cross or enter into the land, and all minerals or metals found beneath the surface of the land is included in the purchase agreement. If one begins to get specific by using words such as except, excluding, etc., one gets specific and opens the door to later attacks on one's title to whatever lies within the boundaries of the close.

Remember, a close is any area of land defined by law, not by survey, plat map, official government map such as a U.S.G.S. topographic map, or fences of any kind. The close is located, usually, by reference to some natural, physical feature of land such as a mountain top, a large rock promontory, the junction of known streams, and so on. In other words, keep it simple and all inclusive. Though not a hard and fast rule, keep the purchase agreement to about two or three pages. Any more and you may be tempted to get into details that will later hang you out to dry.

Throughout Coke's work the Scriptures are freely used as law and cited as part of God's Law and Christianity. But, even though there is often a verse cite in the margin of the work, there are no quote marks at the beginning and end of where the words of the Bible are used and no other marks to indicate where the verse begins and ends, and where Coke's commentary takes up. Coke uses and integrates the words, verses, and phrases of the Scripture as if they were his own. All one can do is look up the cite that is sometimes paraphrased and not cited explicitly.

He also uses freely, Christian concepts and ideas or doctrines of Christianity without, again, marking or indicating them as such. They are simply part of Coke's normal language as a commentator on Littleton.

Coke spends many pages on defining single words used in the English common law and in these definitions one can almost see the Biblical verses that lay behind his definitions.

In the next Issue of The News we will set out some of Coke's definitions of words and phrases, including the all important one as regards an inheritance: "To have and to hold."

Almighty God vs. the mighty god

Part Two

by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Twenty-ninth)

How does man sue God for a violation of a right originating in God, belonging to God, and is given for use only to those who belong to Him? Seems it would be impossible, for clearly the burden is on you to prove the "sovereign" has given his consent:

"It is a general rule that the sovereign cannot be sued in his own court without his consent, and this was so from the days of Bracton, nor could a feudal lord; 3 Holdsw. Hist. E. L. 311; and hence no direct judgment can be rendered against him therein for costs, except in the manner and on the condition he has prescribed; State v. Lazarus, 40 La.Ann. 856, 5 South. 289; The Antelope, 12 Wheat.(U.S.) 549, 6 L.Ed. 723; U.S. v. Ringgold, 8 Pet.(U.S.) 163, 8 L.Ed. 899. And in 2 St.Tr. 320, when counsel for the king of Spain asked for costs, Lyndhurst, C., said, 'We will not disparage the dignity of the king of Spain by giving him costs.' While a sovereign is thus exempt from being made defendant in a suit, he may himself submit to the jurisdiction of a domestic or foreign court by bringing suit. While a foreign sovereign may sue to enforce a juristic right, it is otherwise where it seeks aid in maintaining its authority; Moore, Act of State 148." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3094.

We see that man cannot move against God at all. But in regard to "civil rights," those who claim them "perfect" all obligations or burdens which come with them. This perfection comes not with just letters, and words, but with conduct, because it is conduct which speaks louder and surer than any words. Therefore, it is written:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:16-21.

How many of these agencies and what are some of their distinguishing features? Let us look at what the American Bar(fly) Association has to say:

"Executive Courts (Administrative Agencies) a conglomerate of which, according to the committee's [A.B.A. Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law] last count (as of January, 1935) consisted of 73 federal tribunals exercising judicial power in 267 classes of cases. These agencies vary in character over a wide range, from individuals (including the President and the several heads of departments) and bureaus in the executive branch of the government to independent boards and commissions. The tenure of their members is in no case during good behavior nor are they protected against diminution of compensation or abolition of their offices. The tenure varies from a definite term of years (subject to removal for grounds expressed in vague, general language) to a day-to-day employment held at the whim of executive officials. The method of appointment varies from nomination by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to the uncontrolled hiring and firing of a subordinate by a superior. The functions exercised by these agencies run the whole gamut from the purely judicial, through doubtful zones in judicial-executive and the judicial-legislative borderlands, into undisputed provinces of the executive and the legislative. Their distinguishing feature, from the point of view of the present study, is that, unlike the constitutional courts and the legislative courts, they represent combinations of prosecutor and judge, or of prosecutor, legislator, and judge, over the same subject matter. The decisions of these agencies may be made subject to review on both the law and the facts by legislative courts [Federal Radio Comm. v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464; Ex parte Bakelite Corporation, 279 U.S. 438; Postum Cereal Company v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693; Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428, 444], but even in cases of an indubitably judicial character their decisions may not be reviewed by constitutional courts except, generally speaking, as to questions of law (collateral attack) [Murray v. Hoboken Land Co., 18 How. 284; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 279 U.S. 716]." 61 Reports of the American Bar Assn. 723, 724 (1936). [Insertions are footnotes from the original text.]

This is before the days of the E.E.O.C., but you most certainly find that most of the "cabinet posts" are in deed the place for redress of grievances when one violates the "civil rights" of one of those who acknowledges having them. This is clearly a source of despotism and tyranny, whose ring started back in the days of Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord, who hunted men. It is just more "civil" now:

"Until the three recent amendments to the national constitution, which abolished slavery and attempted to protect the civil and political rights of the freedmen, all parties conceded that the federal government had no power whatever to restrain such an offence [murder] as this. The punishment of murder, arson, assaults and batteries, trespasses, frauds, injuries to reputation, of obstructions to the right of attending church, public schools, theatres, and forcing the right of being accommodated in inns, and by common carriers within the State, were matters not only not granted to the general government, but in the constitution itself expressly reserved to the States." Charge to the Grand Jury, by Emmons, Circuit Judge, 3 Am.L.Rec. 738 (1874).

And as for The New Despotism coming down the pike through administrative law:

"In order to perceive clearly the nature of this influence or tendency, and the relation in which it stands to the essential foundations of the Constitution, it may be well to examine briefly, first, the meaning and implications, on the one hand, of the rule of law, and, on the other hand, of the continental system of so-called 'administrative law' with which the rule of law is sharply contrasted. The apologists of the growing system [of administrative law], or lack of system, which it is here proposed to explore sometimes permit themselves to speak of it as if it were 'administrative law.' But the description, it will be seen, is quite curiously the reverse of the truth. The continental system of 'administrative law,' profoundly repugnant as it is to English ideas, is at least a system. It has its Courts, its law, its hearings, and adjudications, its regular and accepted procedure. It would be a strange misuse of terms if the name of administrative law' were to be applied to that which, upon analysis, proved to be nothing more than administrative lawlessness.
"Let nobody be so foolish or so flippant as to suppose that any attack is here intended upon what it is a commonplace to describe as the best Civil Service in the world. In a treatise upon photography, as somebody, says, one may assume the existence of the sun. In remarks upon the mischiefs of bureaucracy one may assume the excellence of the Civil Service. Yet it may perhaps be well to remember that high capacity and ardent zeal never need to be more carefully watched than when they appear to have entered, with all their might, upon a wrong road. It does not take a horticulturist to perceive that, if a tree is bearing bad fruit, the more vigourously it yields, the greater will be the harvest of mischief. Many persons of course have from time to time perceived and deplored this particular mischief. But, somehow, some of them found it more convenient to their inclinations or their aims to refrain from words even of good omen. They have passed by, like the prudent Levite, on the other side. Or they have been content to say that, 'after all, people get the kind of government they deserve,' wholly refusing to recognize the power of a skilful and organized minority.
"Or, again, they have so nicely balanced their appreciation of what is good and their examination of what is less good that, with the convenient help of a little confusion of thought, they have left the detached spectator wondering upon which side they appeared. But to the impartial eye of the fearless citizen it is obvious that the official just as surely seeks to escape the jurisdiction of the Courts when he takes power to make regulations having the force of a statute as when he in terms provides that his decisions shall not by any method be open to review. It is no less obvious that, if such an endeavour were the isolated act of an ingenious individual, its consequences might be almost trivial. But other considerations apply if a mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well-contrived system, intended to produce, and in practice, producing a despotic power which at one and the same time places the Government Departments above the sovereignty of Parliament and beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. It it appears that this system springs from and depends upon a deep-seated official conviction, which in turn it nourishes and strengthens by each successive manifestation of its vigour, that this, when all is said and done, is the best and most scientific way of ruling the country, the consequences, unless they are checked, must be in the highest degree formidable." Lord Hewart in 'The New Despotism' (1929), pp. 6-8. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

So we can see then that the system is set up so that only those "in the know" know any thing. Those "in the know" are your local lawyers, most of whom belong to that God-less entity, the American Bar[fly] Association, organized under the laws of the District of Columbia in 1873. Your local lawyer will not be able to advise you in any case because the Supreme Court of the United States has seen to that, in Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64--there is no stare decises when questions of administrative law are concerned. This is clearly admitted by the courts and at least one bar(fly) association:

"The Supreme Court of the United States has 'rendered it impossible for the practicing lawyer to advise his client as to what the law is today, or even to offer a guess as to what it will be tomorrow,' a resolution adopted by the State Bar of Texas declares.
"The court 'repeatedly has overruled decisions, precedents and landmarks of the law of long standing without assigning any valid reason therefor,' read the resolution adopted yesterday, 'dismissing the question with a wave of the hand [the hand of administrative law of the bondholder], and contenting itself with the assertion that these precedents have been eroded by the processes of the years; or basing its decision on the casuistry and sophistry rather than by logic.'
"The resolution added that 'by this conduct and controversies within its own personnel, it (the court) has subjected itself to the suspicion, widely held, that it speaks, or undertakes to speak, in the voice of the appointing power [the bondholder through the Executive department], rather than by the voice of the law.'
"Presented by J. W. Hassell of Dallas, the resolution asserted that 'the Supreme Court of the United States is losing, if it has not already lost, the high esteem in which it has been held by the people." Seattle Daily Times, June 30, 1944, in Millard, J, dissenting opinion in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 363-364. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

It would seem if this newspaper article had nothing to say it would never have been used in this case. But it said something very disturbing to Justice Millard. To him, this administrative lawlessness had gotten too far out of hand:

"When a principle of law is established by a long series of decisions without a single case on the other side; to carry it out in plain good faith, is as sacred a duty as any Judge has to perform. His own motion, that it ought to be otherwise is not entitled to a moment's consideration. It is no part of our office to tinker at the law, and patch it up with new materials of our own making. Suitors are entitled to it just as it is. Bad laws can be borne; but the jus vagum aut incertum--the law that shifts and changes every time it passes through the Courts is as sore an evil and as heavy a curse as any people can suffer; and no people who are fit for self-government will suffer it long. Even a legislator, if he is wise and thoughtful, will make no change which is not absolutely necessary. Legislative changes however are prospective, and disturb nothing that is past. But Judge-made laws sweep away all the rights which may have been acquired on the faith of previous rules. For such wrongs even the legislature can furnish no redress. When the scales of justice are shaken by the hands that hold them here, there is no power elsewhere to adjust them. A simple man who has invested his money in the purchase of a title solemnly pronounced indefeasible in half a dozen cases decided by the highest tribunal of the State, may wake up from his dream of security to find himself ruined by a contrary ruling of the very same question.
"The judgment now about to be given, is one of 'death's doings.' No one can doubt that if Judge Gibson and Judge Coulter had lived, the plaintiff could not have been thus deprived of his property; and thousands of other men would have been saved from the imminent danger to which they are now exposed of losing the homes they have labored and paid for. But they [the Framers] are dead; and the law which should have protected those sacred rights has died with them. It is a melancholy reflection, that the property of a citizen should be held by a tenure so frail. But 'new lords, new laws,' is the order of the day. Hereafter if any man be offered a title which the Supreme Court has decided to be good, let him not buy if the Judges who made the decision are dead; if they are living let him get an insurance on their lives; for ye know not what a day or an hour may bring forth.
"The majority of this Court changes on the average once every nine years, without counting the chances of death and resignation. If each new set of Judges shall consider themselves at liberty to overthrow the doctrines of their predecessors, our system of jurisprudence (if system it can be called) would be the most fickle, uncertain and vicious that the civilized world ever saw." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 365-366 citing Jeremiah S. Black dissenting in Hole v. Rittenhouse, 2 Phila. 411, 417.
"We must--it is the duty of all, especially those who have taken the oath to support the constitution--actively resist each and every effort to change our form of government.
"By enactments of legislative bodies of our country, there have been created during the past few years bureaus and departments to regulate each and every act of each and every human being from the cradle to the grave. Those enactments purportedly delegate not only legislative power to, but also vest judicial power in, such bureaus and departments. Judicial power cannot constitutionally be delegated to bureaus, OPA, WLB, or other alphabetical bureaus and commissions." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, dissenting opinion.

Somehow, opinions of administrative officials must be given credence even if they are contrary to the Law of God, which is clearly a political issue:

"To be authoritative, the opinion or assertion must be entitled to acceptance. Recently there was imputed to one of our prominent Federal officials the statement that continued hostility to the program of a certain so-called philosophy of government, which means a change of form of our government, would result in bloodshed. That utterance may be cited as an authority; that is, an argument ad baculum--proves a conclusion by an appeal to force, rather than reason. In the year 711 A.D., the Moslem hordes overran Europe, first defeating the Visigoths in Spain. Those followers of Mahomet entered Europe with the Koran in one hand and a scimitar [a saber] in the other. You had the option of giving at least lip service to the religion of choice of those invaders or being liquidated. The offer of the Federal official on behalf of the domestic enemy parallels the right of choice tendered the Europeans by their foreign enemy. Today we have, also, the argumentum ad populum: An argument appealing to the prejudice of the hour rather than to intelligence." Millard, J., in Southwest Washington Production Credit Assn. v. Fender (1944), 21 Wash.2d 349, 370, dissenting opinion.

Repentance is the issue here. For repentance requires what the Law recognizes to be "liberty of conscience," and liberty of conscience is a Christian doctrine, not a humanist doctrine:

"'This is a religious people, not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." U.S. v. Laws, 163 U.S. 263, 16 Sup.Ct. 998, 41 L.Ed. 151." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 307.
"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law in Pennsylvania; not Christianity with an established church, tithes, and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Sargeant & Rawles Penn.Sup.Ct. Reports 400. [Emphasis added.]
"Conscience is not controlable by human laws, nor amenable to human tribunals. Persecution, or attempts to force consciences, will never produce conviction; and are only calculated to make hypocrites, or martyrs" Mansfield, Chamberlain v. Evans (1767), 16 Parl.Hist 313, 325. [Emphasis added.]
"Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has long been taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert. The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, but less dangerous than atrophy from not thinking at all.Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. We could justify any censorship only when the censors are better shielded against error than the censored." Jackson, J., American Communications Assn. v. Douds (1950), 339 U.S. 382, 442. [Emphasis added.]
"Liberty of thought soon shrivels without freedom of expression. Nor can truth be pursued in an atmosphere hostile to the endeavor or under dangers which are hazarded only by heroes." Frankfurter, United States v. Dennis (1951), 341 U.S. 494, 550.
"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Jackson, J., in West Virginia State Board of Equalization v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624, 641.
"And He spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?" Luke 6:39.
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:14.

Again, it is written:

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" Romans 10:13-14.

So then, the doctrine of repentance and liberty of conscience are key to understanding the difference between Lawful and legal. Legality is concerns itself with man's autonomous reason manifested in codes, rules and regulations. But Lawful concerns itself with Law, that Law from God. The administrative official of the de facto powers is restricted to a specific sphere, the legal sphere from which you must separate and maintain that separation--the political question:

"The belligerent occupant of a country has right to make regulations for protection of occupant's military interests and the exercise of police powers, with correlative duty of maintaining public order and providing for preservation of rights of inhabitants of territory occupied. Hague Regulations, art. 1, 42-56, 43, 36 Stat. 2295." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602.
"In order for decrees and regulations of a belligerent occupant of another country's territory to be recognized as valid, such decrees and regulations must not be of a political complexion, but must be in the interest of the welfare of inhabitants of area occupied." Aboitiz & Co. v. Price (1951), 99 F.Supp. 602, 612-613. [Emphasis added.]

All administrative officials of the de facto powers are bound by political questions. You cannot, however, maintain a political question by accepting security, guarantees, or protections under the Civil Rights Acts. For it is easily seen that one cannot serve two masters, and:

"5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 625. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99-100. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens [subjects].
"6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits. Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.
"7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62." Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.

Any one out there listening? This is full disclosure!

You may be asking, "What is the remedy, if any?" The fact of the matter is, that God has already provided a remedy in His Son, Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and which was recognized in Aboitiz--religion is a political question, because it was pointed out at the top of this article that religion and law are intimately connected. Did not Christ make full disclosure to each of us in His Testament? And if so, then what are the keys he has placed in our hands for His Glory?

First, let us understand the nature of a "testament" and "administrator." This is all-important:

"ADMINISTER. To manage the property of a person who dies intestate, i.e., without a will, or whose will incompletely disposes of his property, or whose will lacks a competent executor. ["Faith without works is dead"] The purpose of administration is to distribute the property [common wealth] to the persons entitled [Christians]. The document granting the authority [Scripture] under which this is done is called letters of administration." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8.
"ADMINISTRATION. 1. In public law, administration may refer generally to all the functions of the executive branch of the government. It is more particularly used of the function of members of definite governmental agencies created by statute, or under the authority of statute. The purpose is as a rule to carry out specific laws of general import. See Administrative Law.
"2. The act of administering. See administer." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8. [Insertions added]

What these two definitions are stating is this: Today's Christian is incompetent to execute the Testament of Jesus Christ, and so administrators are administrating, but not executing, the law until the Christian becomes competent enough to Lawfully execute the Testament himself. By default, the Christian has given over to administrators the management of his Inheritance in Christ, and opted for those empty benefits and privileges: civil rights. Such is known to the law as a species of quasi-contract:

"An obligation similar in character to that of a contract, but which arises not from an agreement of parties but from some relation with them, or from a voluntary act of one of them." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi-Contract," p. 2781.
"According to Professor Ames (Lect. on Leg. Hist. 160), the term was not found in the common law, but it has been taken by writers of the common law from the Roman Law.
It need only be added here that quasi-contracts were in Roman Law in almost infinite variety, but were divided into five (5) classes:
4. Hereditatis aditio, the entering upon an inheritance" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, ibid.

Notice that the provisional government is protecting the inheritance of Good and Lawful Christians, not trying to destroy it. Now, you can call the government whatever you wish, but that will not solve the problem. The problem is solved from Scripture, and has more to do with you than it does with government:

"[You] study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim 2:15.

Only by Lawfully executing the Testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, does the Good and Lawful Christian have any standing in Law to perform any thing. By Lawfully executing the Testament of Christ Jesus, the administrative law will be curtailed and leave your Life, Liberty and Dominions under God alone:

"When a 'law [testament] is suspended,' the law [testament] continues in esse, for the time being is not operative, but as soon as the power of suspension is relaxed it goes into immediate operation. Arroyo v. State, Tex., 69 S.W. 503, 505." Words and Phrases, vol. 24A, Permanent Edition, p. 98. [Insertions added.]

But you must come to the belief that this will happen, and act on that belief in the character and mode that fits that belief, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." For the apostle says:

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James 2:8-11

The answer is not found in guns, guts and blood of the innocents. It clearly is not found in "commercial lien" packages, title 42 "lawsuits," "redress of grievances" packages and the like, which make others rich by filching from you. Those are for the lawless who are non compos mentis, such as "natural persons" and "human beings," and thus rely on the lawlessness of an inferior 'god' to get along in life, sans liberty or dominion.

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Close, Inheritance, and Hereditaments

"CLOSE. n. An interest in the soil. Doctor & Stud. 30; 6 East 154; 1 Burr. 133; or in trees or growing crops. Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266, 3 Am.Dec. 215; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns.(N.Y.) 113.

"The noun "close," in its legal sense, imports a portion of land enclosed, but not necessarily inclosed by actual or visible barriers. The invisible, ideal boundary, founded on limit of title, which surrounds every man's land, constitutes it his close, irrespective of walls, fences, ditches, or the like." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 341.

"In considering the cases in which trespass might be supported for an injury to land (for breaking the close) it is laid down that the term close, being technical, signifies the interest in the soil, and not merely an inclosure in the common acceptance of that term. It lies, however temporary the tenant's interest, and though it be merely in the profits of the soil as vesturae terrae or herbatii pasturae; Co. Litt. 4b; 5 East 480; 6 id. 606; 5 T.R. 535; prima tonsura; 7 East 200; chase for warren, etc.; 2 Salk. 637; if it be in exclusion of others; 2 Bla.Rep. 1150; 8 M. & S. 499. So it lies by one having a right to take off grass; 6 East 602; or after a tenancy expires, a right to emblements; Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns.(N.Y.) 108; or by one having the right to cut timber trees; Clap v. Draper, 4 Mass. 266, 3 Am.Dec. 215.

"In every case where one man has a right to exclude another from his land, the law encircles it, if not already inclosed, with an imaginary fence, and entitles him to a compensation in damages for the injury he sustains by the act of another passing through his boundary--denominating the injurious act a breach of the inclosure; Hamm. N.P. 151; Doctor & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8, p. 30; Worrall v. Rhoads, 2 Whart.(Pa.) 430, 30 Am.Dec. 274.

"Ejectment will not lie for a close; 11 Co. 55; Cro. Eliz. 235; Ad. Ej. 24. See CLAUSUM." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), vol I, p. 506.

"There are many rights which in their mode of enjoyment partake of the character of easements, such as a custom for the inhabitants of a village to dance upon a particular close at all times of the year; 1 Lev. 176; that every inhabitant of a town shall have a way over certain land either to church or to market; 6 Co. Rep. 59;" Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 967, 968, 971. [Emphasis added.]

"INHERITANCE. A perpetuity in lands to a man and his heirs; or it is the right to succeed to the estate of a person who died intestate. Dig. 50, 16, 24. The term is applied to lands.

"2. The property which is inherited is called an inheritance.

"3. The term inheritance includes not only lands and tenements which have been acquired by descent, but also every fee simple or fee tail, which a person has acquired by purchase, may be said to be an inheritance, because the purchaser's heirs may inherit it.

"4. Estates of inheritance are divided into inheritance absolute, or fee simple; and inheritance limited, one species of which is called fee tail. They are also divided into corporeal, as houses and lands; and incorporeal, commonly called incorporeal hereditaments. (q.v.) 1 Cruise, Dig. 68; Sw. 163; Poth. des Retraits, n. 28.

"5. Among the civilians, by inheritance is understood the succession to all rights of the deceased. It is of two kinds, 1. That which arises by testament, when the testator gives his succession to a particular person; and, 2. That which arises from operation of law, which is called succession ab intestat. Hein. Lec. El. 484, 485." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, p. 633. [Emphasis added.]

"HEREDITAMENTS. Things capable of being inherited, be it corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed, and including not only lands and everything thereon, but also heir-looms, and certain furniture which, by custom, may descend to the heir together with the land. Co. Litt. 5 b; Chal. R. P. 43; Oskaloosa Water Co. v. City of Oskaloosa, 84 Ia. 407, 51 N.W. 18, 15 L.R.A. 296. By this term such things are denoted as may be the subject-matter of inheritance, but not the inheritance itself; it cannot, therefore, by its own intrinsic force, enlarge an estate prima facie a life estate, into a fee; 2 B. & P. 251; 8 Term 503." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1435.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

The Sabbath and the House of Prayer

How great is the mercy of God in providing these houses of prayer, where two or three may meet together in His name, and find their gracious Lord in the midst of them, saluting them, as in the days of His flesh, with His accustomed benediction, Peace be unto you. What a relief is it to come into these hallowed walls, out of the strife and turmoil of the world, and commit our cause, and our hopes, and our fears, to the care of God! What a comfort to leave behind us, for a brief interval, all the conflicting interests and the entangles devices of this perishable life, and to raise our thoughts to that happier time, when brother shall no longer strive with brother; when men shall be all of one mind in one house; when none shall hunger and thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun smite them by day, nor the cold by night! What a miserable scene of incessant struggle and worldliness would this land be without its Sabbath, and its house of prayer! Abused as are the blessings by so many, despised and trodden under foot, and desecrated, as are too often the holy things of this house, and of the Lord's own day, they yet shed a light and a religious cheerfulness over this world's scene, even in our imperfect observance of their duties, which those who value Christian privileges, value as the bread of life, and the best sustenance of the soul. They are the salt of our land; they keep alive the fire of religious feeling in the alter of the heart; they give a respite from earthly cares, and open a glimpse of heaven to our sight; they speak, as it were, a perpetual protest against vice and infidelity; they set up a standard for the gospel; they oppose a temporary check to the foes of the soul; they remind man that there is no peace or spiritual prosperity, but through reconciliation with God, and in communion with him.

Bits and Pieces

Compiled by Randy Lee

Don't forget the Finial

As many of you already know, Army Regulations at AR840-10, Chap. 2, 2-2b. stipulates that "National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide. It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it."

And at 2-2c. "Authorization for indoor display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display for: (4) each military courtroom."

But not surprisingly, at Chap. 8, 8-2: "Flagstaff head (finial). The flagstaff head (finial) is the decorative ornament at the top of a flagstaff.

a. Only the following finials are authorized:

(1) Eagle--Presidential flagstaffs.

(2) Spearhead--Army flagstaffs.

(3) Acorn--Marker and marking pennants flagstaffs.

(4) Ball--Advertising and recruiting flagstaffs."

The next time you're in a county or state court, check out the President's eagle finial looming above his military gold fringed flag in his military courtroom.

If you would like to receive a copy of the above select Army Regulations, call 818-347-7080.

The glory of the kingdoms of the world

"I have often wondered at the absurdity of those men, who glory in the name of Patriot(speaking of those in high places who wish to substitute good manners in place of religion--a type of humanism for God) and yet make it their business to ridicule religion and weaken its obligations. They acknowledge that it is a necessary restraint on the manners of the multitude, and therefore useful to government; and yet do their utmost to bring it into contempt. I know of no better way to expose the inconsistency of such men, than by comparing them to an architect, who with much cost and labor raises and adorns the superstructure, while he is pulling away the main pillars which support the fabric. Can that man be reckoned a genuine lover of his country, who endeavours to promote vice, and corrupt the morals of the people? And I must take the liberty to think, that this is the case of all those who propagate infidelity, and eradicate all sense of religion from the minds of men." Reverend Thomas Reefe, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Salem, South Carolina, 1785, cited in Freedom from Federal Establishment (1964), p. 91.

Our Government

"Our original three-sided government was changed after the Civil War. An Abolitionist Congress expanded Northern power first over the secessionist states, and then over all States. Then Congress added agencies that monitor, regulate, fine, and control all commercial and industrial activities: a fourth branch of Government, the bureaucracy. Then Executive Orders appeared from the White House, independent of Congress: a fifth branch. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that neither Congress or States can change their own laws (even by amendment) without its approval.

Recently, the White House decided to distribute federal funds without consulting Congressional approval and ordered an agency (the FCC) to increase taxes on telephone bills.

After these changes, we cannot define our Government. It's not a democracy when votes don't count; not a republic when unelected agencies rule; not a dictatorship with presidential terms; and not describable when it lacks a coherent structure. Perhaps it's a political platypus." Otto Scott, in Otto Scott's Compass, Vol.3, No.12. (for further information on the monthly 12 page journal Otto Scott's Compass, call 1-800-994-2323).

Senate Joint Resolution No. 41

"A War was waged from 1861 to 1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and The Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties.

"It was not a 'Civil War,' as it was not fought between two parties within the same government.

"It was not a 'War of Secession,' for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a State to secede have never been questioned.

"It was not a 'War of rebellion,' for sovereign, independent States, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other.

It was a 'War Between the States,' because twenty-two non-seceding States made war upon eleven seceding States to force them back into the Union of States. It was not until after the surrender of 1865 that secession was decided to be unconstitutional." Congressional Record, 2 March, 1928.

The Fertilizer Factory

The following comments are from a June, 1998 Associated Press release concerning bookstore owner Bill Cramer and Kenneth Starr's subpoena for Monica Lewinsky's book purchases:

"My gut feeling is that bookstores are not in a good position," said Steven Shiffrin, a Cornell University law professor.

He noted that in decisions since the 1970s the Supreme Court "has allowed police and prosecutors without a search warrant, without a subpoena, to go through your trash, to get your mailman to look at outgoing and incoming mail, to get the bank to give up your credit records, get the telephone company to give up a list of calls you receive or make. A bookstore might as well be a fertilizer factory so far as the law is concerned." Visalia Times-Delta, June '98.

Issue the Thirty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Great Divide--How a Christian Way of Life was conquered and forgotten...

Has the Law been Abolished...

A Foreword to: "How the Church Fell from Grace"

Maintaining general delivery, Part Two...

Separation of Church and State...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Great Divide--

How a Christian Way of Life was conquered and forgotten

by John Joseph

Editor's Note: The following article by John Joseph is but an outline of a more extensive pamphlet which will be available sometime in the near future, God willing.

This article is not written for those who are already puffed up with their own head knowledge, but for only those who have knowledge of Law given them by Grace and through the renewing Power of the Holy Spirit.

"But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." Mt 9:12.

Please note that it is not my intent in this article to judge any one, for Judgment has already been rendered by Christ Jesus.

Many who have been in this Holy War for the last few years have probably studied the issues of jurisdiction, venue, status, and authority. These are all interlocking at some particular point in Law, which is the purpose of this article. It is something which must be addressed because far too many patriots, statutory gurus (note the anti-Christian humanistic concepts in those terms of art), lawyers, pharisees, and others of their ilk have muddied the waters with their notions, speculations, opinions, beliefs, imaginations, and personal judgments to obfuscate these important issues. In fact they have attempted to hinder those called of, and by, God in Christ Jesus from entering the Kingdom prepared for them (note the past tense). There is no difference between a patriot, statutory guru, or a lawyer when working against God:

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that [*have the key of knowledge and who] were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52. [*Insertion added.]
"Qui non libere veritatem pronunciat proditor est veritatis --He who does not freely speak the truth is a betrayer of the truth." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1414.
"Qui obstruit aditum, destruit commodum --He who obstructs a way, passage, or entrance destroys a benefit or convenience." Black's Law Dict. (4th ed.) p. 1414.
"Qui male agit odit lucem --He who acts badly hates the light." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1413.

But God has them in derision:

"But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise [*Lawful Christian] government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed [*not meek before Christ Jesus], they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities [*appointed and established in Law by God]. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:10-12. [*Insertions added.]
"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Isaiah 29:20-21.
"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." Ps 2:1-4.

Notice carefully what our Good Brother Peter is telling us: lawyers, patriots, and statutory gurus, because they hold the Anointed Word of God in contempt, are as natural brute beasts. Could they be likened to the serpent, one of several "beasts of the field" in the Garden? Our Brother Sir Richard Baker has this to say of those who are ungodly:

"But have then ungodly men counsel? One would think it were want of counsel that makes them ungodly, for who would be ungodly if he had counsel to direct him? Certainly counsel they have, and wise counsel too; that is, wise in the eye of the world, and wise for the works of the world; but wise in the sight of God, and wise for the works of godliness, they have not; and in that kind of wisdom ungodly men are your greatest counsellors--greatest in the ability of counsel, and greatest in the busying themselves with counselling. For their wisdom in counsel we have a precedent in Achitophel, who was in his time a most wicked man, and yet for counsel was the oracle of his time. And, for their forwardness in counselling, it is a quality they have, as it were ex traduce [by ingrafting], from their father the devil, who, no sooner creatures were made that were capable of counsel, but he fell a-counselling; and such, indeed, are all the ungodly, as it is in the Psalm, the poison of asps in under their lips. It serves not their turn to do wickedly in their persons, but they must be drawing others into wickedness by poisoning and infecting them with wicked counsel. So, then, the not walking in the counsel of the ungodly, is not to hearken to the hissing of the serpent, nor to make wicked men our counsellors, nor in the course and actions of our life to be directed by them." Sir Richard Baker, Meditations and Disquisitions upon Certain Psalms (1639, reprinted 1988 by Sprinkle Publications), page 12.

Remember the above whenever you seek counsel of the ungodly. Good and Lawful Christians, having the Mind of Christ, not being natural brute beasts, hold with the simplicity in Christ so they can confuse the wise of this world. Such is the Blessed Ways of God, our Father:

"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger." Psalm 8:2.
"For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient, The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:2-4.

This is a part of that great division between Good and Lawful Christians and the world. That division is very important, because it determines all other jurisdictions and venues. This may not seem self-evident at this time. Please be patient in the Lord. When progressing through this article and continuing through the full pamphlet, it is my hope that you will have all the tools necessary to look at a particular situation and stand on the Holy Ground bought with and hallowed by the Precious Blood of our Mighty King Christ Jesus.

"BOUGHT. The word 'bought' implies a completed transaction, a vesting of the right of title to and possession of the property sold. Bull v. Morrison, Tex.Civ.App., 241, S.W. 561, 562, and also imports a valuable consideration [*salvation by, in, and through Christ Jesus]. Grimes v. State, 32 Ga.App. 541, 123 S.E. 918." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., page 232. [*Insertion added].
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

A Good and Lawful Christian is a bondservant to the One Who bought him. This is a leading indicator between the Good and Lawful Christian and the human being.

The title looks misleading, but it is not. The Great Divide it is referring to is the Great Divide between church and State venues and jurisdictions (see Separation of Church and State, Page fourteen). Just about all patriots and all of the other idolizing ilk "professing to be wise" have no concept as to where this Great Division is or takes place. They just want "their constitutional rights" or "day in court," not knowing any thing about which they speak. When you cast the Law of God aside, you cast the Way, the Truth, and Life aside.

I will say, with Scripture being my sole basis for this statement, he who looks to constitutions or man's equity for any thing, that man is a fallen man, united in death to Adam, and not united in and to the quickening Spirit of Christ Jesus:

"Individuals [*Christians] rely for protection of their rights [*in and through Christ] on [*Christian] law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351. [Insertions added.]
"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [*Scripture], rights [*jus ex non scripto], habits [*customs and usages], and modes of thought [*See Philippians 2:2]. There is nothing primitive [*mysterious] in it: it is all derived from a known source [*Scripture]. It presupposes an organized [*Christian] society, [*Scriptural] law, order, property [*executorship], personal freedom [*Christian Liberty], a love of political liberty [*in Christ Jesus], and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny [*which we have lost in this present age]. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13. [*Insertions added. The insertions made will be addressed later.]

The divisions between the States can be seen from any map showing the several States on the North American continent. Notice the capitalization on the word "States." I bring this up, because in Law and in English grammar, capitalization is vitally important for making distinctions and exceptions to the general rule:

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Insertion in original.]

It is not enough to know this, however. We must know in Christ the general rule to understand the distinction. The general rule is that the church always exists, first; as a consequence of this, states, in the nature of a quasi-corporation, exist; but, States do not exist ex proprio vigore. It is never the reverse:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mt 16:18. [Emphasis added.]
"Ecclesia non moritur --The church does not die." Black's Law Dictionary (4th. ed., 1957 & 1968) p. 602.

The Christian Church

"The meaning of the word church is the same as that of 'congregation,' or 'assembly.' In this sense, there may be a good or a bad church. But the specific meaning of the word church, at the present time, is a body of worshippers, united together (generally, [*not specifically--non-denominational in Law]) in one place."--Rev. E. W. Humphreys, in Gospel Herald, May 23, 1863, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 185.
"CHURCH, (a) the sacred building, aedes sacra: © the congregation, *coetus sacer: *sacra publica, orum; n. (the divine service): to go to church, *sacra publica adire; *sacra publicis adesse: to perform the church service (of the clergyman), rebus divinis interesse: to attend church, sacris adesse (of a layman): © THE CHURCH (i.e. the whole body of the visible Church), legis Christianae studiosi (Ammian, 25, 10); qui Christum sequuntur; civitas or respublica Christianorum; ecclesia (ecclesiastical)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), pp. 94-95.

I will qualify one thing here at this juncture. The church is not the public, for 'the public' is unqualified in the sense that all, Christian and non-Christian alike, are included. This, in reality, is clearly not the case. Christ alludes to this and gives us this doctrine:

"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Mt 12:50. [Emphasis added.]

The true church of Christ then, is that Body doing the works He did, and does, in revealing God, our Father, to us and to the public. This does not include works of the natural man such as philanthropy, which is for human comfort and the relief of human suffering, but has nothing to do with the inner man. It is the inner man which must be renewed so that the outer works will flow unhindered under the direction of the Holy Spirit. In this way the church grows and gives its fruit "being instant in season."

States (with a capital "S") do not come into existence until their organic law is established by the church for political purposes. The courts also recognize this truth in law:

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), "State," p. 3124. [Emphasis added.]

The Law that permeates through, surrounds, and binds the community cannot be human law based on a fiction called a "social compact." Why? Because the power to contract must exist in Law before the compact is formed. All Lawful powers are created and sustained by Law. Therefore, the Law must already exist; and if it already exists, of what need is there for this anti-Christian, God-less, humanist "social compact?" Only to create a "legal personality" for those outside the Body of Christ:

"BODY POLITIC OR CORPORATE. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E.2d 413, 414. A term applied to a corporation. County. Bazzoli v. Larson, 40 Ohio App. 321, 178 N.E. 331, 332; Lindburg v. Bennett, 117 Neb. 66, 218 N.W. 851, 855. Municipality. Middle-States Utilities Co. v. City of Osceola, 1 N.W.2d 643, 645, 231 Iowa 851, 855. School district. Patrick v. Maybank, 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, 534.
"State or nation or public associations, Utah State Building Commission, for Use and Benefit of Mountain States Supply Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co., 105 Utah 11, 140 P.2d 763, 767." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 222. [*Note the ambiguity and non-Christian foundation of the term. Good and Lawful Christians do not need the social compact, for they are already one in Christ Who has determined the limits and boundaries of every man's Lawful acts.]

Looking at this definition, more closely, we see the words "public good," "municipality," "district." These words cannot go unnoticed and must be investigated to arrive at a true conclusion of the subject-matter being conveyed. The questions obviously arise; 1. How does any one know what is good without the revealed Law in Christ? And, 2. Who are the "public?" The public is everyone, Christian and human. So the public good must be good for both the Christian and the human. This is an impossibility. Humans are pagans, infidels, heretics, apostates, legal entities, and natural brute beasts. Good and Lawful Christians are none of those. Humans know not the ways of God, yet they know Him. This is a major aspect of the Great Divide.

Because Law already exists, and the Inherited Rights are already established by it, then the Right to establish the outward form, lacking substance in relation to a Good and Lawful Christian, evidenced in a State by the church, antedates the State. In 1649, William Dell made this point in Law quite clear:

"The right church then is not the whole multitude of the people whether good or bad, that join together in an outward form or way of worship.And therefore I shall not speak of this Church. But the church I shall speak of is the true church of the New Testament, which, I say, is not any outward or visible society, gathered together into the consent or use of outward things, forms, ceremonies, worship, as the Churches of men are; neither is it known by seeing or feeling, or the help of any outward sense, as the society of mercers or drapers, or the like; but it is a spiritual and invisible fellowship, gathered together in the unity of faith, hope, and love, and so into the unity of the Son, and of the Father by the Spirit; wherefore it is wholly hid from carnal eyes, neither hath the [*secular] world any knowledge or judgment of it.
"This true church is the communion of Saints, which is the communion believers have with one another; not in the things of the world, nor in the things of man, but in the things of God. For as believers have their union in the Son, and in the Father, so in them also they have their communion; and the communion they have with one another in God cannot be in their own things, but in God's things, even in His light, life, righteousness, wisdom, truth, love, power, peace, joy, &c. This is the true communion of Saints, and this communion of Saints is the true Church of God.
"Now this true Church of God differs from the churches of men in very many particulars, as follows.
"In the churches of men members are admitted through an outward confession of doctrine; but none are admitted into this true church but through a new birth from God and his Spirit. John 3.: Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which is the right church of the New Testament.
"The Churches of men knit themselves together into such societies by some outward covenant or agreement among themselves. But the true church is knit into their society among themselves by being first knit unto Christ, their Head; and as soon as ever they are one with Him, they are also one with one another in Him; and are not first one among themselves, and then after one with Christ. So that the true church is a spiritual society knit unto Christ by faith, and knit to one another in Christ by the Spirit and love; and this makes them infinitely more than one than any outward covenant they can engage themselves in, the union wherein God makes us one, passing all the unions wherein we can make ourselves one.
-------------------------
"Now the true church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as, it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of His church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world. "As the church of the faithful hath power from Christ to meet together, soto appoint its own outward orders [*constitutions] .And these things each church or communion of Saints may order by itself, according to the wisdom of the Spirit, so it observe these rules. That they do all things in love, seeing all laws without love [*in the Spirit] are tyranny; and so whatsoever is not from, and for, love [*in the Spirit], is not to be appointed; and if it be, it is again to be abolished; seeing no text of the scripture itself, if it build not up love, is rightly interpreted. They are to do all things for peace.They must appoint nothing as of necessity; there is no more pestilent doctrine in the church than to make those things necessary which are not necessary. For thus the liberty of faith is extinguished, and the consciences of men ensnared." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), cited by Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp. 303-310. [*Insertions added].

Law then is to declare and settle questions between the ruler and the ruled. However, it must be in Truth, not in fiction:

"Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions --Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

Constitutions, whenever framed by the Body of Believers in Christ therefore settle the controversy between their author and ruler, the subject-matter of them, and those who will occupy the benefices enumerated in them. These truths were, at an earlier time, written of as a matter of fact:

"The greatest commotions in kingdoms have for the most part been raised and maintained for and about power and liberties of the rulers and the ruled, together with the due bounds and limits of either. And the like hath fallen out in churches, and is continued to this day in the sharpest contentions (though now the seat of the war is changed) who should be the first adequate and complete subject of that church-power which Christ hath left on earth; how bounded, and to whom committed. This controversy is in a special manner the lot of these present times." Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye's Introduction to John Cotton's The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (1644) cited by Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), p. 293.

Note carefully, the Powers to do any of the above Lawfully belong solely to the church--not human beings--because these Powers appertain solely to the Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ. This Truth in Law is vital, for by it only truly Lawful governments exist and without it no Lawful government can ever exist. This implies a different source of right than what human beings are able to claim. This Right is vested by Inheritance in and through Christ Jesus and is fully recognized by current courts:

"Despite repeated statements implying the contrary, it is the source of the right sued upon, and not the ground upon which federal jurisdiction is founded, which determines the governing law." Handbook of the Law of the Federal Courts (1983), p. 396, n. 47, quoting Maternally Yours Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop Inc. (1956), C.A.2d, 234 F.2d 538, 540 n. 1. [Emphasis added.]
"Although it has been vigorously asserted that the rights specified in the Amends. 1 to 8 are among the privileges and immunities protected by this clause, and although this view has been defended by many distinguished jurists, including several justices of the federal Supreme Court, that court holds otherwise and asserts that it is the character of the right claimed, whether specified as above or not, that is controlling." State v. Felch (1918), 105 A. 23, 92 Vt. 477. [*Character of a right is determined by its source]. [Emphasis and *insertion added].

Note that this has nothing to do with any derivatives of "citizenship." This has to do solely with Christ's church and the Ministerial Powers He has vested in it in general, and in every True Believer. Purported "rights" of "citizenship" have a source altogether separate and distinct from those solely held in and by the Body of Christ. They are termed in Law "civil rights" and are distinguished from political rights:

"When we speak of a person having a civil right we must necessarily refer to a civil right as distinguished from the elemental idea of rights absolute. We must have in mind a rights given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law which creates it." Nickell v. Rosenfield (1927), 82 CA 369. [jus gentium] [Emphasis added.]
"Civil Rights are those rights which the municipal law [jus gentium] will enforce " State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969. [Emphasis added.]
"Civil rightsare not connected with the organization and administration of government. Winnet v. Adams, 71 Neb. 817, 99 N. W. 681. Or as otherwise defined, civil rights are appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof." State of Iowa v. Railroad Co., C. C. Iowa, 37 F. 498, 3 L.R.A. 554; State v. Powers, 51 N.J.L. 432, 17 A. 969.
"The law merchant, of which insurance law is a part, is said to be a part of international law, but is international only in the sense that the principles applicable are those that are recognized in all civilized nations... ..that is, the law merchant is a portion of the jus gentium [*because it is commercial law] but not of the jus inter gentes." Vance on Insurance (1951), p. 12. [*Insertion added].

They are also of a private nature, having nothing common in and with the Body of Believers. This is another major aspect of the Great Divide.

The lex loci of Christ and His church then governs all within the Law, and that created to be an outward form, or evidence, of the church:

"The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For He hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." Psalm 24:1-4.
"LEX LOCI. The law of the place. This may be of several descriptions but, in general, lex loci is used for lex loci contractus.
"The 'lex loci' furnishes the standard of conduct. Russ v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 220 N.C. 715, 18 S.E.2d 130, 131; it governs as to all matters going to the basis of the right of action itself. State of Maryland for the Use of Joynes v. Coard, 175 Va. 571, 9 S.E.2d 454, 458.
"The substantive rights of parties to action are governed by "lex loci" or law of place where rights were acquired or liabilities incurred. Sullivan v. McFetridge, Sup., 55 N.Y.S.2d 511, 516; Gray v. Blight, C.C.A.Colo., 112 F.2d 696, 699." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1056. [Emphasis added.]
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams quoted by Thornton, J. Wingate, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (1860).

Rights acquired in and through Christ Jesus are governed by the lex loci of the church revealed in Scripture. God's Law therefore is to rule in all situations, at all times, all other forms of law not with standing. Therefore, the right to establish States under the church does not find its source in the constitutions themselves. This is in full compliance with Scripture:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9:6-7. [Emphasis added.]

Constitutions are: One, not contracts with the subject-matter they create; and, Two, covenants by and between those establishing them. Thus, the State is always the possession of the church and is their interface to those outside the Body of Christ. This is evident from both Texas v. White, supra, and Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, supra, and the following:

"CONSTITUTE. 1. To station [*put] in a given place [*venue], state [*status, condition], or character [*persona]; esp., to appoint or ordain to an office or function of; as, we constituted him captain; constituted authorities. 2. To set up; establish, as a law, a proceeding, etc. 3. To form; make up, as being the constitutive element or elements." Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1925), page 219. [*Insertions added.]

Again, William Dell in 1649:

"Now one thing more I shall add touching the church's power to appoint its own orders:that the true church hath power to appoint these outward orders, not for itself only, but also for its officers (which also are part of itself), and it is not to suffer its officers to frame or impose such on it. For the church is not the officers', but the officers are the church's." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), p. 310.

And, nothing has changed:

"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [*incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.

And, who is to be served:

"SERVIENT. Serving; subject to a service or servitude. A servient estate is one which is burdened with a servitude. Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648, 652; Saratoga State Waters Corporation v. Pratt, 227 N.Y. 429, 125 N.E. 834, 838." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1534.
"SERVIENT TENEMENT. An estate [*State] in respect of which a service is owing, as the dominant tenement [*Christ's church] is that to which the service is due. Northwestern Improvement Co. v. Lowry, 104 Mont. 289, 66 P.2d 792, 110 A.L.R. 605." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1534.
"FIEF. The right bestowed on any body, beneficium: *feudam (technical term). The estate held as a fief, pradium velut fiduciarium datum (after Liv., 32, 28, p. in.): praedium beneficiarium (after Sen. Ep., 90, 3). To give any body any thing as a fief, praedium velut fiduciarium alicui dare (after Liv., 32, 28, p. in.): to receive any thing as a fief, praedium velut fiduciarium ab aliquo accipere (after the above passage): landed property held as a fief, ager velut fiduciarius (after Sen. Ep. 90, 2): that may be held as a fief, quod velut beneficium dari potest (in forensic Latin, feudalis): the deed relating to the fief; i.e., the deed of feoffment, literae beneficiariae: the heir of an estate held as a fief, heres praedii velut fiduciarii; heres praedii beneficiarii." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 297. [Emphasis added.]

If all this sounds strange to you, be patient. The State is always the servient tenement or fief in relation to the church. This statement is true, however, only if you can evidence that you are one in Christ Jesus having this relation to the State. This is evident from the testimony of Christ:

"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me." John 5:36. [Emphasis added.]
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." John 10:25. [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the same works that you do bear witness of you and by Whom you are led and sent. This has everything to do with being "right heirs" in and through Christ Jesus, through Whom all Lawful Powers flow.

A Foreword to

"How the Church Fell from Grace"

by Pastor Warren Lee,

The church at Kaweah

Editor's Note: All of us at The Christian Jural Society Press wish to extend our heart felt gratitude to Pastor Warren Lee for the following special Foreword he has written for the book, "How the Church Fell from Grace," by John William and John Joseph.

Lo this, we have searched it, so it is; hear it, and know thou it for thy good. Job 5:27.

The subject of the unregistered or unlicensed church is not new. It is a doctrine that has been "searched" out, "it is so;" and we beseech the reader to "know it" for their individual "good," as well as the church's well-being.

Forty-five years ago when God called me into an independent pastoral ministry, being fresh out of Bible College, I asked various pastors, deacons, and elders, "How do I start a church?" The answer was unanimous-- "you must incorporate."

Not knowing any better, at the time, I followed the flock to the State's slaughter-house and incorporated "The Church of Jesus Christ of Venice, California."

Deep in my spirit I sensed it was wrong, but all the other "Churches" I had attended were corporations, so I didn't know any other way.

The padlocking of the Faith Baptist Church in the early 1980's in Louisville, Nebraska, and the subsequent jailing of the pastor became the catalyst for my quest into studying how, "The church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of truth" could extricate itself from the quagmire of State control. I read every thing I could get my hands on concerning the then sprouting unregistered church movement.

Pastors soon began to realize after the Louisville incident, that in ignorance they had opted for something other than the Sovereignty of Christ Jesus over His church; and, that we needed to once again recognize that the Lord Jesus must have "preeminence in all things," and that His church would never subordinate itself to any inferior authority (i.e., the State).

The Ekklesia, or church of Jesus Christ, is made up of all true believers in the Deity of Christ and His substitutionary death on the cross for our sins. The church exists apart from and beyond the control of, and not subject to, any earthly government.

A disciple of Christ should not find it difficult to do right if convinced that you have God's mind in the matter. However, truth can be very emotionally discomfiting for some who become ensnared by a spirit of fear.

When The church at Kaweah began the process of un-incorporating, I thoroughly explained to the congregation the Scriptural basis for the decision. There were some folks in the church that became frightened. They feared "What might happen to the church;" they feared the Internal Revenue Service repercussions, and the bottom line was they feared the loss of their tax deductions.

We felt the loss in terms of numbers: our music leader, organist, and pianist all quit. About one-third of the congregation and about two-thirds of the weekly tithes were suddenly gone.

The church at the time was fifty thousand dollars in debt. We were also without a pianist or organist for almost a year; however, within four years we were totally out of debt. We in truth give all the glory to God. "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it."

There is a temporal cost to follow the way of Christ Jesus, but the long term rewards are worth it. Hearing God's promises is not sufficient. Acting on His Word and relying on His Providence and Blessings is sufficient.

It has now been over five years since our exodus from the bondage of Egypt (Exodus 20:2) and returning to His preeminence in all things here in The church at Kaweah. The church at Kaweah now enjoys the Blessings of Liberty in Christ in many, many, fruitful ways. God has blessed us beyond measure and our cup now runneth over. "It is our Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes."

John William and John Joseph have certainly fulfilled the admonition of Job 5:27. The incorporated Church has sold itself out for a bowl of pottage, called 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax exempt status. The authors clearly demonstrate the origin, development, and consequences of church incorporation.

Faced with this evidence the charge to pastors and incorporated Churches every where is, "Come out of her, my people."

Pastor Warren Lee,
The church at Kaweah

On the third day of the eighth month
in the nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of the Sovereign Reign of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

Pastor Warren Lee's
Scriptural Notes on Job 5:27

Fulfillment of scriptural admonition of Job 5:27 by John William and John Joseph in writing "How the Church Fell from Grace.":

1. "Lo this" = the church deceived; 501(c)(3) their pursuit.

2. "we have searched it." The origin, development and consequences of church entanglement with the State.

3. Conclusion: "it is so." Compelled by the evidence, they challenge the church to "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4.

4. "hear it." "Let these sayings sink down into your ears." Luke 9:44.

5. "know thou it." Hearing, alone, is not enough; truth that does not motivate us to action is of little worth.

6. "for thy good." The blessings of God will be upon His people. "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart; for I am called by Thy name, O Lord God of hosts." Jeremiah 15:16.

Editor's Note: "How the Church Fell from Grace" is 209 pages in 5" x 8" format, with 485 footnotes, Biblical Citations Index, Words Defined Index, and listed Cases and Works Cited. It is available in book form only giving an in-depth understanding of what the Body of Believers face under the 501(c)(3) corporation masquerading as "The Church."

Has the Law been Abolished?

by Larrie Palmer

There is, within the Body of Christ, a view which holds that the law has been abolished for the Christian. And, at first look, this might appear to be so. But a deeper investigation revealed some interesting results.

I have recently engaged a brother in the discussion of this subject and we have discussed the issue in depth. This has, of course, caused me to investigate what the Word of God would have to say and it may be of interest to you to know the result.

I will present my investigation of a number of verses relating to the the issue of the law being abolished or done away with. I have endeavored to make a review of a number of passages which give the indication that the law has been removed or abolished with the advent of Christ. The purpose for this is to confirm what is, in fact, the intended meaning of the texts in the light of their context and their historical- grammatical setting. Further, it should be noted that I have relied on the following resources: Exposition of the Old And New Testaments by John Gill; The Pulpit Commentary; The MacArthur New Testament Commentary by John MacArthur; Matthew Henry's Commentary; Adam Clarke's Commentary; Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament; The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge; Strong's Concordance; and, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. You will notice that these represent a wide cross section of authors, not favoring one particular denomination or system of theology over another as well as covering from the 1700's to today.

Exposition

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" Galatians 5:1

In Galatia we have a problem that had been plaguing Paul throughout Asia Minor. As he would travel from city to city, Jewish enemies would follow and attempt to cause the new believers to adopt Judaism to their Christianity. This included such practices as circumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial law. Paul, in writing to the Galatians, is seeking to put a stop to the effects of this type of deception. The Galatians were attempting to add works to the gospel of grace.

In the verse cited it is important to define what liberty we are to stand in and what yoke of bondage we are to avoid. The word liberty here is defined in Vine's as setting us free from the bondage we were in -- the bondage of sin. A direct cross reference to this verse (TSK) is Romans 6:18 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." We have not come to a liberty where we can do as we please but rather we have been set free from the power of sin. We have liberty from sin and now may live to righteousness. In being given this liberty we are cautioned not to become entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The word again here signifies that we were once in a yoke of bondage and were delivered. Given the context of being freed from sin, it would be inconsistent to surmise that this yoke is anything but the bondage of sin or self righteousness.

John Gill, a commentator from the 1700's, states that the freedom this verse speaks of is not a freedom from the law but from the penalty of it. We are free "...from the law, the ceremonial law, as an handwriting of ordinances, a rigid severe schoolmaster, and a middle wall of partition, and from all its burdensome rites and institutions; from the moral law as a covenant of works, and as administered by Moses; and from the curse and condemnation of it, its bondage and rigorous exaction, and from all expectation of life and righteousness by the deeds of it; but not from obedience to it, as held forth by Christ, and as a rule of walk and conversation."

It is the law that shows us our sin. If we try to keep the law as a way to cause God to save us we only discover how deep our sin is. The penalty of this sin is death. We walk under this burden. The Galatians had come to a knowledge of grace, that the penalty of the law had been paid. Paul did not want them to return to the bondage of expecting life and righteousness from the law and not the One who paid the penalty. We conclude that this verse does no violence to the law but indicates we have been freed from the bondage or domination of sin.

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" Galatians 5:18

This verse adds a more pointed thought that we are somehow removed from obedience to the law. It is at this point that we must define what being under the law means.

The context of this verse can be very helpful. As we saw in verse one of this chapter we are at liberty from the power of sin in our lives. Paul goes on to say that if we return to the law as a source of salvation and righteousness then we have fallen from Christ's righteousness. He then warns us not to use our liberty as an occasion for sin and then we are instructed to walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Next, we come to the verse in question. Following this, the discussion continues outlining the works of the flesh and then the works of the Spirit-filled Christian. Note with care that in verse 17 Paul tells pointedly about the Spirit and flesh in battle and then says "but." This word offers a contrast and we are told that if we are led by the Spirit we are not under the law. If one is being led by the Spirit he is no longer under the dominion of sin and the penalty of the law. He is no longer in the position that he "cannot do the things that he would" (v. 17). Matthew Henry writes: "...it will appear that you are not under the law, not under the condemning, though you are still under the commanding power of it..."

Galatians 3:10 states that as many as are under the works of the law are under the curse. What is this curse? The dominion and bondage of sin of which the penalty is death. Matthew Henry reminds us here that the man who labors or toils under the law for justification will only be brought to his true condition -- sin, bondage and deserving of wrath. Romans 6:14 ("For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace") shows this same connection. If you are under the law you are under the penalty and dominion of sin.

We can conclude here that no longer being under the law is a reference to being freed from the bondage and penalty of sin.

"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" Colossians 2:14

This particular verse requires a close look at the Greek to determine what the handwriting of ordinances that are against us really are. Does it indicate the law? The Greek word represented by handwriting here is cheirographon which, according to both Thayer's and Vine's, has its historical meaning in the idea of a certificate of debt much like an I.O.U. of today. When placed next to the word ordinances or dogma, which in the Greek means decree, doctrine or ordinance, we render a certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us.

What then is the debt? The debt owed is the penalty for sin. This penalty is required for the breaking of the law. As we know, it is Christ who has paid this debt. It has been blotted out. The nailing to the cross of this debt is metaphorically speaking of Christ's death.

The term blotting out has significance as well. During the time that these books were first written there was the practice of using water to make the ink on the page become soluble, then the area was blotted to remove the ink/water solution effectively removing what had been written. It is important that, in this process, the book remains intact and the contents of the book is not nullified.

It is noted by the commentators that the context here would support an understanding that the ceremonial law has been annulled by the work of Christ. This is clear when looking at verse 16, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

We conclude then that the debt owed for sin has been blotted out by the work of Christ.

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Ephesians 2:15

As we proceed it should be evident that many of these verses are cross-references for one another. This fact is important as it is my intention to allow the Scripture to interpret itself preventing as little violence as possible on my part. This verse is a direct cross reference with Colossians 2:14. This will play heavily in our understanding of this passage. The law of commandments contained in ordinances here are the same ordinances in Colossians 2:14. The Pulpit Commentary gives the following exposition of this passage (Ephesians 2:15):

"'In ordinances' limits the law of commandments. The law abolished or superseded by Christ was the law of positive requirements embodied in things decreed, evidently the ceremonial law of the Jews, certainly not the moral law ("Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law Romans 3:31, KJV").

From the Pulpit Commentary:

"This leads us to the view that God's law, the revelation of his will relative to his people's conduct, given in successive developments - patriarchal, mosaical, prophetical - is, with such modifications as have been made by the crucifixion and the priesthood of Christ, and by the mission and work of the Holy Spirit, God's law relative to his people's conduct still. The cross and priestly work of Christ as we are taught by this epistle and the epistle to the Hebrews, do for all Christians eliminate from this law its ceremonial prescriptions altogether; but its moral prescriptions, more fully perfected by the moral teaching of Jesus and his apostles, are still incumbent upon them. Those Christians who really give themselves up to the Spirit to be taught and animated by him who are as St. Paul says "spiritual", these use this law (as Calvin phrases it) as a doctrina liberalis: the law of the Spirit of life within them leads and enables them to recognize, and so to speak assimilate, the kindred import of the law embodied in the letter; which thus ministers to their instruction and consolation. The letter of the law is now their helper, no longer their absolute rigid rule."

We conclude then that the ceremonial law has been done away with but the moral law still stands for our use.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4

This verse presents a different profile than others that we have looked at so far in that it does not deal with the ceremonial law as such or the freeing from the penalty of the law.

As we look at the context of this verse we note that justification is the theme of this passage. Paul starts with the statement that he wants his brethren of Israel to be saved. He goes on to explain that the Jews have sought their own righteousness and not the righteousness of God. He then states that Christ is the end or telos of the law. When this usage is compared with others in the New Testament the meaning can be drawn out as purpose. It is the purpose of the law to bring men to Christ's righteousness, not to provide the means for justification. So the word end here does not indicate that the law has come to its end or termination. In defense of the usage of telos I offer the following: In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word purpose appears as one of the meanings for the word telos (5056). Thayer's Greek Lexicon concurs in the sense that a point or goal is to be reached. Vine's Expository Dictionary states that the sense of Romans 10:4 is the "ending of a state or process." I draw from these that the word here indicates a goal or state to be reached, implying a process. The definition of purpose is: A result or an effect that is intended or desired; an intention.

The phrase "for righteousness" is key to interpreting this verse. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Many of that day were attempting to gain righteousness by the law but, as Galatians 3:10 points out, the law is a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for His righteousness. It is important to note here that it seems that I might believe that justification can come from the law. Let me state categorically that justification is by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work alone. This is what this verse is saying. Men are driven to Christ by the law as seeing what they really are. They realize that their obedience is impossible and throw themselves at the feet of Christ believing Him and receiving His righteousness. The verse does not end the law but shows what its purpose is -- to drive men to Christ. Note also that, if the definitive abolishment of the law was to be meant here, the word teleo (5055) could have been used. Teleo means to end, complete, execute or discharge, as defined by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

So, the law is not terminated here but its purpose is revealed.

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers..." 1 Timothy 1:9

In considering 1 Timothy 1:9 we must include verse 8 ("But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully"). The law is good if used lawfully. What is most interesting about verse 9 is the usage of "righteous man." The word for righteous here is dikaios which means equitable or innocent. It does not indicate a justified man or dikaioo would have been used. I conclude, as do most commentators, that this "righteous man" is one who is living in relative innocence. The law was rather for those who are mentioned after. As Jesus said, those who are well do not need a doctor but those who are sick.

Having now dealt in detail with a number of verses we will look at some others is light of what we have learned.

Given the fact that the law does not bring justification we also understand that the law will not perfect. In dealing with Hebrews 7:15-19, ("And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannuling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God") we understand that the context is the ceremonial law and the Levitical priesthood. As has already been pointed out, these cannot justify a man.

We know that the Old Covenant cannot stand with the New because it cannot provide what Christ has. This routine of institutions and rituals cannot be relied upon to meet the need for righteousness. Most commentators relate Hebrews 8:13 to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. The context of the surrounding chapters would indicate the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant are in view and we know that these have indeed vanished away with the excellency of Christ's sacrifice and the place where they were conducted is no more.

So, what is the Christian's relationship to the law? I would illustrate the point like this:

Colossians 3:9 says, "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds." Note that Paul is commanding, not suggesting, that Christians ought not to lie. This is found to be in accord with the moral law of God as found in Exodus 20:16 which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." When we find these connections (all of the Ten Commandments except the Sabbath are restated in the New Testament) as exhortations or commands from the apostles, are we to conclude that we are under the law if we follow them? Only if we define being under the law as having to do with any rule of conduct. But the indwelling of the Spirit witnesses that we should not lie.

So then, are we in bondage to the law if we walk in obedience to the exhortation to "lie not"? No, rather because of the Spirit's indwelling, we strive not to lie. We do not want to grieve Him. We want to honor God in our lives by having a walk worthy of His calling. Therefore the law has become a rule of conduct for us. While it is true that we will fail to walk perfectly, we have no condemnation. All we need do is confess. We do not seek works for justification but rather to the glory of God as a proof of our faith, as James says.

Conclusions

Having covered a number of these passages we can begin to draw some conclusions. I am sure that there are more verses that we could dissect but will these verses now stand in opposition to what we have learned? The consistency of the scripture will stand this test, no doubt.

It is evident that there is a division of the law into various parts of which, one, is the ceremonial. This part of the law has indeed been fulfilled in the coming of Christ and we see this as the consistent teaching of scripture. We cannot draw from this though that all of the law has been wiped away. God's moral law cannot change or be set aside. It is that which holds our universe together. But there is fulfillment. When Christ came He provided the one sacrifice that met all the requirements of God. None other is necessary. The Sabbath is similar. Christ is our rest. No other Sabbath is necessary.

We also can see that the phrase "under the law" is to be interpreted as being under the domination and the penalty of sin. This is the yoke of bondage that we all faced as unsaved and Paul rightly asks the Galatians why they would want to return to this state!

Finally, we can see the evidence that the law was never meant to be a vehicle for justification. The only way to be justified before God is in Christ's righteousness.

I hope that this study has brought some clarity to the issue. The law of God is not to be feared by the Christian but rather embraced and understood in the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us in working out our own salvation.

Maintaining general delivery

Part Two

by Randy Lee

With the positive response towards last month's "Maintaining general delivery," and several requests for further information on this vital subject, the following is presented.

This month, we will examine and analyze the Postmaster letter below, and then further along we will comment on the response letter that I have composed for rebuttal, which you will also find below.

These two letters are from an actual encounter with a Postmaster. The main texts and capitalization are the same as the originals. The only changes are in the names and locations, for purposes of discretion.

The Postmaster Letter

Postmaster
Jamestown Post Office
United States Postal Service

DATE June 10, 1998

SUBJECT: GENERAL DELIVERY USAGE

TO: Mr. Robert Joseph
General Delivery
Jamestown, OR 96490-9998

Dear Mr. Joseph,

Please fill out the enclosed General Delivery Service Application and return it to a window clerk for processing.

It appears that you are not using general delivery as it was intended. General delivery is a temporary means of delivery for three reasons:

b. For customers who want post office box service when boxes are not available.

c. For customers who are not eligible to receive carrier delivery.

I am asking for the application to be completed to determine where you reside. This will help us to find out if you are eligible for carrier delivery or post office box service, of which both are available.

You want any mail received at general delivery held for longer that 30 days, if necessary. This demonstrates that you intend on using general delivery as a holding service, which it is not. As you stated, subject to 1.2, general delivery mail can be held for longer periods if requested by either the sender or the addressee. Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) D930, 1.2 states that a postmaster may refuse or restrict general delivery for two reasons:

2. To a customer whose mail volume or service level (e.g., mail accumulation) cannot reasonably be accommodated.

If you cannot comply with my request, I will have to enforce DMM, D930, 1.2.

I think that caller service would best fit your needs, as it would be good for 6 months and you could pick it up any time the post office is open, as you do now with general delivery mail.

In your letter, you make numerous references to obsolete materials, publications or bulletins. Past issue of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM, Issue 53, January 1, 1998, is the Postal Service's authority on the delivery of the mail. The old Post Office Manual became obsolete when the various manuals such as the DMM were completed after Postal Reorganization in 1970.

The article that you referred to in Postal Bulletin 21877, was addressing General delivery Service for a homeless person and how it could be extended. One thing correctly addressed was the need for suitable identification, so again, please comply with my request concerning the application. I find it hard to comprehend you as homeless with the fine computer you use to manufacture the letters you send me.

You went to great lengths to show that you are not a customer. Under your signature is the line: (Patron) Robert Joseph. The Random House College Dictionary defines a patron as: "a person who is a customer".

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Yours for better service, Don Masters

(Commentary)

The first thing one must notice when analyzing a letter of this kind is: what is its purpose? Is it a final decision, or is it a probe to gather information for later use against you?

In the case of the letter to the right, it is a probe. First, note that it is termed "SUBJECT: GENERAL DELIVERY USAGE," "using" being the important theme on the part of the Postmaster. Second, he is requesting the Patron to fill out the "General Delivery Service Application (form PS 1527)." Note the blatant probe concerning the Application, "to determine where you reside." This is an obvious 'fishing expedition.' Do not buy into these 'innocent' requests 'hook, line, and sinker.'

You will notice that in the letter, the Postmaster refers to previous information he received from the Patron. That is due to previous letters the Patron had written to him. These letters, which I don't have room to include in this article, were full of errors on the Patrons part, but were not fatal to his case. They gave the Postmaster pause to further investigate the Patron's status. That is all that is going on here.

The Postmaster has obviously found himself in the position of having to make threats, excuses, a bribe with 'caller service,' his one-sided definition of 'patron, 'grabbing for straws' and innuendos (computer letter, etc.), due to the strength of the previous letters from the Patron. Note how important it is to him to make the patron a 'customer.' If he had a leg to stand on, he would simply write a letter saying, "Your General Delivery Service has been terminated." But in this case, he is not yet willing to 'trespass.' He must first gather further evidence that will protect his position. That is the purpose of the 'probe.'

The majority of the letter is self-explanatory. The response letter should fill in any questions the reader may have concerning the Postmaster's military tactics and his demands for 'compliance.'

Response Letter

From:

Joseph Robert
to be called for in general delivery
Sumner,Washington

On the < > day of the < > month in the
Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year of
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:

Postmaster Rick Huster
Sumner Post Office

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

As in my previous writings, I address you here in your capacity as the postmaster in Sumner under The Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department.

The purpose of this writing is to clarify any misconceptions I may have conveyed to you in my.previous writings to you. After having called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department marked June 10, 1998 from you, with an accompanying 'General Delivery Service Application,' I recognized in your writing.that you expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in.evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on your part are as follows:

2. That I am a customer of The Postal Service.

3. That I seek 'General Delivery Service,' or 'use' of general delivery.

4. That calling my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department, is a 'service.'

5. That I seek to use general delivery as a customer 'holding service.'

6. That patrons and transients are the same as customers.

7. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

8. That being homeless deprives me of access to a computer or type writer.

I will here address these presumptive errors in your beliefs:

1. As I have previously stated, I am not a resident, or have a residence, but, that I am transient,.homeless, and a sojourner on the land.

2. As I have previously stated, I am not a customer of The Postal Service. I am a transient and.homeless Christian, and have always called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department wherever I happen to sojourn, for fellowship between.the Body of Believers and myself, and not for any commercial purposes.

3. I have never received or seek to receive 'General Delivery Service.' I have never 'used' or seek to.'use' general delivery or the 'use' of 'caller service.' I have always exercised my traditionally vested.and Inherited Right in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general.delivery established for the church, in and through Christ Jesus, existed prior to the creation of The.Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny.or disparage the creator? Those that write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the.international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested Rights are not violated by the.occupier, but preserved. I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions,.as they do.

Since I do not seek 'General Delivery Service,' it is impossible for me to fill out the 'General Delivery.Service Application.'

4. Being a Good and Lawful Christian, calling forth my First-Class mail Matter from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department is not a.service delivered by The Postal Service, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service.from The Post Office Department to those exercising their above mentioned vested and Inherited.Rights. History and the nonexistence of legislation touching general delivery clearly shows this.

5. Please note that "general delivery is intended primarily [not exclusively] as a temporary means of.delivery." In addition, please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers.not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not to.transients. Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM would not differentiate between 'transient' and 'customer' at 1.1(a) if the two terms conveyed the same meaning, and would not have dropped 'transient' after 1.1(a) if the restrictions applied to transients. I hope and pray that you will note the significance of these differences in Law before you propose your threatened enforcement of 1.2, which applies to customers only.

6. In your writing, you cited The Random House College Dictionary for determining what a 'patron' is. Since that dictionary has no standing in Law, but is simply a commercial book, I would refer you to State v. Board of Trust of Vanderbilt University, 129 Tenn. 279; and, Carroll v. Leemon Special School Dist., 175 Ark. 274, wherein 'patron' is defined as, "In ordinary usage, [a patron is] one who protects, countenances, or supports some person or thing." As I hope you can see, 'patron' has a commercial, and a non-commercial, definition. When I refer to myself as being a 'patron,' I mean it in the non-commercial sense; that is, I am one who supports and encourages, and in deed, seeks to protect those sacred institutions, such as general delivery, that are vested in all Good and Lawful Christians, solely by the Grace of God, and for His glory.

7. Being a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mister or Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who I minister for, and Who I am a bondservant of.

8. Being a transient and homeless Christian, and a sojourner on the land, does not deprive me of access to a computer or typewriter through my fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ who have been blessed with such.

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules, obsolete or otherwise, for my Right in general delivery. I have previously, and in this writing, pointed these sections out to you simply to display to you that those in the past and those that write your guidelines, recognized then, and recognize today, the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of The Post Office Department and The Postal Service. The following maxim of law clearly shows this:

"Ecclesia est infra aetatem et in custodia domini regis, qyi tenetur jura et haereditates ejusdem manu tenere et defendere -- The church is under age, and in the custody of the king, who is bound to uphold and defend its rights and inheritances."

With having no other way of accessing my First-Class mail Matter except in general delivery, I hope and pray that you will, after taking all of the above into consideration, reconsider any proposed decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, in order that I can continue to fellowship with the Body of Believers and live under The Law of Peace.

I would be pleased to discuss these matters with you at your convenience if you find it to be necessary.

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

Robert Joseph

(Commentary)

Following the usual greetings and salutations in His name, the first paragraph must set the venue and jurisdiction in which the matter is to be addressed. You are writing to him in that capacity. Any other way, you are speaking to a dead corpse (in Law) of the commercial corporation known as 'The Postal Service.'

The next order of address is to point out the errors in his presumptions which are based on facts not in evidence. If these erroneous presumptions are not rebutted, they will stand as 'truth' to the Postmaster, and will be considered 'evidence' of your lack of status to maintain yourself 'in' general delivery.

The word "in" when referring to general delivery is very important here. If you are everywhere 'in' general, and nowhere specific, you are a 'sojourner,' and not a commercial 'resident.' When in commerce and under the thumb of the lex mercatoria, there is nothing 'general,' for everything is 'private' and 'specific.'

Having a 'home,' 'telephone number,' 'residence,' 'driver's licence' or 'being a customer' and 'using General Delivery Service,' and other such commercial indicators makes you that regulatable entity the Postmaster is looking for. These are the 'human toys' you must avoid for maintaining general delivery.

It is important to tell the Postmaster that you are in general delivery specifically for fellowship between you and the Body of Believers. There are many ways of fellowship. It is the mode and character of that fellowship that determines whether you are in a commercial activity and regulatable.

"Calling your First-Class Matter forth from general delivery" is a very specific term, and is scripturally related (see John 11:43-44). All mail in transit is 'dead' until it is delivered to the recipient. The mode in which it is received is of uppermost importance here. Free delivery to an address is a commercial benefit (remaining dead), whereas "calling forth" the Matter in general delivery "brings that mail Matter to life" in a non-commercial mode. These are the Inherited Rights of all Good and Lawful Christians that do all things in His name, being His ministerial officers executing His Testament and Holy Writ.

As evidenced in this response letter, The Postal Service do not have the ability to subvert the Law. All of the commercial presumptions are rebuttable, and must be rebutted. The following anti-Christian commercial words need to be studied on your part so that you will be able to decipher these types of letters for rebuttal purposes:

Service, use, customer, resident, home, General Delivery, Application, addressee, carrier, identification, comply, Mr., etc.

The most important truth you want to convey to the Postmaster is the fact that the church under Christ Jesus is in full control of, but outside of, all activities that exist, The Postal Service's included. Never give up this ground, for to do so is to partake of the disparagement of His church and Dominions.

In closing, study these letters and their words, search Scripture, and:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15.

Separation of Church and State

by John Joseph

Many of us throughout our short lives have heard many times of a wall separating the Christ's church from the State, and that, religion has no place in politics. This is the position taken by the United States Supreme Court. But the court also noted and declared that the religion of secular humanism is the religion of the current provisional government. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S. 494.

This short article is to prove to you that the separation does, in deed, and in Law exist, but not in the manner in which it has just been described by the secular humanists who have not the mind of Christ:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14.

Starting with the basics of Law, the reason of the Law is the soul of the Law and the highest Reason is that which determines in favor of Religion, so that the highest Law is that Law which favors and preserves the Religion of Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, which is their Inheritance, preserving their Liberties by governing and embracing their traditions, customs and usages. With this statement we can find that the Law quite agrees with all of the above:

"Ratio legis est anima legis --The reason of the Law is the soul of the Law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2160; and,
"Summa ratio est quae pro religione facit --That is the highest law which favors religion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2164; and,
"Summa est lex quae pro religione facit --That is the highest law which favors religion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2164; and,
"La ley favour l'inheritance d'un home --The law favors a man's inheritance." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142; and,
"Nil sin prudenti fecit ratione vetustas --Antiquity did nothing without a good reason." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148; and,

All acts against this Reason are un-Lawful...:

"Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum --Nothing against reason is lawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146,

... because they undermine the Foundation upon which the state rests: Christianity, and the state of Christendom:

"CHRISTENDOM, n. [ME. cristendom; AS. cristendom, Christianity, from Cristen, Christian, and dom, domain, jurisdiction, from dom, to do.] "1. Christianity. [Obs.] [This is the Law.] 2. The territories, countries, or regions chiefly inhabited by those who profess to the Christian religion. [This is the territory.] 3. Christians collectively. [This is the people.] 4. Baptism; christening. [Obs.]" Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 321.
"COMMON WEAL, COMMONWEAL. The body politic, state, community XIV; the general good, public welfare XV. orig. and properly two words, rendering L. res communis; cf. weal public (XV) rep. L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique. See WEAL. In the sense of 'state' in XVI more esp. Sc., and now archaic or rhetorical." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]
"COMMONWEALTH. Public welfare XV; the body politic, state, community; in spec. fig. and transf. Uses, e.g. c. of Christendom, of learning, of nations XVI; republic, or democratic state; spec. (hist.) The republican government established under Oliver Cromwell XVII. See WEALTH. Both common weal and common wealth were at first used indiscriminately in the senses 'public welfare' and 'body politic' but in XVI commonwealth became the ordinary Eng. term for the latter sense, whence the latter sense 'republic' was developed." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]
"WEAL. wil wealth, riches; welfare OE.; the public good xv. OE. wela=OS. welo, (cf. OHG. wela, wola adv.) :- Wgerm. welon, f. wel-; see WELL. In the sense of w. public (xv) rendering L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique, COMMONWEAL (L. res communis or publica, F. le bien commun)." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 996.

So far there is no separation of which the world of humans speak. Thus, to preserve the state, and its Good and Lawful Christians, there must be laws made to this end of punishing evil doers, who are destroyers of it. In looking at the maxims of Law, we find that:

"Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur --The cause of the Church is a public cause." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

This being the case, the Religion of Christians--Christianity--must play a major role in the preservation of the state. For, on what basis would law in the community or state rest? Without settled and fixed Law, how would, or, could crime be punished?

"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728.

Man cannot create law independent of, fixed, and greater than himself for himself. This is seen in the "law of nature":

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

So if any one claims to be "sovereign," that is clearly a mistake in Law, and in their own mind.

Attempting to base a state's existence on stoic or pagan "principles" is a futile attempt at obtaining any peace or preservation, for without the Prince of Peace, there can be no peace:

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep [*preserve] the city [*or state], the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalm 127:1.
"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Insertion in original].

Note: William C. Robinson, LL.D., was a law professor of elementary law in Yale University.

The states before Lincoln's War were all political societies with Christianity the primary and paramount Law; and, not corporations, or bodies politic, which have Roman Imperial Law as their foundation. Christian Jural Societies are unincorporated political societies., simply because they do not look to the State for something they have and can do in Christ.]

Many civilizations were built on foundations other than Christianity, and they all died violent deaths. Both Greece and Rome, the foundations of western secular thought, were sacked and burned, for example. Christian community, or Christian civilization, has never had this problem. It has never fallen because of its inherent validity. Rather, it has been a replacing of it with a foreign artifice of law which has brought ruin. The root of the problem is that when the Humanist man makes law, the law does not apply to him, because he is the "sovereign" of that law. It is for others "beneath" him because he has ascended the "throne." A. Lincoln was the first president to do such in America.

This brings up another item which is the topic of another pamphlet--the Asylum state. In a short synopsis, the Asylum state is for Christians only--not "sovereign" citizens, state citizens, or other ilk of the so-called "patriot" movement. The reason is really quite simple: unless you have consociation with the Law establishing the Asylum state--Christianity--you cannot enter it: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ recorded by Brother Matthew, chapter five, verse twenty. And so, just how can your righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees? Well we first have to look at the words "pharisaic," "pharisaically," "pharisee" to see just what these terms mean in Law:

"Pharisaic. PROP., by the genitive, Pharisaeorum. FIG., simulatus; fictus; or, if necessary, by the genitive, Pharisaeorum.
"Pharisaically, more modo Pharisaeorum; simulate; speciose.
"Pharisee. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]

The "pharisee" is a facade or artifice of good, but inwardly is evil. Proof of this is Jesus Christ's testimony recorded by Brother Matthew, chapter twenty three, verses one through thirty-six, and We Know Christ's testimony is True:

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat [*the seat of judgment]: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. [*Philanthropy, and other "charitable" works, &c.] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren [*consociation]. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased [*shall be brought low]; and he that shall humble himself [*to God] shall be exalted [*by God]. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. [*The pharisees then prevent peace from ever returning to Christian People.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. [*They trap the one whom they are after and recruit him.] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein [*whether it be God's temple or Satan's temple]. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. [*Your own righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees, and when you execute the law, look to Christ for determination.] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. [*You simulate goodness on the outside, but inside are destitute of God.] Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar [when he sought asylum in the temple]. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 23:1-36 [*Insertions added]

Looking at a more modern example, we can see very clearly what Christ Jesus is saying:

"In the meantime, the shrewd and unscrupulous [Pharisees], who have contributed their full share to the bankruptcy [of their fellow Citizens], will economize their means, arrange their affairs, shift their men on the chessboard and shuffle the cards; so that the poor and middle classes may be left with an empty hand, in a game where the rich always win, the poor always lose, and capital [hoarded by the unscrupulous into their banks] lies as a sponge to drink up the hard earnings of labor [through usury and taxation.]" Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System (1868)

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

ADIAPHORA, ADIAPHORISTS. Adiaphora (Gk. "indifferent things"; G, Mitteldinge, "middle matters") refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith which might therefore be allowed in the church. In particular the Lutheran confessions of the sixteenth century speak of adiaphora as "church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God."

Historically the Adiaphorists were those Protestants who, with Philip Melanchthon, held certain Roman Catholic practices (e.g., confirmation by bishops, fasting rules, etc.) to be tolerable for the sake of church unity. This issue became the focal point for a bitter controversy prompted by the Augsburg Interim forced on the Lutherans in 1548 by Emperor Charles V and accepted by Melanchthon and others in the Leipzing Interim. The Gnesio-Lutherans, led by Nicholas von Amsdorf and Matthias Flacius, objected to the presuppositions and judgments concerning adiaphora that led the Saxon theologians (the "Philippists") to forge the Leipzig Interim. The "Gnesios" set down the basic principle that in a case where confession of faith is demanded, where ceremonies or adiaphora are commanded as necessary, where offense may be given, adiaphora do not remain adiaphora but become matters of moral precept. Those who supported the Interims argued that it was better to compromise appearances in terms of rites and customs than to risk the abolition of Lutheranism in Saxony. Although the controversy over the Interims became unnecessary after the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555, the dispute continued, and nearly two hundred tracts appeared discussing stances.

In 1577 the Formula of Concord brought an end to the question for Lutherans by setting forth three fundamental points concerning the nature of genuine adiaphora. First, genuine adiaphora is defined as ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word and not as such, or in and of themselves, divine worship or any part of it (Matt. 15:9). This evangelical principle is integral to the very cornerstone of Reformation theology; it cuts off at the source all false claims of human tradition and authority in the church. The second major point about genuine adiaphora is that the church does have the perfect right and authority to alter them so long as this is done without offense, in an orderly manner, so as to rebound to the church's edification (Rom. 14; Acts 16, 21). The third assertion goes to the heart of the entire matter: at a time of confession, when the enemies of God's Word seek to suppress the pure proclamation of the gospel, one must confess fully, in word and deed, and not yield, even in adiaphora. Here it is not a question of accommodating oneself to the weak, but of resisting idolatry, false doctrine, and spiritual tyranny (Col. 2; Gal. 2, 5). In sum, the Formula of Concord's position included adiaphora within the domain of Christian liberty, which may be defined as consisting of the freedom of believers from the curse (Gal. 3:13) and coercion (Rom. 6:14) of the law and from human ordinances. This liberty is the direct result of justification.

Outside the Lutheran tradition more rigid forms of Protestantism developed, such as the English Puritans, who tended to hold that everything not explicitly allowed in the Bible was forbidden. Others, such as the Anglican communion, were less stringent and regarded many traditional practices, though without scriptural warrant, as adiaphora. Adiaphoristic debates continued to develop periodically. In 1681 a controversy arose between Lutherans regarding participation in amusements. J. F. JOHNSON. See also CONCORD, FORMULA OF; MELANCHTHON, PHILIP; FLACIUS, MATTHIAS; AMSDORF, NICHOLAS VON. Bibliography. R. Preus and W. Rosin, eds., A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

Remembering the Old Ways

The following is from Matthew Henry's Commentaries on the Whole Bible

The Law and Promise

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem [*Christ's church] which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we [*the members of the Body of Christ--the church], brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we [*of the church in Christ] are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Gal 4:21-31 [Emphasis & *insertions added.]

Brother Matthew Henry's commentary on these verses:

"In these verses the apostle illustrates the difference between believers who rested in Christ only and those judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael. This he introduces in such a manner as was proper to strike and impress their minds, and to convince them of their great weakness in departing from the truth, and suffering themselves to be deprived of the liberty of the gospel: Tell me, says he, you that desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? He takes it for granted that they did hear the law, for among the Jews it was wont to be read in their public assemblies every sabbath day; and, since they were so very fond of being under it, he would have them duly to consider what is written therein (referring to what is recorded Gen xvi. and xxi.) for, if they would do this, they might soon see how little reason they had to trust in it. And here, 1. He sets before them the history itself (v. 22, 23): For it is written, Abraham had two sons, &c. Here he represents the different state and condition of these two sons of Abraham--that the one, Ishmael, was by a bond-maid, and the other, Isaac, by a free-woman; and that whereas the former was born after the flesh, or by the ordinary course of nature, the other was by promise, when in the course of nature there was no reason to expect that Sarah should have a son. 2. He acquaints them with the meaning and design of this history, or the use which he intended to make of it (v. 24-27): These things, says he, are an allegory, wherein, besides the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God might design to signify something further to us, and that was, That these two, Agar and Sarah, are the two covenants, or were intended to typify and prefigure the two different dispensations of the covenant. The former, Agar, represents that which was given from mount Sinai, and which gendereth to bondage, which, though it was a dispensation of grace, yet, in comparison of the gospel state, was a dispensation of bondage, and became more so to the Jews, through their mistake of the design of it, and expecting to be justified by the works of it. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia (mount Sinai was then called Agar by the Arabians), and it answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, it justly represents the present state of the Jews, who, continuing in their infidelity and adhering to that covenant, are still in bondage with their children. But the other, Sarah, was intended to prefigure Jerusalem which is above, or the state of Christians under the new and better dispensation of the covenant, which is free both from the curse of the moral and bondage of the ceremonial law, and is the mother of us all--a state into which all, both Jew and Gentiles, are admitted, upon their believing in Christ. And to this greater freedom and enlargement of the church under the gospel dispensation, which was typified by Sarah the mother of the promised seed, the apostle refers that of the prophet, Isa liv. 1, where it is written Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she who hath a husband. 3. He applies the history thus explained to the present case (v. 28): Now we, brethren, says he, as Isaac was the, are the children of the promise. We Christians, who have accepted Christ, and rely upon him, and for justification and salvation by him alone, as hereby we become the spiritual, though we are not the natural, seed of Abraham, so we are entitled to the promised inheritance and interested in the blessings of it. But lest these Christians should be stumbled at the opposition they might meet with from the Jews, who were so tenacious of their law as to be ready to persecute those who would not submit to it, he tells them that this was no more than what was pointed to in the type; for as them he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, they must expect it would be so now. But, for their comfort in this case, he desires them to consider what the Scripture saith (Gen xxi. 10), Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. Though the judaizers should persecute and hate them, yet the issue would be that Judaism would sink, and wither, and perish; but true Christianity should flourish and last for ever. And then, as a general inference from the whole of the sum of what he had said, he concludes (v. 31), So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free."---Matthew Henry, Commentaries on the Whole Bible, vol. VI, pp. 669-670.

Bits and Pieces

Not by Might nor by Power

"There is in our generation a growing idolatry of military glory and conquest. We desire to be the possessors of the vastest empire that has been--one upon which the sun never sets. We ought to beware of this lust of imperialism, for it is not the great militant empires that have contributed most to the world's progress. A small nation may possess, if not the arms that conquer, the ideas and resources that lay the universe under tribute. Such is the lesson of history, and over and over again have aggressive kingdoms been force to repent in sackcloth and ashes.

"It is one thing to admit that there are certain causes for which a Christian may properly unsheath his sword; it is another thing to claim that war in itself is better for a nation than peace, and that we ought to look chiefly to mighty armaments on land and sea as the great instruments for the spread of civilization and Christianity. No nation needs to sacrifice life in war to be truly great. Rather do the ravagings and cruelties of war obliterate the divinity that is the birthright of all mankind.

"The forerunner of Jesus Christ was not Samson, but John the Baptist. The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, with acquisition, nor with subjugation. If all the territory of this great round earth were to-day subject to one conquering emperor, no matter that the cross were blazoned on his banner and on his throne, the kingdom of heaven would not be a whit nearer. 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit saith the Lord of Hosts.' That is the message of Christianity. A literature that is Christian must exact love and that loyal obedience that springs therefrom. It must check and reprove the thirst for conquest as well as the confidence of brute force. It must firmly vindicate and commend righteousness, and fair dealing and kindness. The simple proclamation of the truth must be depended upon to bring nigh a better age and teach all the tribes of the earth to dwell together in peace.

"'By the soul only, the nations shall be great and free.'" J. N. Dales, in the Christian Vanguard, from The Centennial of Religious Journalism, pp 229-233.

Principles of Union

"That they all may be one." --Christ's prayer.

"There are first or fundamental principles recognized in all associations, whether civil, political, ecclesiastical, or domestic. There are found in the laws of nature or revelation, or arise from human policy, interest, or expediency. The gospel establishes a new and distinct relation, and creates an association of heavenly origin. The principles upon which this union is based are a matter of revelation, and not of human policy. It is not for Christians to say how, and for what purpose they will unite, for these things are fixed by a higher power. Christians must unite on the principles of Christianity, or they cease to be Christians. For union is the sine qua non [*necessity] of the religion of Christ. Hence if union, or love, is wanting, religion is wanting, or is but an empty name."--Rev. Ira Allen, Christian Palladium, July 1, 1840, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 105-106. [*Insertion added. This is the founding basis of all Christian Jural Societies. See also 44 Me. 505 (1859) and 10 Op.Atty.-Gen. 382 (1862).]

The True Notion of the Exercise of Private Judgment,

or Free-Thinking

"If Men study the Scriptures with a sincere Desire to know the Truth, and to practice whatever they find to be their Duty, God would never leave them destitute of Means sufficient for the understanding all Things necessary to Salvation.

"The Scriptures were designed to influence Men's Hearts and Affections; and therefore such moral Qualifications as I have mention'd, are necessary to prepare Men for a right understanding of them. Men never disbelieve the Scriptures, but by those Sins, and unlawful Pleasures, which that Book condemns; these are the great Impediments to the Understanding; remove but these out of the Way, and we shall soon discover the Truth, and find it agreeable to us.

"If we resolve to make the Scriptures the Rule of Life, tho' there may remain, after all our Study, some Things we shall never fully understand, yet we shall not fail of understanding so much as will make us wise unto Salvation.

"But if Men come to read the Scriptures with corrupt Passions, and Aversions to Truth, they will neither be diligent in searching for it, nor be willing to receive it, if they should find it. Those Things which are plain, will be obscure to them, and while they have another Interest on Foot, different from the Truth, either their Eyes will be blinded, or else they will handle the Word of God deceitfully, and pervert the meaning of the Text into the Service of that Cause which they have already espoused.

"Besides, where Men read the Scriptures not to find the meaning of the Holy Spirit, but to raise groundless Objections, God does not only suffer such Persons to be taken in their own Craftiness, but does moreover smite them with a judicial Blindness, and Hardness of Heart." Dr. Ibbot's Lecture, in Boyle's Lectures (1737), Volume III, pp. 32-33.

Is It Duty to Love Christians?

"The life principle of all religion is that divine love and goodness which arises from a pure faith in God and in Jesus the Saviour, if we have formed a proper estimate of the things of God. Whoever seeks to promote peace, unity and love among Christians, seeks to promote godliness and the will of God. Whoever seeks to promote discord, division, and enmity among Christians, seeks to promote the weakness of the church, the desolation of Zion, and a leprosy upon the body of Christ."--Rev. A. G. Comings, in the Christian Palladium, May 8, 1852, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), p. 137.

Issue the Thirty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Charles Thomas: Anglin...

Who is The Israel of God?...

On the Lips of the Beast...

My Christianal Experience...

Maintaining general delivery, Part Three...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Charles Thomas: Anglin

Our Brother in Christ Remembered

At this time, it appears that the punishment to Charles Thomas: Anglin by The State of Alabama for Exercising his Christian Liberty on the common Ways was the death penalty by starvation.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

We will always remember Charles Thomas: Anglin as our Brother and fellow-soldier in the army of Christ Jesus who in his love for Christ's church paid the ultimate price on earth to gain eternal life in Christ:

"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it." Matthew 10:39

For refusing to be one with The State of Alabama and one with the world, he was hated by that world, but is now in a better place where no hate exists:

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:18-19

How do the officers of their State of Alabama reply to the judgment given by Christ Jesus against all who act contrary to His Ways ministered by those called out and ordained by Him?

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." Matt 11:21-24

How will those officers and officials who have the blood of Charles Thomas: Anglin on their hands for The State of Alabama's sake plead on that day?

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works." Matthew 16:25-27

An Open Letter

from our Brother in Christ, Gary Wayne

To Our Brothers in Jesus, the Christ:

We had been fighting the beast for some time (years) when we were led in the direction of the Christian common Law and the Christian Jural Society. Thank you, Lord!

While studying the 'Code," we found the proper way to "scrap" the title and reclaim our automobiles for the Lord. Charles Thomas followed the rules to the letter and went one step beyond and posted public notice at the county seat and other places in the county. On the ninth day of the ninth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven the proper departments of government were notified by registered mail and received by them the following day. On the twentieth day of the tenth month the public notices were posted. All went well until the tenth day of the eleventh month of ninety-seven. This was the last day we saw Charles Thomas alive.

He was arrested by alien enemy agent Dennis Blackerby of the Shelby County Sheriff's Office and badly manhandled during the arrest. Charles Thomas wanted to take his Law with him but Officer Blackerby threw The Holy Bible on the ground and hauled the body of Charles Thomas and his Lawful automobile away.

From that day on, we had very little contact from Charles Thomas until the day I was informed of his death on the fourth day of the eighth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. I had received from him one (1) letter while he was in Shelby County Jail (six months), and one (1) letter while he was in the custody of the State of Alabama (three months).

He never signed or acquiesced in any manner. Their unlawful process was abated and proof positive notification of the proper departments of government were in the possession of the COURT and the Prosecutor's Office long before the indictment was issued forth. They held a trial, the jury was picked by the judge and the prosecutor, and Charles Thomas was convicted and sentenced to five years. I moved forward and got his case before the Alabama supreme court in a true common Law pleading for "A Writ of Error." This case was served upon the court on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight. When I was informed that Charles Thomas had died in custody of the STATE, the Demand went forth to the Attorney General to investigate his death. We shall see..... The battle rages on!

Yours in Christian Love and Our Elder Brother Jesus, the Christ,

Gary Wayne

Demand Letter for Investigation

To: The Office of the Attorney General of Alabama.

Greetings from Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and Myself.

In a Ministerial capacity, I come forth by Visitation, from our Lawful venue and jurisdiction, to Demand that your Office cause to be Investigated and a full and factual True Report to be issued forth concerning the death of Charles Thomas: Anglin, suae potestate esse, A Good and Lawful Christian Man, who died while under the control and in the custody of THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, and who at the time of his death had a cause before the supreme court for Alabama, said cause number being 1971654.

These are the issues and matters that are the concern and are in need of answers in this cause:

One. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin held in solitary confinement from the very first day of his arrest on the tenth day of the eleventh month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven, denied visitation, consultation and most all contact with the outside world from this time until the time he was removed to Mt. Meigs correctional facilities, some time after the fifteenth day of the fifth month in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight?

Two. Who was the party or parties that ordered this "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" to be practiced upon the body of Charles Thomas: Anglin?

Three. What was the reason for this "Cruel and Unusual" treatment of Charles Thomas: Anglin? As he was not a violent man nor was he charged with a crime of violence.

Four. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin prosecuted in the face of exonerating evidence that was in the hands of the CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF SHELBY COUNTY months before the INDICTMENT of CHARLES THOMAS ANGLIN? (see Exhibit 'A', notice to the departments of government).

Five. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin starved and emaciated while in the custody of THE SHELBY COUNTY JAIL? I have a statement from him that says he lost twenty-four pounds, this from a man who only weighed one hundred and thirty-five pounds when he was taken into custody by Alien Enemy Agent DENNIS BLACKERBY, I. D. number 139 of THE SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

Six. Why was Charles Thomas: Anglin placed in disciplinary and solitary confinement at Mt. Meigs when it was learned that he had a case before the supreme court for Alabama. This fact was related to me when he was allowed to phone me, along with the fact that he was brought to the phone in chains and cuffs. When this fact was related to me the phone call was terminated.

Seven. Who ordered this "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" for having a cause before the supreme court?

Eight. Is this standard practice for all who are in custody and have a cause before the supreme court?

Nine. What was the cause of death?

Ten. Was this cause confirmed by autopsy? If so, a copy of the autopsy report shall be included in the report from your office.

Facts in this cause:

One. Charles Thomas: Anglin was not a criminal and had no criminal intent, as was proven by his actions of notification of the proper departments of government and the posting of public notices for all the world to see. His sole intent was to do the will of Our Father and serve Our Lord and Master Jesus, the Christ.

Two. He lived and breathed and had his being under the Law of God, The Christian common Law, and Alabama is a common law state, which is the lex non scripta, the jus publicum and is the Law of the Land in Alabama.

Three. He was not bound to nor did he owe any allegiance to the proven usurped, de facto, martial rule, bankrupt corporate entity which is dead in Law known as THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE COUNTY OF SHELBY, or any POLITICAL SUB-DIVISION thereof. His allegiance was to The Kingdom of Jesus, the Christ, and no other.

Four. He was denied the opportunity to testify and present his case and evidence before the GRAND JURY OF SHELBY COUNTY after a Demand to do so was served upon the OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SHELBY COUNTY, before any INDICTMENT was issued (see Petitioner's Record).

Five. He was a vibrant, apparently healthy, active and very much alive man, doing the work of Our Father until he was thrown into a system bent upon punishing him for being Free in Jesus, the Christ, and living under the proclaimed and adopted Law of the Land in Alabama, that being the Christian common Law.

Six. I, as his appointed Counsel in the state of Christendom in Alabama and having full Power of Attorney for Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, want this matter investigated, reported upon, and resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved, and the Good Name of Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, cleansed and restored to remove this contrived felony conviction from his record, and to restore his good name and reputation in the community in which he lived.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Done by the Authority of God Almighty, His Glorious Son Jesus, the Christ, the Holy Spirit, and Charles Thomas: Anglin, deceased, by his appointed Counsel in the state of Christendom in Alabama, a distinct, separate, and superior venue and jurisdiction, on this the eighth day of the eighth month in the year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight and in the two hundred and twenty-third year of the Independence of America and in The Sabbath Year of Jubilee of The Lord God Almighty.

I have the Honor of being A Good and Lawful Christian Man.

Gary Wayne: Presley

Editor's Note: For those that would like to keep up to date on this matter, or to help Gary Wayne in any way possible, you can contact him by writing to:

Gary Wayne: Presley
general delivery
Childersburg Post Office
Childersburg, Alabama

Who is The Israel of God?

A Sermon by Pastor Warren Mark Campbell

There is a disagreement in the church world, in that, theologically, many today teach that there are three classes of people on the earth. They teach that there are those who are Christian, there are those who are non-Christian (those that have nothing to do with the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), and another group of people that are Jews, or Israelites, based upon a particular type of blood that is coursing through their veins. So to their practice there is the Christian, the non-Christian and the Jew; and that God deals with each one of them in a different fashion.

The church at Kaweah teaches differently--as well as other theologians, I might add. That is, there are only two classes of people, and that there always has been. Either you are a Christian or you are not a Christian. You are either born again of God's Spirit or you are not born again. In simpler terms, we would say that you are either a Christian, or a pagan.

Now, this position frightens some people. Because of the propaganda machine of the twentieth century, most are too scared to make the statement that you are either born again and on your way to Heaven, or you are not and on your way to Hell. There is no "middle ground," so to speak. And it angers others. The message I preach this morning angers some people to become very violent and vehement.

The propaganda machine is so great within the church. I remember in 1991, in a discussion with a Christian friend in Oregon, I mentioned that we needed to cut back on the over-taxation of the people by cutting back on foreign aid, such as the 3 billion dollars of aid that goes to The State of Israel each year. And he got mad--he got livid. He said "the only reason the United States isn't under judgment right now is because of all that we're doing for Israel. How dare you." I was simply saying that we needed to cut back on aid, and he got very angry. Why was he so angry?

Because there is a teaching out there that says that there are three categorizes of people. And if you touch those that claim to be of a particular blood line, God will in some way curse you.

What we will be looking at in this study is: Who is The Israel of God? Is The Israel of God those who have a particular blood line that live in Palestine. Or is it those that live in the Scandinavian/European countries. Or those in America that believe that they have a particular blood line, calling themselves Israelites or Jews, saying they are the true Israelites, and that those in Palestine don't have the right blood.

So there are two main groups that are vying for this third position that the church world has adopted in modern times. And they are continually jockeying for the church world's favor for this third position.

We want to look at how the Old Testament dealt with the Israel of God; who The Israel of God was, and how the New Testament deals with who The Israel of God is--to see if there was a transition. So we're going to look at Old Testament titles and attributes of Israel, which are in the New Testament, referred to the Christian church. Those terms of endearment, those terms of love and compassion that God gave to His people in the Old Testament.

Does He still use those special covenant terms in the New Testament era? Is He still using those terms with the Christian church? Or are they something different and Old Testament Israel retains those special terms of endearment? Or does He still love the New Testament church but they don't get that special classification--they're another breed?

We're going to show that there has been a transference of those terms and those attributes, and that they are now committed to the church --to The Bride of Christ.

The Children of God

So, first were going to take a close look at this topic of "the children of God." How God called His people in the Old Testament, "the children of God"; and that He calls the church today, His children.

So, in the Old Testament, God says at Exodus 4:22-23:

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is My son, even My firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

At this time Jacob, or Israel, had long since died. So He is saying that the "nation" Israel is "My son;" "My firstborn;" "My child."

Now in the New Testament, does God refer to the church in the same way? Yes! At John 1:12-13, we see:

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

And at First John 3:1 we have:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not."

God's Flock

The new Testament Christian is known as "a son of God," or "a daughter of God."

Another term used in the Old Testament describing Israel is, "God's flock," His sheep that He shows special care over. At Isaiah 40:11 we see:

"He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young."

So we see the tender care that God had for Old Testament Israel, as a shepherd watching over His lambs; caring for and helping them along when their too young.

The People of God

And God transfers that beautiful term and sentiment, now, to His people. We see this at John 10:16:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

God is speaking to Israel here. This is a bringing together into "one." That is why we say here at Kaweah that there are only two classes now--either Christian, or non-Christian; either God's children under Jesus Christ, or pagans; you are either on your way to Heaven or on your way to Hell. There is no in-between or neutral ground here.

So Jesus is letting them know that "I have other sheep and that there will be one fold, and one shepherd." We will show you later how that fold came into being and became "one," with "one" shepherd.

The Kingdom of God

Now, in Old Testament Israel the Kingdom of God was known as "God's Kingdom." At Exodus 19:6 we find:

"And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

Many people look at Old Testament Israel, and this verse, and say, "that was a special Kingdom; very special and very unique. We can't make any application today for this because we're New Testament believers, and that's a totally different thing. But God says in the New Testament at Colossians 1:13 that He "hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son" We're part of the Kingdom, just as Old Testament Israel was part of the Kingdom of God.

Notice the contrasting here of "the people of God" at Second Samuel 7:23:

"And what one nation in the earth is like Thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to Himself, and to make Him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for Thy land, before Thy people, which Thou redeemedst to Thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?"

Notice the possession there of "Thy people"--God's people. He is saying "what nation is there like your people, Lord, even like Israel?"

At Jeremiah 11:3-4 we see that those people of, and those covenant promises to Old Testament Israel were conditional:

"And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey My voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be My people, and I will be your God:"

The condition is "Obey My voice." But Old Testament Israel over and over again rejected obedience to God. They rejected it; they turned away; they turned to idols. God lovingly kept bringing them back, and bringing them back. And they kept willfully turning away from walking with God and being His peculiar people unto Him.

Now in the New Testament at Second Corinthians 6:16 God says "...I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

That is the transference of the New Testament church. They are now "the people of God."

The Priests of God

Now we will get more specific and more intimate here. Who are 'the priests of The Living God." Old Testament Israel truly were "priests of God." We see this at Exodus 19:5-6:

"Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

Notice the important conditions here; "if ye will obey My voice" and if ye "keep My covenant," (only) "then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people"....and "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." Old Testament Israel was 'a kingdom of priests" and "a holy nation." They were set apart to God and His service. But is the New Testament Christian the same way? Absolutely!! At First Peter 2:5 we see that:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

And at Revelations 1:6:

"And (Jesus Christ) hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

So you see that the church is the kingdom of God, and we're kings and priests in His kingdom. And we are part of giving Him that glory and dominion that He so richly deserves.

The Children of Abraham

Now, who are the children of Abraham today? Second Chronicles 20:7 says:

"Art not Thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before Thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham Thy friend for ever?"

Notice the important word here, being 'seed' in the singular, not 'seed' plural. This is confirmed at Galatians 3:16:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

We see here the corresponding verses of Second Chronicles and Galatians, and the important distinction that Abraham's is strictly in the singular. So when you hear on Christian television or radio that they're asking for all of this money to sent and spent over in The State of Israel for all of these 'seeds,' remember that the everlasting promise is to a 'seed'; that 'seed' being Christ. Not 'seeds' as in a blood line group of people, but 'seed' as in Christ. All Christians are a part of that Godly seed line today.

How are Christians part of that seed line? By 'f a i t h' in the blood of Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for you. Because Abraham was a man of 'faith' and through his belief and faith it was accounted him for righteousness. God imputed that to him. So, it is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ today that all Christians become the seed of Abraham. We see this at Galatians 3:6-7:

"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham."

And fully confirmed at verse 9:

"So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

All Christians are the seed of Abraham because we have faith just as Abraham himself had faith, and it pleased God.

Unfortunately, most of the church world today does not see this, even though it is spelled out crystal clear in Scripture.

Further on this point, let us also look and see that even under the old covenant mode, the disobedient Israelites were not the children of Abraham. Speaking at John 8:37-39 to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus Christ tells us this in the ultimate and truthfully way in which He speaks:

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

Abraham believed God. These Israelites by blood line did not believe Jesus Christ and what He was telling them. So He is saying to them at verse 39 that, "(because you are children of unbelief, you have no part with faithful Abraham)"--"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, (but you're not)"--"(and I see this because you do not believe God)."

And further at verses 40-42:

"But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent me."

And at verse 44 and 45:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not."

So we see Christ telling those that were under the old covenant "who believed Him not" how they would be destroyed by Him by not calling them His own anymore--because of their unbelief and faithlessness.

People who now claim to be Israelites or Jews--if they are not believers in Christ Jesus--are of their father the devil. That is why we say that there are only the two categories of people; either Christian or non-Christian; either saved or unsaved.

So, we have many people of the so-called 'two blood lines' that claim, "I'm Israel," but if they are not believers in Christ Jesus then they are of their father the devil.

They're not of faithful Abraham --believing in Jesus Christ and His work in their lives.

The Chosen People

Now, who are 'the chosen people." This is a very special and endearing term of Old Testament Israel. They were called 'God's chosen people." We see this at Deuteronomy 7:6:

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

So we see here a special 'chosen' people. But at Jeremiah 6:30 and many other verses, the time came when God describes Israel in another light:

"Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them."

Israel, that shining silver, had become tarnished. It had to be put in a pot and melted down; it's reprobate; it became unusable silver. It was no longer lawful for the kingdom's use. The Lord had rejected them.

Now in the New Testament, Christians are known as God's chosen, God's elect. At Colossians 3:12 we see:

"Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;"

Christians are 'the elect of God,' 'elect meaning 'chosen.' And again at First Peter 2:9:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light:"

So we must ask the question: "According to The Bible, who are the chosen people today?" Shamefully, if the majority of the people within the church world were asked that question, they would answer it wrong. They should know that if they are born of the Spirit; if they are blessed with faithful Abraham, then they are 'the chosen of God.'

We also see the transference from Old Testament Israel to today's Christian of many other terms, such as: Beloved of God --Field of God--House of God--Vineyard of God--Wife or Bride of God--The circumcised--Jews--Olive tree. These are all excellent Bible study terms which we do not have time to cover here.

We see the early backsliding and transgressions, and the resulting transference at Jeremiah 3:8-17:

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.
And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more."

(And the transference):

"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart."

And at Romans 2:28 we see who a Jew is:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

The Cord is Cut

Where do we find the ability to say that one is either born again or nor born again; saved or unsaved. Where was the cord cut, and how was it cut?

At Matthew 21:34 it is written:

"And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. [The husbandmen being the Pharisees, the son being Jesus Christ].
But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, [the cord is cut] and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet."

So the cord is clearly cut. And at Matthew 23:32 we see the most scathing reprimand ever preached and the finality of the cut:

"Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

The house (the temple) "is left unto you." It was God's house, but they had changed that, seen earlier at Matthew 21:13:

"And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

God here no longer makes claim to that house. He is saying that, "it is no longer My house. I can no longer make that claim." This is a cleansing of the temple. He had cleansed it at the beginning of His ministry, and again He cleanses it at the end of His ministry.

And of course the temple was destroyed by Titus' siege in 67-70 A.D. and will never be allowed by God to be rebuilt again, because it would be a blasphemous act and because of their rejection of The True Messiah.

Those that propose to rebuild the temple by soliciting money for that purpose show a flat out rejection of the finished work of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, rejecting the king of Kings and the lord of Lords. Why get involved with a temple that is no longer His temple.

Of Twain, One New Man

At John 11:47-52, we see the twain, verse 52 being the main:

"And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

And at First Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul is speaking to his brethren, who are predominately Gentiles:

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
"And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

The important words here are "our fathers." He is calling these Gentiles his brethren, and saying that Moses, Joshua, Caleb and all of the great men and women of the faith are "our fathers." If you are born again in Christ through faith, Moses and all of the prophets are "our fathers," because "they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed: and that Rock was Christ." Contrary to so much disinformation, the fathers are not exclusive to those in Palestine or any other blood line.

And finally, at Ephesians 2:11-22 Paul is again talking to the Gentiles, verses 13 and 14 completing the twain and the one new man:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

All believers 'builded together' are the habitation of God though His Spirit.

In closing, a word must be said about the different groups who look to their flesh (their blood line or skin color) for justification of being 'the chosen people.' These are the British Israelites of the early twentieth century, sometimes called Identity, now changing that to Christian Israel to make it more palatable.

How do these groups come about? Because it appeals to one's pride to be special. That is how cults are built. What separates a cult from all others? Because they believe they are unique above all others. They say, "we're special." That is very appealing to the base nature of the natural man "who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." It is very easy, because it is not based upon faith in Christ's shed blood, but upon "human pride and reason."

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." Galatians 6:14-16

Warren Mark Campbell is the associate pastor at the church at Kaweah in California. For a taped copy of this sermon or further information, call 209-561-0802.

On the Lips of the Beast

by Paul Erhard

The following is reprinted from Issue the Ninth of 'Hear Ye! Hear Ye!,' the Christian Jural Society Newsletter published by The First House of Delegates, Waukesha county, Wisconsin.

This is the story of my recent bout into the court of the beast. On the first day of the last month in 1997, after praying the 91st Psalm and asking for protection during the day with my wife, I left the house and was libertying on my way to do a job. This job arrangement I have had for a few years, and had been leaving at the same time during the normal beast system work week. It was about six in the morning; there was a car tailgating me for about a block. I stopped at a stop sign. That car turned with me, not bothering to stop. About a block later I noticed red and blue decorative lights two cars behind me. I pulled over, off the road as far as possible to let them pass. Not catching on to what was really happening yet, I jumped out of the van I was in to check the tail light that has given me problems in the past; then I realized those lights were for me. Not one car or two cars, but perhaps four or five squad cars now surrounded me.

I started praying and turned to get get back in the van where my Holy Bible was, but one of the cops demanded I "not get back in the van." An arm grabbed me and pulled me behind the van I was using. A detective asked me for my driver's license. I told them I didn't use one of those; that my Heavenly Father didn't require me to have one. He immediately asked if I was PAUL GLANDER (by the tone of his voice I could tell he was speaking in all caps!!). I said, "that's not me." They wanted some identification. I didn't give them any ... I didn't have any.

One of them showed me the abatements I did, and said "if the punctuation was correct with upper and lower letters, would that be you? ... don't lie to me now; we'll get you for obstruction if you lie to us." I hesitated for a moment, thinking that I didn't have my Bible with me; I felt naked. The detective asked again. I said, "well, yeah." He said, " you are under arrest for driving after revocation. Who does this van belong to?"

I thought to myself, "now I blew it, I shammed my abatements." I said, "I'm not saying anything." He said, "Oh, is it stolen?"

I was handcuffed and put into the back of a squad car for one of the scariest rides of my life. The cop-driver seemed to have a nervous twitch in his foot...either up or down -- no in between -- and he always had to be within three feet of the car in front of us, going 65 mph.

Some Background Information...

This all seemed to begin with an accident that I had during a blizzard in the last month of 1995 when I hit a rut in the snow, pushing the car I was in across the center line. Trying to get back to the right, an oncoming car appeared too soon and I hit his left fender. At this time I was into Right Way l.a.w., had a Kingdom of Heaven driver's license, and of course, no insurance.

After explaining everything to the other guy, a cop showed up, and was not so understanding. I was arrested for driving after revocation and put in the back of their squad car. (About a year earlier I had revoked, rescinded, and canceled my own State driver's license).

I had been praying since my trip of the center line for deliverance. After further questions in the back of the squad car, the cop said this was "your lucky day; there was another accident to go to" and he couldn't take me in right now, and would send the citations in the mail (they took my Embassy of Heaven license). My prayers were answered. When the citations came in the mail to 'my address,' I "Refused them for Cause ...... U.C.C. 1-205" (unopened) or something like that; whatever Right Way was recommending at the time.

Early the next year we were able to locate Randy Lee and stated receiving Christian Jural Society information. We stated a local Christian Jural Society, went to general delivery, and removed the mailbox and numbers from the house.

About a year passed since my accident, before a capias was issued for me to pay a fine of 140.00, which I abated. Then about last October, sheriff's deputies started knocking on the door, "just wanting to talk to me." I did another abatement, but as in the past, only serving by registered mail and not with personal service.

Back to the Drama...

After arriving at the Sheriff's Department, I was questioned by two detectives for nearly an hour. They told me that the reason for such a show of force is because of the abatements I had been serving on the sheriff. The sheriff, they said, had been receiving many abatements, most of them threatening to sue under Title 42. He was concerned about being sued, and not sure what it was that I wanted, and just wanted to talk to me. I explained that we usually include the sheriff in our abatements, just to keep him informed as to what was happening in his county, and that we just wanted to live according to the Laws of God Almighty, and that their process was defective and all they needed to do was to correct it. They wanted to know if these abatements were all prepared by the same person. I said that very Good and Lawful Christian should do their own, and that we have a book with examples, but that we must do our own... (There is a "patriot" in our area, however, who was asked to leave our local Christian Jural Society, who does do abatements for anyone, including non-Christians; but it is step three of his paperwork, following a Bill of Particulars and some other patriot stuff. This guy also laughs at our plans to use on the Law of God Almighty as laid out in The Holy Bible if we are forced into their court, telling all who will listen that he has never seen the Bible work in court).

The detectives also asked why we serve copies, and not originals. Originals would cause then to take our process more seriously, they said. They say their whole system runs on originals. I said that I never really thought that it mattered (especially since we know their sheriff has accepted warrants that have nothing more than a judge's stamp, and that's certainly note an original signature!!). They told me that the reason they stopped me was because they "suspected" I was driving after revocation. I decided to not answer any more of their questions, which they said they understood.

My next stop was booking. I refused to give a name, finger prints, or date of birth, but one of the detectives told the jailer who they thought I was and "admitted to at the scene. The jailer had me remove my warm clothes and put on some smelly, dirty red jail clothes (I will never willingly do that again!). For the next thirty-five hours I was cold and very uncomfortable. I was put in a holding cell until early afternoon and then taken to a one-man cell in the regular part of the jail. They did not give me a blanket or sheets, but by the Grace of Our Father, they put me in a cell from which someone had just been released and had not used his sheets or blanket, so I could get as warm as I could get on a metal and concrete bed.

I refused all meals and decided to fast as long as I could, which this act received a threat of psychological testing.

At about three in the afternoon I was taken out of the cell and placed in a larger cell with about twelve other men. Names were called and a trip to a judge followed. When PAUL GLANDER was called, I didn't respond. When I was the only one left, I was asked what my name was saying "I didn't have one." At that point I was called "uncooperative" and returned to the cell.

The rest of the day and all night I had to listen to the most foul language I had heard since I left the Navy, coming from nearby cells. There was a deaf and dumb Cuban directly across me who kept throwing wads of toilet paper into the cell I was in. He must have run out of toilet paper, because he then threw a Bible in. Praise the Lord; I could read the Law again, although it was only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs.

The next day, shortly after noon, I got a visitor. When I got to the visitor's booth, I was so happy, that tears ran down my face... there before me was a member of our Christian Jural Society, who also happens to be a pastor. I learned later from my wife that she had tried to get in to see me, but the jailers wouldn't allow anyone in but an attorney. She told them I would never speak to such a person... how about a pastor? They agreed, and got our brother in Christ to come as soon as she learned I had been kidnapped.

After talking about many things with him, I decided, based upon others that have shammed their abatements, that I should get this whole thing behind me and start re-establishing my Christian character again.

The thing that I had not been doing, was, witnessing for Jesus the Christ in everything I said.

About an hour later I was called before a judge. The judge asked if I was PAUL GLANDER, and I said "yes." He asked for my date of birth; I said I didn't know what it was, that I was not conscious at the time. He started getting very angry and ashed, "didn't anyone ever tell you?" I said, "it was only hearsay, but the date you are probably looking for was.....," and gave him the date. He asked me what my address was and I told him that I got my mail at general delivery. He asked if I was employed. I said "no." He then said that I was being charged with driving after revocation, and, "how do you plead?" I said "guilty." The judge set a date for a hearing and bail at 250.00. The prosecutor said that I should be released only if I submit to the booking precess. The judge agreed and called the next case.

I was given some papers, one of them being a "PRE-TRIAL OFFER" that said that if the defendant get's a driver's license , the State would amend the charge to "Operating Without a License, 1st Offense" and recommend a 50.00 fine plus costs. I guess that was what they were prepared to do, but I rolled over for them. An hour later I was in booking again, had my picture and finger prints taken, and writing samples given. (I now know why five days earlier I got my right index finger caught between an angle iron stake and a sledge hammer!). I couldn't write better than a chicken scratching on paper. Other information they wanted was bank account numbers, credit card numbers, phone numbers, and social security numbers...all of which I had none. They also wanted to know if I rented owned a home.

Meanwhile, the pastor had posted bail and paid my first fine. While he was paying the cashier, she asked if the bail was being paid by the pastor or my wife; she was visibly disappointed to learn it was the pastor paying. Before six, the evening after the sixth day of unlawful imprisonment, I was out and in the arms of my wife.

It felt good to get out, but I realized I had done what Peter did. I had denied Jesus, the Christ. I also made the front page of the local paper.

A few days later I called John Joseph to tell him that I also pled guilty. He said there was definitely nothing I could do now but to go in and take whatever they give me.

My wife and I were miserable all weekend. I didn't want to go in and roll over again. I'd be pounding more nails into Our Lord.

I made another call to California, this time reaching Randy Lee, who had been talking to John Joseph about my situation. I told him that I didn't want to go in and play their game without my Christian character again. He said the words I needed to hear...he helped me understand that I didn't lose my Christian character, even with all the errors I made. I surely did need to repent, but all was not lost. Our Father is full of mercy and forgiving (so different from man's government!). I'm still the Christian man I was before this encounter (but hopefully much wiser and stronger). With that and Jeremiah 1:17: "Be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them," I decided to go into court, in my Christian character, with my Bible,...and without my glasses!!

Prayer... Bible reading... prayer... and more prayer consumed my time before going to speak to the beast representatives. The court date arrived. When the judge called PAUL E GLANDER, I walked up and this is what happened:

Paul Erhard: I am here by special visitation to exercise ministerial powers granted me by Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.

Judge Roger P. Murphy interrupted: Sir, you are charged with Wisconsin statutes for violating the laws of the State of Wisconsin. Those are not found in the Word in the Bible. This statement says you apparently did operate a motor vehicle after revocation before reinstatement. You have had one prior conviction before reinstatement. Therefore, upon conviction of this offense on Dec. 1, 1997, in the town of Merton, Waukesha county, you would be subject to a 1000.00 fine and prison of 6 months and revocation of up to 6 months. Do you wish to enter a plea? Apparently there has been no plea entered by you to this charge. [Wow, my wife and I prayed that they be confounded. Pleading guilty was a big mistake. Another prayer answered]. You were transferred to this court for that purpose. Wait, you were released on a cash bail bond of 250.00 which was filed. Do you wish to have the matter set down for trial?

Paul Erhard: First of all, I am not PAUL E. GLANDER. I do not have a name. My Christian appellation id Paul...spelled out Paul Erhard Glander in upper and lower case letters.

Judge interrupted: on your complaint entered from your driver's license record as being PAUL E. GLANDER of Merton Ave., Hartland, Wisconsin, and that is the title of this case. The court wishes to advise you that although I do believe in the Bible, I don't believe it has anything to do with whether you are driving a motor vehicle after revocation or not. The violation of Wisconsin statutes is binding to everyone, especially those who drive motor vehicles on the highways of this State. I will set this matter down for a six-person jury. At this time I do highly recommend Mr. Glander, that you take the time to discuss your case with an attorney who may be able to advise you of your legal rights. Do you wish to have a jury trial for six persons or trial by the court?

Paul Erhard: I can only serve one master, and that is the God of the Bible.

Judge interrupted again: this matter will be set down for a 6 per jury trial before this court and you must appear at that time. I highly recommend that you discuss your case with an attorney who will represent you during the trial. I don't believe the Holy Law of the Bible is going to help convince the jury whether you are guilty or not guilty. It is how well you are represented in trial which will decide your case. You must appear on the status hearing date or the case will be taken off of the jury trial calendar and default judgment will be entered at that time. That is all...(and he immediately announced the next case).

In hind sight, I should have interrupted the judge and told him that this has everything to do with the Bible and that this case was already res judicata because of the unanswered abatement in the past. I should have said many more things...but that's all hind sight. Before I went in, I was sweating bullets, but when I started walking toward the judge and speaking, I felt the presence of Jesus, the Christ right next to me, protecting me. My heart was beating normal and my wife says that I spoke very clearly, boldly, and with conviction, but not belligerently.

It has now been more than two months since I abated their papers with the new court dates, serving the Lawful process on fourteen defendants, including two judges, the prosecutor, detectives, deputies, the sheriff, and the State Senator heading the judicial committee.

If I am picked up again and forced into their court again, I can't fear them; they are not the God of The Holy Bible...Who only I will fear!!

My Christianal (not 'person'al) Experience

by Kimberly Ann

Editor's Note: The following 'positive' confrontation with a minister of the beast is presented in a somewhat edited form due to its length. All 'notes' and 'comments' in brackets [ ] are Kimberly Ann's.

In my decision to remove myself from the beast with the two lamblike horns who speak as a dragon, I had 'foreign' Christendom 'licence plates' made for my hatchback. When the photos were retrieved, I took the DMV's plates back to the issuer, and 'junked the title.'

On this very hot day, while on my way to the county clerk to enroll the information, I stopped at my friends dwelling-house for something cool to drink. A young San Jose police officer pounded on the door until I opened it up to him. It was 105 degrees outside, feeling more like 120.

This was my first attempt at witnessing to a minister of the beast. In reading the following, please understand there were many mistakes made, on both sides. It was well over a two hour conversation and there were some "Ah ha, I caught you-'s" on both sides. I ask only that you take what was good and improve upon the responses.

Officer: Is this your car?

Me: No, but it's in my care. [Note: shaking from thyrotoxicosis and not remembering Luke 12:11-12, and 58].

Officer: I'm going to have it towed. I've never seen anything like it. Show me the 'registration.' What is Chr.. Chris... Christendom, anyway. I'm towing it... [Note: The panic on my face when he said 'towing' must have been obvious. The officer saw my face, and said:] So, it is yours. What is this. [pointing to the plates].

Me: Foreign jurisdiction plates.

Officer: Those are illegal. What you are doing is a felony. [Note: The 'felony' only applies when you are doing it to injure or defraud someone, for example, changing the plates after hitting someone, or avoiding identification after robbing a bank]. Where do you live? [Note: From the VIN number, he went to his computer system, looking up the information. I saw on his computer screen the previous information on the car and myself, still on the record, with the word JUNKED at the bottom, which he did not see. Pointing to the computer screen to a nom de guerre, he asked:] Is this you?

Me: No.

Officer: [more forcefully] Is this you?

Me: My name is not spelled that way, therefore it is not mine.

Officer: I see you work at general delivery and used your work address. I don't suppose you have a driver's license...

Me: No.

Officer: So the handicapped placard is a fake too? How did you get it?

Me: It's not a fake. I bought it from the DMV. I'm disabled, and have been for years.

Officer: How did you get it? I want to see it.

Me: Sure. I got it via a doctor's note, and he filled out a paper from the DMV which I took to them, paid a fee, and received the placard.

Officer: You need a driver's license to be issued a placard.

Me: Well, it has been a long time since my first placard...years. I must have had a driver's license then. It has since been thrown out.

Officer: Now we're getting somewhere. Maybe it is still in force. I want to show you how serious your crimes are here. [Note: He opened his flip chart of common vehicle code numbers that had brief descriptions of: 12500(a), driver's license; 4462.5, presenting or displaying false evidence of registration to avoid registration fee (registration was paid before 'junking' it); 4463 (a)(1), changing plates with intent to defraud, damage, etc.]. We've got felonies here. That is serious. These plates are the same colors as DMV issued California plates. [Note: As we read the 'codes' together, I saw the words of 'art': 'owner' (460), 'driver' (305), 'resident' (516), 'person/natural person' (470), and commented that I was "not one of those" as we came to each of those words]. You are trying to play a semantics game. Don't try to confuse me. I don't want to get confused.

Me: In the larger code book, it says that only persons [Note: Paul in First Corinthians 2:14 tells us about natural persons] who are engaged in commercial activity are drivers who need to have 'license and registration.' I think it is 464/465, 260. Your own code book is in harmony with the True Law. Besides, the DMV would refuse to give me a license, because I hold the foreign, Biblical Right of the Christian by-ways contained in Philippians 4:13. Additionally, Black's Law Dictionary describes persons, and I do not fit any of the definitions.

Officer: What is Black's Law Dictionary? It's probably old, and doesn't apply.

Me: The Decalogue is older, and it still applies!!

Officer: (Opening to his abridged codes, he looked up 'resident.' When he got to the part on 'rebuttable presumption,' I said it out loud with him). You know this?

Me: Yes. I am rebutting your presumption of residency by being in general delivery.

Officer: If it's not your place of employment, why is there no P. O. Box?

Me: General delivery is a Christian Right, and allows us to be the sojourners Christ intends for us to be. If you receive the benefits of free delivery of your mail to a P. O. Box or address, you're relying on the beast to take care of you, thereby losing your transient status and denying Our Lord.

Officer: Do you pay 32 cents for a stamp?

Me: Yes. But you're only required to pay 2 cents per half ounce. I've had friends receive mail at that price, but the post office takes their time to deliver it.

Officer: (Looking at the Christendom plates, he said:) What church made it exempt?

Me: The whole Body of Believers in Jesus the Christ are His church, where two or more are gathered in His Name.

Officer: (Looking at the hatchback, he said:) You're breaking the law. You are committing serious crimes, felonies. I could arrest you and tow your car. (Looking at me, he said:) Even the Bible says we are to render unto Caesar.

Me: Yes, we are to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; and to God what is God's. We were bought with a price; the blood of His Son on Calvary's cross. Would you allow the torture-death of your child to save the world? The earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord's.

Officer: (Looking at the hatchback, he said:) Wow! You peeled off your stickers [corporate brand names and logos].

Me: Yes, they are indicators of commercial activity. I cannot serve two masters. Caesar is diametrically opposed to Christ.

Officer: Maybe you should just get a horse [we both chuckled]. My decision is, not to arrest you or tow you, for the time being. I understand what you are doing, but it is illegal. If you want to look up the code violations, I'll write them down for you.

Me: Sure. I like to learn.

Officer: You are to remove these plates today. By two working days from today, you are to have your old plates returned to their place on the car. You are to get a driver's license. I will check here in two days, in one week, and in two weeks. [Holding out his right hand offering to shake it, he said:] My name is Kevin.

Me: [Shaking hands] Kim.

Comment: This was close, but not exactly what was said. The phrases would have been choppy, and other sentences would not have made sense if they were exact. I was amazed at the sheer (shear) power of Our Heavenly Father's Holy Spirit -- cutting through the anger that was trying to terrorize me -- to a gentle young man, confused as to whether his laws were just. I ask all of you to pray for Officer Kevin -- that the scales fall from his eyes, as he reads and observes the scenes before him -- before the eminent King of king's imminent advent. Pray for him and my eighteen year old nephew, Garrett William, who has recently asked me things like "What does 'repent' mean?" - "Who was Jesus?" - and so on. Pray that he also may see. Pray with me for their protection.

Maintaining general delivery

Part Three

by Randy Lee

The battle to maintain general delivery rages on. This battle, as all battles waged against Christendom, is a wrestling match "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12.

That is why, in this Holy War, you must "put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." Ephesians 6:11.

To many Christians, the above attitude concerning general delivery would seem to be greatly exaggerated. But, as we will document in detail in future Issues of the News, being in general delivery is being in a type of "asylum state" and is one of the most important things a Christian can do in their continuing repenting effort to avoid the modern commercial world and its artificial creations.

This month, we will examine the letter below, which is the return response to the opposition letter from Issue the Thirtieth. Again the text of this letter, and the response to it which follows, are word-for-word. Only the names and locations have been changed for discretionary purposes.

First, you will note that the earlier response letter, requesting the Postmaster to intervene on the Patron's behalf, was successful, and has activated a response from the Postmaster himself. On its face, that would seem to be encouraging. But, when analyzing a letter of this kind in order to respond to it properly, you must first divide the Postmaster's statements into two categories. One, the statements of substance; and two, the artificial statements.

United States Postal Service
July 31, 1998

Mr. John Robert Murdock
General Delivery
56 Main St.
Benecia, Pa 18504-9998

Dear Mr. Murdock:

Subsequent to receiving your letter regarding General Delivery Service at the Benecia office a second review of applicable regulations was made by my staff.

Within the scope of the regulations there are several sketchy aspects to the General Delivery service guidelines that may allow you to receive general delivery service for a period longer than 30 days. Our Delivery Services staff at Postal Headquarters concurs that the regulations are sketchy and will take the necessary steps to clarify them. That being said, you need to provide Mr. Finnegan with a written verification from a suitable point of contact that allows us to validate your claim of being "transient and homeless." This verification may come from a place of employment, shelter, charitable organization, or social service agency. This documentation must be provided by August 31, 1998.

Upon receipt of the documentation a decision will be made as to your ability to receive General Delivery beyond 30 days. We will continue to provide your General Delivery service until that decision is made. Please be cognizant of your responsibility to provide appropriate identification (See Item 2 in the 9/28/94 Postal Bulletin you provided) when calling for your mail.

I shall await Mr. Finnegan's report on the documentation you provide.

Sincerely,
Matthew Johnson

Matthew Johnson
Postmaster, Philadelphia

(Commentary)

The effort by the Postmaster to continue to prop up the ruse that the Patron only has access to "General Delivery Service" is always to be expected. In effect, this letter is a non-response to the issues of truth raised in the first letter. Those that commercially minister for the beast always prefer to avoid dealing with points that will determine where the Truth is found, and therefore, are left with no other avenue than to engage in profane and vain babblings.

Note that, even though it was requested previously to not attach the commercial designation of "Mr." to the Patrons Christian Appellation, the Postmaster continues its use.

The reference that "there are several sketchy aspects to the...guidelines" is an obvious avoidance of determining the truth, and an avoidance of the real issues. These tactics, when conversing with all corporate critters, is always to be expected.

To avoid being "swallowed up and spit out" by these attempted derailments, you must always "stick to your guns"; that is, always stay focused on the original issues and the continual mandated effort of "rightly dividing the word of truth."

Note that the Postmaster's main effort is to acquire from the Patron the worldly indicators needed to slam the door shut on access to general delivery. Those indicators are those governmental benefits that "may come from a place of employment, shelter, charitable organization, or social service agency," and "appropriate identification." Once those commercial indicators are provided by you, then "the decision" is made, and the door is closed to you.

Always keep in mind that there is no obligation on your part "to validate" anything. The burden to find evidence to the contrary concerning your status is on he who is attempting to deny. In other words, the person attempting to affirm your non-Christian status has the burden. That is the purpose of his request for "verification" -- to avoid the burden and to receive the evidence voluntarily given by you.

As was stated above, to avoid this voluntary conviction on your part, you must "hold fast that which is good," and continue in the consistency of your previous stance. Never give an affirmative response to the artificial requests of the natural man, for to do so is to partake of, and join with, the unclean thing.

The response letter that I've composed below is a simple example of the type of steadfastness spoken of above.

The Inherited Right in general delivery (not General Delivery Service) belongs to the church. This dominion must always be brought to the fore when speaking to those who are managing the commercial side of The Post Office Department. Failing to do this will surely result in total failure to maintain general delivery.

From:
John Robert: Murdock
to be called for in general delivery
Benecia, Pennsylvania

On the twelfth day of the eighth month
in the Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:
Postmaster Mike Powers
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

This writing is in response to having called First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery from you marked July 31, 1998 in which you refer to my previous writing to you. I thank you for interceding in this matter on my behalf as Postmaster of the Boston area under the Postmaster General in his capacity under the Post Office Department.

You state in your writing that "there are several sketchy aspects to General Delivery service guidelines" and that "Postal Headquarters concurs that the regulations are sketchy and will take the necessary steps to clarify them." To that, I can only say that those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM today, and those in the past, are and always have been very precise in what they write in order to protect and preserve those vested and Inherited Rights of the church in general delivery. They have been very careful by way of the creation of the commercial 'General Delivery Service' not to violate those Rights of the church for all Good and Lawful Christians to call their First-Class mail Matter forth from the non-commercial venue of general delivery under The Post Office Department. Again, history and the nonexistence of legislation touching those vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery clearly shows this.

Having stated these truths, I will again say to you that I have never received or seek to receive 'General Delivery Service.' I have always exercised my traditionally vested and Inherited Right in general delivery wherever I happen to sojourn. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established for the church, in and through Christ Jesus, existed prior to the creation of The Postal Service and The Post Office Department. Again, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator? Those that write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested and Inherited Rights are not violated by the occupier, but protected and preserved. These laws follow the maxim of Law:

I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions, as they do.

I am transient, homeless and a Christian sojourner on the land. This is not a claim. This is a fact. Since I do not have a 'place of employment,' or look to any shelters, charitable organizations, or social service agencies for my subsistence, but only to the Providence of God and His Gifts and Blessings that flow from that, it would be impossible for me to provide any of the 'verifications' you have requested. Please note the maxim of Law:

"Impossibilium nulla obligatio est -- There is no obligation to do impossible things."

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules such as the 9/29/94 Postal Bulletin for my Right in general delivery. I pointed this bulletin out to you simply to display to you that those that write your guidelines recognize the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of The Post Office Department and The Postal Service.

Again, I will point out to you that since I am a Good and Lawful Christian and ministerial officer of Christ, I do not attach, or allow to be attached, commercial designations such as Mister or Mr. to my Christian Appellation, for to do so is an abomination unto my Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom I minister, and Whom I am a bondservant of.

Again, with having no other way of accessing my First-Class mail Matter except in general delivery, I hope and pray that you will, after taking all of the above into consideration, reconsider any proposed decision to deny my vested and Inherited Right in general delivery, in order that I can continue to fellowship with the Body of Believers and live under The Law of Peace.

In closing, I would like to make it clear to you that it is not my intention to be difficult with you, or to be a burden to The Post Office Department, but a supportive patron in all ways. I would be pleased to discuss these matters with you at your convenience if you find it to be necessary.

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

John Robert: Murdock

(Commentary)

There are two main artifices that the response letter seeks to rebut.

First, taking the Postmaster's reference to "sketchy aspects," and seeing the obvious ruse on his part, we respond with an emphatic rejection of such nonsense, turn it around on him by pointing out the precision of construction of such commercial rules, and at the same time pressing the Inherited Rights of the church.

Second, his reference of "to validate your claim" is thoroughly rebutted by maintaining your Christian character through dependence on God's Providence only, thereby showing the "impossibility" of his "request," and finalizing the matter with a Maxim of Law.

Additionally, throughout this entire letter, note the repeated reaffirmations of many points made in the first response. This is "sticking to your guns."

At this time, I don't know if this response letter has been successful or not. It will depend on the Postmaster's discernment of the issues, his willingness to recognize the substance, and most importantly how The Holy Spirit moves his heart. As always in the end, in all things, we are completely dependant on the Spirit of God for the moving of these ministers of the beast away from their state of depravity.

From Robert Joseph concerning his letter in last month's Issue submitted to his Postmaster, he writes:

Here's what has happened in a nutshell:

a) On the twenty-first day of the seventh month I sent the letter as it was.
b) Nine days latter I took a witness with me for backup to check the post office, and was handed a postcard that I had sent to myself, with no response from the postmaster.
c) On the thirteenth day of the eighth month I again took a witness with me and picked up First-Class mail Matter posted to myself; no problem.
d) Calling two weeks later, without a witness, the counter clerk was more than friendly. He saw me coming and went to check general delivery without me asking. He came back to the window and addressed me by my first appellation (Joseph)!! This was a first. No problems.
e) On this, the first day of the ninth month, again, he addressed me by my first appellation and was very friendly; no problems. Praise the Lord, and thank you very much for your help. Joseph Robert

Why a letter?

Since there is a 'Postmaster Abatement' available to use in these situations, some readers have questioned the use of letters, as opposed to abatement.

Under the Law of War, resolving a conflict is accomplished three different ways: One, by negotiation; Two, by reprisal; and Three, by war. As opposed to most governmental departments other than in a courtroom, it is possible for negotiation with The Postmaster, because he or she still has a ministerial (non-discretionary) side to their office, if they are moved to that side. That is the aim of the letter writing, as opposed to the abatement process which creates a more hostile atmosphere.

The Importance of general delivery

It has long been held that "federal jurisdiction ends at the post office." We will be documenting the mountain of information on this fact in future Issues of The News.

The purpose of mentioning the above quote, in the meantime, is to convey to the reader the extreme importance for all Christians to be in general delivery.

The countless ways in which federal jurisdiction is extended beyond the post office revolves completely around the use of the governmental benefits known as "free mail delivery" and "interstate commerce."

All governmental regimes since Lincoln's War have used a created device of their police power (public policy) known as "nullification by indirection" to further extend their jurisdiction in order to do an "end run" around the prohibitions in their constitutions. This "indirect way of nullifying constitutional protections" is used quite effectively by the provisional governments. These tactics, of course, have been supported and defended by all of their courts.

This is a fact of modern law in America that we all must learn and understand.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

LEX ET CONSUETUDO REGNI

"The law and custom of the realm. One of the names of the common law. Hale, Com.Law, 52.

"It was bad pleading to apply the term to law made by a statute. Pollock, First Book of Juris. 250." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1055. [Statutes are not pleadable in actions at Law.]

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

LIBERA LEX

"In old English law. Free law; frank law; the law of the land.

"The law enjoyed by free and lawful men, as distinguished from such men as have lost the benefit and protection of the law in consequence of crime. Hence this term denoted the status of a man who stood guiltless before the law, and was free, in the sense of being entitled to its full protection and benefit. Amittere liberam legem (to lose one's free law) was to fall from that status by crime or infamy. See Co.Litt. 94b." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1063.

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:15-16

LIBERTAS ECCLESIASTICA

"Church liberty, or ecclesiastical immunity." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1063.

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

"But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

"For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

"Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 4:22-5:1.

Remembering the Old Ways

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Jeremiah 6:16

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16

1. By way of advice concerning their duty, v. 16. God had been used to say to them, Stand in the ways and see. That is,

(1.) He would have them to consider, not to proceed rashly, but to do as travellers in the road, who are in care to find the right way which will bring them to their journey's end, and therefore pause and enquire for it. If they have any reason to think that they have missed their way, they are not easy till they have obtained satisfaction. O that men would be thus wise for their souls, and would ponder the path of their feet, as those that believe lawful and unlawful are of no less consequence to us than the right way and the wrong are to a traveller!

(2.) He would have them to consult antiquity, the observations and experiences of those that went before them: "Ask for the old paths, enquire of the former age <Job 8:8>, ask thy father, thy elders <Deut. 32:7>, and thou wilt find that the way of godliness and righteousness has always been the way which God has owned and blessed and in which men have prospered. Ask for the old paths, the paths prescribed by the law of God, the written word, that true standard of antiquity. Ask for the paths that the patriarchs travelled in before you, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; and, as you hope to inherit the promises made to them, tread in their steps. Ask for the old paths, Where is the good way?" We must not be guided merely by antiquity, as if the plea of prescription and long usage were alone sufficient to justify our path. No; there is an old way which wicked men have trodden, <Job 22:15>. But, when we ask for the old paths, it is only in order to find out the good way, the highway of the upright. Note, The way of religion and godliness is a good old way, the way that all the saints in all ages have walked in.

(3.) He would have them to resolve to act according to the result of these enquiries: "When you have found out which is the good way, walk therein, practise accordingly, keep closely to that way, proceed, and persevere in it." Some make this counsel to be given them with reference to the struggles that were between the true and false prophets, between those that said they should have peace and those that told them trouble was at the door; they pretended they knew not which to believe: "Stand in the way," says God, "and see, and enquire, which of these two agrees with the written word and the usual methods of God's providence, which of these directs you to the good way, and do accordingly."

(4.) He assures them that, if they do thus, it will secure the welfare and satisfaction of their own souls: "Walk in the good old way and you will find your walking in that way will be easy and pleasant; you will enjoy both your God and yourselves, and the way will lead you to true rest. Though it cost you some pains to walk in that way, you will find an abundant recompence at your journey's end."

(5.) He laments that this good counsel, which was so rational in itself and so proper for them, could not find acceptance: "But they said, We will not walk therein, not only we will not be at the pains to enquire which is the good way, the good old way; but when it is told us, and we have nothing to say to the contrary but that it is the right way, yet we will not deny ourselves and our humours so far as to walk in it." Thus multitudes are ruined for ever by downright wilfulness.

2. By way of admonition concerning their danger. Because they would not be ruled by fair reasoning, God takes another method with them; by less judgments He threatens greater, and sends His prophets to give them this explication of them, and to frighten them with an apprehension of the danger they were in (v. 17); Also I set watchmen over you. God's ministers are watchmen, and it is a great mercy to have them set over us in the Lord. Now observe here,

(1.) The fair warning given by these watchmen. This was the burden of their song; they cried again and again, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. God, in His Providence, sounds the trumpet <Zech. 9:14>; the watchmen hear it themselves and are affected with it <Jer. 4:19>, and they are to call upon others to hearken to it too, to hear the Lord's controversy, to observe the voice of Providence, to improve it, and answer the intentions of it.

(2.) This fair warning slighted: "But they said, We will not hearken; we will not hear, we will not heed, we will not believe; the prophets may as well save themselves and us the trouble." The reason why sinners perish is because they do not hearken to the sound of the trumpet; and the reason why they do not is because they will not; and they have no reason to give why they will not but because they will not, that is, they are herein most unreasonable. One may more easily deal with ten men's reasons than one man's will.

Bits and Pieces

The Terrorist and his Nom de Guerre

The following 'word-for-word' statistics were recently printed in a Los Angeles Times article quoting The U.S. State Department and The Associated Press concerning the terrorist bombings in Africa:

1996: Osama bin Laden declares "war" against U.S.

1998: Bin Laden linked to bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Other Prominent Arab Militants:

Ayman Zawehiri: Considered close to Bin Laden since Afghan war. Once believed in Switzerland, but now in Afghanistan. A doctor by training. President Clinton froze his assets in 1995.

Rifal Ahmad Taha: Considered main figure in Egypt's Islamic Group. Nom de guerre, Abu Yassar.

Mustafa Hamza: A leader of Islamic Group. Served time for Sadat's assassination. Nom de guerre, Abu Hazem.

Mohammed Islambouli: A leader of Islamic Group. Clinton froze his assets in 1995.

America's Commonality

Some of the parallels between Sodom and today's America are found in Ezekial 16:49:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Examples:

The modern expressions of; "I'm proud to be an American," "I'm so proud of you," "team pride," and "made with pride in America."

Converting God's plentiful gifts (the fullness of bread) by eating and drinking to excess for the gratification of the lusts, or the purging of it through excessive exercise and vain worship of the body.

There are now ten 3-day national holidays each year--30 days off. 42 additional weekends--84 days off. An average of 7 sick days allowed--7 days off. Vacation average, 2 weeks--14 days off. Total: 135 days off, out of 365. Average hours per week worked by a production worker: 34 hours out of 168.

Along with the ease of abundance, and the love it, comes the temptation of idleness. Idleness is an inlet to much sin, for "The standing waters gather filth and the sitting bird is the fowler's mark."

The continual manipulation and oppression of the poor and needy continually breeds crime, and dependence.

Nationhood? and The Postal Service

In a Commentary by CFR'er George Will published in The Post and Courier on June 25, 1998, he stated that:

America's march to true nationhood was halting, in part because of economic rivalries among regions. In his new book, "A History of the American People," Paul Johnson notes that the word "nation," which some Southerners found objectionable, does not appear in The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and even Chief Justice John Marshall, the supreme nationalizer, used the word gingerly: "America has chosen to be, in many respects and for many purposes, a nation."

Early in the 19th century, during debates on the building of the National Road, Sen. William Smith of -- where else? -- South Carolina objected to "this insidious word" which was, he said, inimical to "the origins and theory of our government" as a confederation of sovereign states. It took roads -- and canals, railroads, the Postal Service, and especially the New Deal's redistribution of wealth toward the South -- to provide the economic prerequisite of national unity.

Ultimus Depravitus

Clinton, his wife, and Starr-- each one a lawyer.

The blessings of the Clinton/Lewinski lie-a-thon are found in the full exposure of the lawyers involved, and the truth of Our Lord's admonition:

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52

Because it has already been written in His Divine Word, all Christians need not wonder where the truth is found within the temples of the Pharisees, scribes and lawyers of Washington, D.C.

There is none!!

Issue the Thirty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Theology of History...

Tithing, Negotiable Instruments and Commercial Paper...

Twelve Reasons Why the Bible is the Word of God...

Matthew Arnold's Modernism...

Bar Attorney Facts...

In Whose Name Do You Call?...

Milton on Christian Liberty...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Theology of History

An Introduction to Providential Historiography

by Greg Loren Durand

Dr. Gary North once remarked:

"Neutrality does not exist. Everything must be interpreted in terms of what God has revealed. The humanistic goal of neutral language... was overturned at the Tower of Babel. Our definitions must be in terms of biblical revelation." Gary North, "In Defense of Biblical Bribery," in R.J. Rushdoony's, Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, N. J.: Craig Press, 1973), p. 843.

History, of course, is not exempted from this requirement. Secular Humanist historians view human events and the passage of time as the outworking of mere chance; history therefore has no discernible point of origin, no structure, and no culmination to which it directs our gaze. The world view of the Humanist is both nihilistic and non-chronological; nothing is ultimately knowable and nothing can really be communicated from one generation to another. In the words of one Humanist writer:

"There is no one key to the riddle of historical causation. At times one or another factor may rise to a position of transcendent importance, but no single "cause" or "influence" has been dominant throughout all of human history." Harry Elmer Barnes, Living in the Twentieth Century (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1928), page 361.

More to the point, the Second Humanist Manifesto declared:

"[W]e can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." Humanist Manifesto II (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1980), p. 16.

The Humanist can never learn from the past because the past has nothing to teach him. Because everything is in a constant state of flux, it is impossible for the Humanist to understand the past; he is unable to analyze past events because he cannot assume that either the scientific method or the ethical system which he employs to conduct his analysis were relevant to that particular time. He is unable to establish a mental link to people long dead, for the world they saw and the emotions they felt were likely nothing like his own. In a word, history to the Humanist is meaningless; he is cut off from the family of man to drift aimlessly through a disjointed and unattached existence toward a frighteningly unpredictable future.

In his book 1984, George Orwell wrote, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." It should not surprise us that Humanists will interpret, or even rewrite history as current circumstances or political agendas may require. The god of the Humanist (and we must never doubt the fact that the Humanist does in fact worship a god) is a territorial god; he is bound to the here and now and his dominion is confined to what can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. His is a god which disdains precedent, rejects established (Christian) customs and usages, and instead commands his worshippers to indulge themselves in the pursuit of momentary pleasures or private gain. A people who have bowed their knee to such an idol as this cannot be free; they must be subjugated to tyrants who rule according to superior force rather than a set system of "ethics" (Christian morals), for, as the Humanist believes, "there are no absolutes, no values, or facts outside space and time, only those ends in view and facts that we help to discover or create." (see Sidney Ratner, essay: "Facts and Values in History," The Humanist, January-February, 1957, page 38).

True Law is inseparably tied to history (*see Endnote), and if history is irrelevant or mutable according to circumstances, then the only "law" which can restrain the tyrant or govern his conquered domain is that which he discovers by "trial and error" (*see Editor's Endnote), or that which he creates out of thin air as "necessity" dictates. As C.S Lewis cautioned:

"Let us not be deceived by phrases about 'Man taking charge of his own destiny.' All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of the others." C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Pubishing Company, 1972), p. 316.

Thus, the people are increasingly heavy-laden under a legal yoke of the forever changing codes, rules, and regulations that arise from an equally forever changing "public policy." Deprived of any historical reference point by which to evaluate their condition, and deprived of a belief in a transcendent Being to whom they can turn for aid in the midst of their plight, such a people will eventually resort to revolutionary means of securing their freedom from one tyrant and their subsequent bondage to another with his own baseless laws and changing policies. Thus, the unbeliever is forced to affirm, with Vladimir Lenin, that:

"the real driving force of history is the revolutionary class struggle," V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, (Moscow: Progress Pub., 1980), Vol. XI, p. 71.

or with Karl Marx, that:

"Revolutions are the locomotives of history." Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, in Collected Works of Karl Marx New York, N. Y.: International Pub., 1978), Vol. X, page 122.

"Does history support a belief in God?" The answer, according to the Humanist, is a "reluctant negative." (see Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York, N. Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 46.)

The Christian, however, does not succumb to such a "reluctant" infidelity. History not only supports a belief in God, but confirms it. As Carl F.H. Henry wrote:

"Christianity claims to be an historical religion not simply in the sense that all world religions are historical, that is, phenomena of human history; it asserts more than this, namely, that the living God decisively grounds divine revelation in specific external events attested in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures." Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1976), Vol. II, p. 312.

"Because God created a true universe outside of Himself, there is a true history which exists." Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There, in the Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer (West-chester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1982), Volume 1, page 113.

Cicero once declared, "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child." History to the Christian is to be diligently and honestly studied and the lessons of the past are to be applied to the present. We are not to be ignorant of history (1 Corinthians 10:1), not only because the events of the past have shaped our present, just as what we do today will effect our children's tomorrow, but more importantly, that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14).

Children are generally not conscious of a reality outside of their own limited experience and must be told by others how to think and act. The mature Christian man, however, is able to both think for and govern himself. He possesses an inward "code of ethics" (Christian morals) which is derived (and reinforced and confirmed) from study of the true history of the Bible and of the lives of faithful Christians who have gone before him. He is able to review the mistakes of his predecessors in the Faith and to intelligently apply the lessons learned therefrom to avoid repeating their mistakes, and he is likewise able to imitate his forebears when he discerns that they acted rightly.

As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition..." (1 Corinthians 10:11). In this way, each generation of Christians is enabled to build upon the foundations laid by past generations, ever moving Christendom forward in its moral and social development. (Gary North referred to this development as "progressive corporate sanctification" (see Westminster's Confession [Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], page 257).

Make no mistake about it, mankind owes its progress to the Christian Church as she is led by the Holy Spirit, not to the heathen ramblings of unregenerate pseudo-intellectuals and revisionist historians who see man's existence as nothing more than a bloody "survival of the fittest," (or "law of the jungle").

The reprobate philosopher Voltaire insisted that history is merely "a collection of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind"; it is nothing more than a curiosity by which the unbeliever is "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7). The Scriptures, on the other hand, teach providential historiography - the doctrine that history is the manifestation of God's providential dealings with His creation for the benefit of His people, the Church. "We know, wrote the Apostle Paul, "that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). When preaching to the heathen philosophers on Mars Hill, Paul stated:

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands [He is not a territorial god] neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being (Acts 17:24-28).

Man is indeed responsible for the estate in which he finds himself, but at the same time, there is a Higher Will that directs his will and moves his every thought and action to accomplish a purpose often unknown to himself. "A man's heart deviseth his way but the LORD directeth his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). Even "the king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it withersoever He will" (Proverbs 21:1).

To again quote Henry:

"Yahweh vindicates his holy purpose even amid human actions that defiantly repudiate him and his concerns. All historical events are subject to his overruling omnipotence and inescapably serve his intended ends; even the untoward actions of wicked men are made sovereignly instrumental to God's purposes of redemptive grace and triumphant righteousness. Mankind's self-assertive and rebellious will in no case diminishes the course of events under Yahweh's sovereign control; even the most insolent actions of unregenerate humanity promote a divine overarching purpose. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, page 254.

All things, including time itself, serve the will of the True and Living God. History is therefore His story; God has orchestrated the affairs of the earth to bring honor to His Son Jesus Christ and glory to Himself. God the Father has promised to give the nations of the world to the Son as His inheritance (Psalm 2:8), and history is the ongoing fulfillment of that promise. To study history is to study God; history is theology. To interpret history in any other way is to adopt the mindset of the atheist.

Let us remember that all confederacies, leagues, united states or nations that do not bow their knee and covenant with the God of history and with His appointed King are doomed to fall into ruin (Psalm 2:11-12, 9:17), to lose their place in history, and to be forgotten by future generations (Hosea 4:6). As we have seen, any people who reject the Covenant of Life which was ratified in the Blood shed by Jesus Christ will necessarily embrace the covenant of death which is ratified, but never satisfied, by the blood shed by millions of victims in an ongoing series of revolutions (Proverbs 8:36). The Church of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, however, will endure throughout history and will, as the Prophet Daniel foresaw, expand to fill the whole earth (Daniel 2:35).

Endnote

American liberties, particularly those spelled out in the Bill of Rights, have their origin in the Magna Charta which King John was forced to sign on 15 June, 1215 at Runnymeade, England. Most Americans today have never read the Bill of Rights, and an even greater number have never heard of the Magna Charta. Consequently, it is not surprising that they offer no resistance when the last remaining vestiges of liberty are stripped from them by often-contrived "national emergencies."

Editor's Endnote

"Systems of taxation are not framed, nor is it possible to frame them, with perfect distribution of benefit and burden. Their authors must be satisfied with a rough and ready form of justice. This is true in special measure while the workings of a novel method are untested by a rich experience. There must be advance by trial and error." Cardozo, J., in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (1933), 288 U.S. 517, 586, cited in Megarry, A Second Miscellany at Law (1973), p. 258. [All systems of taxation are based on irrational secular reason. Benefit and burden are the connection, and once the connection is made, arbitrariness (trial and error) is the rule to achieve "equality."]

Editor's Note

Greg Loren Durand is editor of the quarterly journal Grace & Law Review, and author of: The Five Points of Christianity; In God We Trust? The Deadly Cancer of the "Health and Wealth Gospel"; De Legis et Gubernatis: The Christian's Duty to the Civil Magistrate; The God Who Isn't There: Examining the Process Theology of Modern Arminian Scholars; and "Communion with the Gods" - The Pagan Alter of Freemasonry.

For further information on the moderately priced above titles and reprints of The Real Lincoln, American Bastile, Liberty and Slavery, A True Estimate of Abe Lincoln, and a complete price list of other available reprints, write to:

Crown Rights Book Company
c/o Post Office Box 769
Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A. [39577]

Website: http://members.aol.com/crwnrts/resource.htm

Tithing, Negotiable Instruments and Commercial Paper

by John Joseph

This is such a testy subject with all sorts of possibilities in the human mind that we feel compelled to address it here. God, in His Word, has given specific instructions regarding the manner of tithing which we will not be addressing. We will be addressing the issue of the form and the substance of the tithe. God addressed this as well, but in modern thought commercial paper is seen by the natural man as the equivalent of the Biblical mandate, because it appears to perform the same purpose as substance. And it is here that the Good and Lawful Christian departs from the ways of the world.

The basis is this: to date we have never found any mandate in Scripture which allows to the modern concept of using commercial paper for tithing purposes.

Modern pagan law uses commercial paper in all its transactions with its entities because of the doctrine of parity, i.e., unlike kind ought not to be joined. The corollary of this is that like kind ought to be joined. So that, because the modern corporation exists on paper, it ought to be joined to like kind--commercial paper.

Christ's church on the other hand, does not exist on paper but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts related to the local church's general form of worship. And this is where the situation gets ugly fast: It is impossible for the True church of Christ to receive and accept commercial paper in lieu of Lawful substance declared in God's Word and maintain that the tithe is Lawful. Why? Because without permission in Scripture allowing such practice, there can be no Law supporting such a transaction. We must look at this more closely to see what is said, for this is not an adiaphoric position. We will approach this from three points: First, what money is; Second, what is commercial paper or negotiable instruments; and, Three duties of fiduciaries, borrowing from the digests and treatises the powers and duties of agents to their principals. All sections apply not only to those having charge over this particular affair, but also to those who tithe to Christ's church.

Going to Scripture we find the following concerning "money" which applies to Christ's church:

"And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh." Ezekiel 45:12.

The last word above is a word which is key to the issue of "money." Many have never concerned themselves with looking up the definition of this word, but have pursued other areas looking to justify the commercial expedient using their natural reason. We cannot allow ourselves this luxury.

MANEH. A fixed weight or measured amount, i.e. (techn.) a maneh or mina:--maneh, pound. Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p. 68.

Notice what money is: a fixed weight of substance. This is the first line of separation for Christ's church. Christ's church gives those things which have their origin in the creations of God, for the Christian Inherits these things from God through Christ. This chain must never be broken at any time, lest the Covering and Sanctuary of God be lost. Let us also understand that if one uses these fixed weights of substance in his tithe to the church, it is not the physical substance that is being tithed. It is rather the pre-conditioned Inherited right from God through Christ Jesus in the substance being tithed signifying our bond to Him in covenant. In other words, the substance we see with our eyes is not the substance God sees. The substance we see with our eyes is the token of what God sees, both being in agreement--the two witness evidence rule of Scripture. We know this to be true for God's Word brought the silver into being 3, declares the purposes for it, and the standing it has in His Original Estate (see Genesis 1:1). Examining the word "token" we see that what is being done sets the character of the tithe, whether Lawful or lawless:

TOKEN. 1. Something that serves to indicate a fact, event, object, feeling, etc.; a sign or symbol. 2. A sign or mark indicating some quality, or distinguishing one object from others; a characteristic mark O.E. 3. Something serving as proof of a fact or statement; an evidence. Oxford Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 2205.

It also serves to declare the character, whether Lawful or lawless, of the one tendering it. We see from the above definition that the substance God has given His church has a different quality, characteristic and is distinguishable from those things springing from the mind of the natural man: commodities, commercial paper, or negotiable instruments. You may consider your self blessed by the whopping numbers appearing on the face of the negotiable instrument, but did you ever ask your self this question: Does God need that which originates in the natural man to bless you? Does God need treasures of wickedness originating in the mind of the natural man for His church to prosper? For if God is truly a God of the living, how could He partake of those things of death?

One more thing I might add here, is that these commercial instruments add burdens, i.e. finance charges, late fees, interest, penalties, and the like, with them which distinguishes them from God:

"The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." Proverbs 10:22
"Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivereth from death" Proverbs 10:2

I need not proceed any further in this issue for this part is resolved as follows: Whatever you tender in tithe to Christ's church has a specific character which evidences with whom you have a covenant: either your covenant is sealed by the Blood of Christ; or, your covenant is with death, through the use of commercial paper and negotiable instruments.

Now to the issue of fiduciaries. We must look at this particular issue from God's perspective and notice what is said here concerning fiduciaries, which all Executors are by the nature of the office they occupy:

"Agency means a fiduciary relationship by which a party confides to another the management of some business to be transacted in the former's name or on his account, and by which such other assumes to do the business and render an account of it." Huckabee v. Pullman Co., 8 F.2d 43; Parker v. Wilson, 137 S.W. 926, 2299 Ark. 344; Dyar v. Georgia Power Co., 176 S.E. 711, 173 S.C. 527; Reed v. Hester, 44 S.W.2d 1107.

Although we used the doctrines applying to agency they are general enough to be applied to all fiduciaries. There are subtle distinctions between an agent and an executor, but for purposes of this discussion they are not needed at this time. We see then that the agent must account to his principal for all transactions in which he is bound. All funds or tithes coming into the fiduciary's hands must be accounted to his Principal:

"It is the duty of the agent to account to his principal for all property or funds belonging to his principal which come into his hands by virtue of his agency." Insurance etc. Co. v. Land Co., 58 So. 228; Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. Banks, 128 S.W. 566, 95 Ark. 86; Jackson v. Gallagher, 57 S.E. 750; 128 Ga. 321; Duff v. Blair, 74 App.Div. 364, 77 N.Y.S. 444; Auburn v. Draper, 23 Barb. 425; Hay v. Hall, 28 Barb. 378.

And it is here that the rub comes. Are fictions of man's law to be accounted the equal of the Substance mandated in God's Law? Let us examine this point in light of the Redemptive Work and Atonement of Christ Jesus and compare the redemptive work and atonement of a certificate of life birth and certificate of death. Would the Justice of God's Righteous Law be satisfied with the latter? If so, why then did He not pursue this course of action? If it does not satisfy these requirements of His Law then we must examine Scripture to find how the church is to handle this affair:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Because our Father is perfect, the image He imprints on our hearts is initially perfect, but covered when we begin to answer to different and strange foreign law. This is why it is necessary to have on the breastplate of righteousness at all times--so that the Seal of our Father imprinted on our hearts is not lost or coerced.

Further, there are certain requirements of loyalty of the fiduciary to his Principal:

58. Duty of Loyalty. The duty of an agent to be loyal to his trust is of paramount importance in the relationship between the agent and his principal. The foundation of the agency is the faith and confidence which the principal reposes in his agent. Keller v. American Chain Co., 255 N.Y. 94, 174 N.E. 74.

"Inasmuch as an agent is essentially a fiduciary, he is required to extend the benefit of his skill and discretion solely in the interests of the party who employs him. If the agent places himself in a position adverse to the best interests of his principal by secretly promoting his own interests or those of another principal, the law will condemn the transaction and afford relief to the aggrieved principal." Elco Shoe Manufacturers, Inc. v. Sisk, 260 N.Y. 100, 183 N.E. 191.
"An agent owes to his principal the duty of acting within the limits of his actual [*constituted] authority. The actual authority is that power which the principal has expressly or impliedly conferred upon his agent.
"From the aspect of third parties, however, the actual authority may be expanded by factors which increase the agent's scope of authority. Secs. 76, 78, 85, and 86, infra. Therefore, an agent has the power, by acting within the apparent scope of his authority, to bind his principal to an unauthorized contract with a third party. In such a case, if the principal [*Christ and His church] suffers any loss [*damage] as a result of the unauthorized contract [*deed or act], the agent will be liable for exceeding his authority. An agent who acts within the limitations of his authority may, nevertheless, be liable for his failure to obey the lawful instructions [*Scripture] of his principal [*Christ Jesus]. If an agent, acting in good faith, deviates from his specific instructions, with- out sufficient cause, he is responsible to his principal for any resultant damages." Rush v. Rush, 170 Ill. 623, 48 N.E. 990; Persons v. Smith, 12 N.D. 403, 97 N.W. 551; Holmes v. Langston, 110 Ga. 861, 36 S.E. 251; Rotwein on Agency, pp. 41-42. [*Insertions added].

If there is a breach of trust, good faith is not a valid defense:

"If an agent is guilty of a breach of trust, his good faith is immaterial, and the fact that his principal has not been damaged is likewise immaterial." Taussig v. Hart, 58 N.Y. 425; Michoud v. Girard, 4 How.(U.S.) 503, 11 L.Ed. 1076.
"The fact that the agent acted in good faith, or that the course pursued by him was reasonable, or that it was intended for the benefit of the principal, is immaterial." 40 Am.Dig., Principal and Agent (Cent. Ed.) sec. 92 (d); Switzer & Switzer v. Connett, 11 Mo. 88; Rechtscherd v. Accommodation Bank, 47 Mo. 88; Coker v. Ropes, 125 Mass. 577; 16 Am.Dig., Principal and Agent (Dec. Ed.) sec. 57 (d).

This also applies if the fiduciary believes that he acted in a proper manner, but failed to carry out the duty in the manner pointed out by the instructions regulating the relationship.

"If an agent performs an authorized act, but not in the specific manner directed, the proper remedy of the principal is an action in damages for breach of contract." Minneapolis Trust Co. v. Mather, 181 N.Y. 205, 73 N.E. 987.
"If, however, an agent performs an act entirely different from the one which his principal directed, as for instance, the disposition of property in a manner not authorized, the remedy of the principal is an action ex delicto for conversion." Laverty v. Snethen, 68 N.Y. 522, 23 Am.Rep. 184; King v. MacKellar, 109 N.Y. 215, 16 N.E. 201.

A few cases will allow for deviation from explicit instructions, but not from all instructions. In the latter case, God's Law is superior to all other law, so that whatever He requires can never be illegal by the "law" of His creatures.

"A deviation from instructions will be excused where an unforeseen emergency requires the agent, in the exercise of his reasonable discretion, to disregard them," Jervis v. Hoyt, 2 Hun.(N.Y.) 637; Drummond v. Wood, 2 Caines(N.Y.) 310; Harter v. Blanchard, 64 Barb.(N.Y.) 617; Bartlett v. Sparkman, 95 Mo. 136; 8 S.W. 406,
"or when obedience would require the agent to perform an illegal act." Brown v. Howard, 14 Johns.(N.Y.) 119; Tiffany on Agency, 2d ed., sec. 144.

Thus, the issue is not whether our Principal has suffered damage or whether we act in good faith; but, whether a breach of the fiduciary duty by us has occurred. What shall we say then? That ignorance of the Law is no excuse because God's Law is not private, but general:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:18-20. [Emphasis added.]
"Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law." In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.
"Ignorance of law signifies ignorance of the law of one's own country." Haven v. Foster (1829), 9 Pick.(Mass.) 111.
"All are presumed to know the law [*of God]." San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882), 62 C. 641; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co. (1912), 163 C. 182, 124 P. 817; People v. Flanagan (1924), 65 C.A. 268, 223 P. 1014; Lincoln v. Superior Court (1928), 95 C.A. 35, 271 P. 1107; San Francisco Realty Co. v. Linnard (1929), 98 C.A. 33, 276 P. 368. [Insertion added].
"According to Lord Westbury in Cooper v. Phibbs, (L. R. 2 H. L. 170), the word jus in the maxim ignorantia juris haud excusat is used in the sense of "general law, the law of the country," not in the sense of "a private right." The true meaning of that maxim is that parties cannot excuse themselves from liability from all civil or criminal consequences of their acts by alleging ignorance of the law, but there is no presumption that parties must be taken to know all the legal consequences of their acts, and especially where difficult questions of law, or of the practice of the court are involved." Lord FitzGerald, Seaton v. Seaton, in L. R. 13 App.Cas. 78.

All of the rules governing the use of commercial paper are private law. These are not necessary for the body of believers to know, for God's Word warns them of the dangers of using such artifices. We must know our general Law to avoid the pitfalls of private law. Never accept any commercial instruments of any kind to remain in and under the protection of God our Father.

Twelve Reasons Why The Bible

Is the Word of God

by Carl McIntire

The Bible, also called the Holy Scriptures, consists of the old Testament and the New Testament, with a total of 66 books, and it is the confession of the historic Christian Church that it is indeed and in truth the very Word of God. The Bible gives to us a direct message from Heaven. It is a special revelation, having been delivered to us by the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus Christ being Himself the chief cornerstone. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "The scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Moreover, it must be emphasized that this is the only Book which is the Word of God or ever will be, and no tradition, or encyclical of a church can be equal with the Word of God.

In the twentieth century especially Satan, in his hatred of God and His Word, has made an attack upon the trustworthiness and the authority of this Book from within the church, in the name of modern scholarship, higher criticism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy, and new evangelicalism.

The first ordination question which I as a minister answered in the affirmative, and which is required of a Bible Presbyterian minister, is, "Do you believe the Old and the New testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?"

The pre-eminent reason, however, which stands above every other possible consideration, as to why we believe the Bible is the Word of God, has been beautifully summarized in the first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as follows:

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (Who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

In accord therefore with these we list twelve reasons:

1. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because it specifically declares itself to be all inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:15-17: "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

2. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the apostles declared it to be the work of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

2 Peter 1:19, 21: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:... For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
1 Timothy 4:1, 6: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;... If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."

3. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, declared that it is trustworthy as it testifies of Him.

John 5:38, 39, 46, 47: "And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.... For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

4. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because God speaks directly in the Scriptures. Such words as, "The word of the Lord," "God spake," "Thus sayeth the Lord," and similar statements occur more than 2,500 times. If it is not the Word of God, it is the greatest fraud of all history.

Genesis 1:3: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Exodus 3:7: "And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people..."
Leviticus 1:1: "And the Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him..."
Numbers 1:1: "And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness..."
Deuteronomy 1:6: "The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, ..."
Joshua 1:1: "the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,"

5. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because of specially fulfilled prophecies spanning centuries.

Matthew 1:22, 23: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
The reference to the virgin birth is in Isaiah 7:14, spoken 750 years before; "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,..."

6. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the most specific details in the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus Christ were all presented centuries before He ever arrived on earth.

Luke 24:44-46: "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
John 14:29: "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe."

7. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the prophets testify that they spoke at His command and in His name.

Jeremiah 1:7, 9: "But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."
2 Samuel 23:1-2: "Now these be the last words of David.... the Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."

8. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because its inspiration extended even to the precise word used and chosen to convey God's message to man.

Galatians 3:15, 16: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

9. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because the apostles recognized that they were indeed the media for the communication of this divine Word.

1Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
2 Peter 1:16: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

10. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because of the heavenliness of its subject matter as it reveals to us God Himself--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--His being, attributes, decrees, and plan.

Romans 11:33-36: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."

11. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because it alone presents the one and only way of salvation for lost sinners.

John 14:10: "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 20:31: "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

12. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD because God forbids anyone to add to it or to take from it. The Almighty God who cannot lie has sealed the volume.

Proverbs 30:5, 6: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Revelation 22:18, 19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

This is the Book, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God" (Eph. 6:17). We must use it in our battle with Satan as our Lord used it in the mount of temptation. It is our standard of righteousness in our dealings with others and society. It is our only effective weapon in the battle with the godless Communist conspiracy. Here God must deliver us.

There is no attack made upon the Scriptures which cannot be answered, no alleged contradiction which cannot be explained. The spade of the archaeologist alone, in the twentieth century, has explored many of the theories and the "all critics agree" philosophy.

The latest and most effective attack ever made by Satan on God's Word is seen in the "new translations" as represented in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), "authorized and copyrighted" by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and by The New English Bible. These so-called translations introduce contradictions, remove words and passages, and take unjustified liberties in translating. As a result, the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures is destroyed "within the Scripture itself." The reader is the victim of the bias and slant of the "modernist" scholars who do not believe the Book to be the Word of God. The cherished King James Version thus still remains the best and most acceptable translation the English-speaking world possesses. The infallability of the Scriptures extends to the original "photographs" in the Hebrew and Aramaic, for the Old Testament; and the Greek, for the New Testament. All translations into whatever language are known as "versions." So careful has been the transmission of the Scriptures through the centuries by those who believed it to be the very Word of God that we have indeed today a record preserved in God's providence which we can trust.

"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
"The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

The above quotations are Sections IX and X of Chapter I, of the Westminster Confession of Faith. But Section V is our conclusion:

"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."

Jesus Christ said, "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17).

Editor's Note: Dr. McIntire's booklets, The New Bible--Revised Standard Version--Why Christians should Not Accept It, and The New English Bible--New Testament--What Modernism and Ecumenism Do to the Word of God, may be had for 10 cents each, by addressing the 20th Century Reformation Center, Collingswood, New Jersey.

Matthew Arnold's Modernism

by John Senior

from his Death of Christian Culture, (1978), pp. 1-4.

Matthew Arnold was one of the hinges on which the English speaking world, a century ago, turned from Christianity to Modernism. He was a most fair-minded and articulate exponent of the Liberal view and, like many Liberals today, still thought of himself--somehow--as a Christian. But he wrote:

"In spite of the crimes and follies in which it lost itself, the French Revolution derives from the force, truth, and universality of the ideas which it took for its law, and from the passion with which it could inspire a multitude for these ideas, a unique and still living power; it is--it will probably long remain--the greatest, the most animating event in history."

Arnold had absorbed a classical education from a famous Christian father. He had the highest respect for Christianity, but did not believe it. The [French] Revolution was the 'greatest, the most animating event in history,' he said--not the Crucifixion. He was convinced that the revolutionaries had carried things too far in the right direction. The 'religious problem,' as he calls it, is how to reconceive Christianity so as to put it in the service of the Revolution:

"A fresh synthesis of the New Testament data--not a making war on them, in Voltaire's fashion, not leaving them out of mind, in the world's fashion, but the putting a new construction upon them the taking them from under the old, traditional, conventional point of view and placing them under a new one--is the very essence of the religious problem, as now presented and only by efforts in this direction can it receive a solution."

The identification of the traditional with the conventional is, of course, as old as sophistry, and often serves an an opening for change.

But Christ Himself said, 'Omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo.' Christian doctrine is not the result of convention, though it is indeed traditional: 'All things have been handed down to Me by the Father.' Christianity can never serve the times. According to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, liberty is the power of doing what we will [*not what He wills], so long as it does not injure another. In a sense this can be true (provided that the will is rightly formed [*and only God's is rightly formed]). But according to the Liberal view, 'Do what thou wilt' includes willing to do what thou shouldst not. The Liberal takes a stand in No Man's Land between 'the law in my members' and 'the law in my mind.' In that precarious and self-righteous place, doing what thou wilt must always injure others, if what thou wilt is separate from the good. By doing evil to others or to ourselves, we first of all injure ourselves, because to do evil is the worst thing that can happen to a man. If others consent, the harm reciprocally injures everyone. There is no such thing as a victimless crime any more than a free lunch. There is no such thing as a Christianity in which the commandments of God are accommodated to the Rights of Man.

But to save appearances and secure a useful social continuity, the Liberal thinks 'religion' must be saved--though in the service of the revolution and its new culture in which God will depend for His existence on us. 'Religion,' Arnold writes,

"is the greatest and most important of the efforts by which the human race has manifested its impulses to perfect itself."

But no contingent being in itself can be the source of its own perfection, nor, given an infinity of contingent beings each dependent on another, could they all together be a source of their own perfection. [*"Perfect" legislators cannot create the perfect society by their "perfect" legislation.] Rather, some Being must exist necessarily, if any does contingently. For Arnold, that order is reversed. The necessary is made dependent on the contingent. And religion is:

"That voice of the deepest human experience, [which] does not only enjoin and sanction the aim which is the great aim of culture, the aim of setting ourselves to ascertain what perfection is and to make it prevail; but also, in determining generally in what perfection consists, religion comes to a conclusion identical with that ofculture."

For Arnold, religion works along with art, science, and philosophy to achieve what he calls 'perfection.' Perfection he defines in defiance of etymology:

"It is making endless additions to itself, in the endless expansion of its powers, in endless growth in wisdom and by beauty, that the spirit of the human race finds its ideal. To reach this ideal, culture is an indispensable aid, and that is the true value of culture. Not a having and a lasting, but a growing and a becoming is the character of perfection."

I said 'in defiance of etymology' because the root of the word perfection, exactly opposite to 'becoming,' means 'done,' 'complete,' totally at rest, 'having become'--per-facere. 'To reach the ideal,' Arnold says. But how can an ideal of 'endless growth' be reached? Here we have an old sophism dressed up as a new principle of Liberal religion--that perfection is becoming. The present historical task--always the present historical task in every age--is revolution, though Arnold more subtly insists that the revolution is best achieved by reinterpreting rather than simply destroying the past. At the metaphysical root of this error is the Heraclitean failure to solve the problem of the one and the many. Because nothing ever is, they say, there is nothing constant, only endless flux.

From this false view of becoming it immediately follows, and Arnold puts it in the same paragraph, that Liberal culture must be collectivist. For in an endless and contradictory movement there is no permanent substance. A person is a meaningless non-entity; so a number of coagulated non-entities, by their collective contingency, must somehow create their being out in front of them. It is a kind of Indian rope trick in which a tissue of non-entities throws its finality into the air and climbs after it. This is the basis of religious evolutionism--often confused with Newman's exactly contrary view of the development of doctrine--in which the whole of creation is forever hoisted on its own petard. Evolution, Newman insists, is not development. In development, what is given once and for all in the beginning is merely made explicit. What was given once and for all in Scripture and Tradition has been clarified by in succeeding generations, but only by addition, never contradiction; whereas evolution proceeds by negation. Newman devotes a whole chapter in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine to refuting the idea that any thing contrary to dogma can ever be a proper development, nor any thing not found in the consensus of the Fathers dogma. Put positively, development is radically conservative, permitting only that change which helps doctrine to remain true by defining errors that arise in every age against it. Doctrine grows, as Ronald Knox puts it in a homely figure, like a horse's hoof, from trodding on hard, uneven ground."

Bar Attorney Facts

Attorn. "To turn or transfer, as from one estate to another." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 150.

The American Bar Association

Article I

Name and Object

"This Association shall be known as the American Bar Association. Its objects shall be to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice and uniformity of legislation and of judicial decision throughout the Nation, uphold the honor of the profession of the law, encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the Bar organizations of the respective States on a representative basis in the interest of the legal profession and of the public throughout the United States."

Article II

Qualifications for Membership

"Any person who is a member in good standing of the Bar of any State or Territory of the United States, or of any of the territorial group, shall be eligible to membership in this Association, on endorsement, nomination and election as provided in the By-Laws of the Association. The term 'State' wherever used in this Constitution and By-Laws shall include each the District of Columbia and the Territory of Hawaii." Constitution and By-Laws of the American Bar Association (1936), adopted at the Fifty-ninth annual meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug. 24, 1936.
"Once an attorney has represented a client in court, the client is barred from appearing in propria persona." Knox & Crawford v. Thomas 1806, (D.C.) 7 U.S. 649.
"First the attorney is an officer of the court, and both his legal duties and authority may be modified--either expanded or contracted--by legal and ethical rules regulating the practice of the law." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49.
"An attorney is an officer of the court, and the presumption is that he acted within the scope of his employment." Security Loan & Trust Co. v. Estudillo (1901), 134 C. 166, 169, 66 P. 257.
"The right to have counsel does not justify a court in forcing a lawyer upon an accused who does not want one." Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155.
"Attorneys are not constitutional officers." Ex parte Williams, 20 S.W. 580, 581, 21 L.R.A. 783.
"Attorneys are officers of the court, and answerable to it for the proper performance of their professional duties." Clark v. Willett (1868), 35 C. 534.
"LAWYER. One who is permitted [licensed] to engage in the practice of law, to give legal advice, to represent clients in litigation, and to prepare legal documents. See Barrister; Solicitor." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 184. [Difference between attorneys and lawyers is drawn.]
"A party to an action may appear in proper person, or by attorney, but he cannot do both; and if he appears by attorney, he cannot assume control of the case." Board of Commissioners v. Younger (1865), 29 C. 147.
"A plea to the jurisdiction of the person must be pleaded in person and not by attorney. If pleaded by attorney, it is a submission to the jurisdiction of the court." 21 R.C.L. 543.
"The right to practice law is not a contract." Cohen v. Wright, 22 C. 293.
"The attorney's status as an officer of the court, and his sole power to act in legal proceedings, which distinguish him from an ordinary agent, are the basis for a strong presumption of authority." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49.
"ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. 1. At the common-law, a person learned in the law, authorized to to give legal advice, prepare legal documents, and otherwise represent another in all legal transactions except those of pleading or arguing in court. The attorney was confined to activities at law as distinguished from equity. The corresponding official in equity was formerly called the solicitor which is now the term used for both branches. If litigation was involved, the attorney prepared the pleadings, but for trial and argument, he selected a barrister or King's counsel, and 'instructed' or briefed him.
2. In the United States, attorney-at-law is the general term for members of the legal profession. These are now licensed by special examination in all states and after such examination, 'admitted to the bar,' upon which they become 'officers of the court.' The American attorney-at-law both advises clients and pleads for them. There is no differentiation between attorneys and solicitors on the basis of law and equity or between the attorney and the barrister as to representation in court.

Other titles such as 'counsel,' 'counsellor,' 'solicitor,' 'proctor,' are used in some American courts, but are merely the equivalents of 'attorney-at-law.

See Canons of Professional Ethics, adopted by the American Bar Association, regarding the conduct prescribed for attorneys." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), pp. 26-27.

"SHYSTER. (U.S. sl.) tricky lawyer, unscrupulous business man, etc. XIX. Prob. Based on G. scheisser, agent-nown of scheissen SHIT, with substitution of -STER. CF. SHICER." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 825.
"SHICER. (sl.) worthless person; (Austral.) unproductive mine. XIX -G. Scheisser 'cacator, agent-noun of scheissen SHIT. Cf. SHYSTER." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 820.

In Whose Name Do You Call?

by Walter Gordon

Greetings in the Name of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20.

When you phone 818 347-7080 someone will say, 'In Whose Name do you call?" or, "In Whose Name do you come?" The answer to these questions is found in Ephesians 2:10 and Philippians 4:21. Why is that? What does this have to do with Law or Jural Societies? This question has arisen before, and some have asked, "My Pastor doesn't answer the phone at his Church like this. What's the deal?"

Let me answer these questions through Scripture, and a historical speech. First, unless you are born again through Christ Jesus, you have no standing to use the Holy Scriptures in Law. There is no other access to the Only True God, who created the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1, Isa 42:5, 45:12, 48:18, 65:17, Col. 1:16, Rev. 10:6). Your righteousness shall (must) exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. Christian common Law (Biblical Law applied) is not available to anyone who does not know Christ Jesus, and is especially not recognizable, for His edification, through the current Roman military commercial courts in America. Sorry folks, no matter what Scriptures you invoke into your pleadings, Our Lord will not recognize them in those courts as Biblical in nature.

Hopefully, you will see that there is no other Lawful way for The King's Men to answer the phone. If you do not come in the "Name above all names," but instead in your own name, then you have no standing in the only true Law. Your questions are a waste of time! Let us see what Dr. John Gill had to say about Matthew 5:20:

"Ver. 20. For I say unto you, &c.] These words are directed, not to the true disciples of Christ in general, or to his apostles in particular, but to the whole multitude of the people; who had in great esteem and admiration the Scribes and Pharisees, for their seeming righteousness and holiness; concerning which Christ says, that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. He mentions the Scribes, because they were the more learned part of the people, who were employed in writing out, and expounding the law; and the Pharisees, because they were the strictest sect among the Jews for outward religion and righteousness; and yet, it seems, their righteousness was very defective; it lay only in an external observance of the law: did not arise from a purified heart, or the principles of grace; nor was it performed sincerely, and with a view to the glory of God; but for their own applause, and in order to obtain eternal life: besides, they neglected the weightier matters of the law [*judgment, mercy, faith], and contented themselves with the lesser ones; and as they were deficient in their practice, so they were very lax in their doctrines, as appears from the foregoing verse.
Wherefore Christ informs his hearers, that they must have a better righteousness than these men had, if ever they expected to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There will be no admission into heaven without a righteousness: it was the loss of righteousness which removed Adam out of his earthly paradise: and it is not agreeable to the justice of God, to admit man into his kingdom and glory. A pharisaical righteousness will never bring a person thither; nor will any righteousness of man's, be it what it will, because the best is imperfect; it must be a righteousness exceeding that of the Scribes and Pharisees; and such is the righteousness of the saints: indeed their inherent righteousness, or the sanctification of the Spirit, is preferable to any righteousness of a natural man; it exceeds it in its author, nature, effects, and usefulness; yea, even works of righteousness done by believers are greatly preferable to any done by such men as are here mentioned: but, above all, the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to them, and received by faith, is infinitely more excellent in its author, perfection, purity, and use; and which is their only right and title to eternal glory; and without which no man will be admitted into that glorious state." Gill's Commentaries, An Exposition of The New Testament, Vol. I, p. 35, 1852 reprint. [*Insertion added.]

It is clear that this commentary by John Gil shows that only through Christ Jesus will man enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, make no mistake about the following:

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh to the Father but by me" John 14:6.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" Acts 4:12.

No matter whether you claim to be Christian or non-Christian, it is only through Christ Jesus that you obtain your lawful authority, power, and standing on earth and in heaven. A recent experience put me in direct conflict with a Pastor of a local, unregistered Church. He finished reading "How the Church Fell From Grace" and "The Book of the Hundreds," and made his position clear to me. I'll paraphrase his comments, "It is easy to get a Non-Statutory Abatement win from a court (through the county clerk) which nobody recognizes in law, but show me a real win when you get a decision from a State Supreme Court, or the US Supreme Court."

His views mirror the forthcoming attempt of the "Christian Right" to tackle the corrupt political and legal systems in America. Although this Pastor is an ordained minister of God, has an extensive, historical knowledge of our legal system, and assists many Church's with un-incorporating (de-registering) around the country, he is flat wrong in his Biblical understanding of Law.

Let me show you why Christian common Law is the answer to access the only true God (in Law), and why filing a pleading into the Roman military commercial court has no foundation in Biblical Law.

"I appreciate, as fully as you do, the great and very radical change that is about being wrought in our system of administering justice by our new Constitution, and the law passed in obedience to it; and I can well understand the anxiety which you, a class of young attorneys, just entering upon your profession, would naturally have to be informed as to the nature of that change and the character of the new duties which will devolve upon you in consequence of it." Honorable John Worth Edmonds, Justice of the Supreme Court, New York, May 13, 1848.

These words written by Justice Edmonds to "the candidates [*17 total] for admission to practice as attorneys at the last April Term of the Supreme Court in the City of New York..." were in response to their letter of April, 1848, which in part states;

"The unsettled state of the practice upon which we are about entering, the innovations which have been and are being made in the judiciary, and the radical change in the administration of justice, admonish us not to act upon the perhaps crude ideas which we may have formed as to its efficiency, but to gather from the instructions of a long experience the guide to future action. Ours was the last examination under the now existing practice, and being, as it were, under your immediate supervision, we anticipated that you would address us on the manifold duties incumbent upon those who were then about entering upon the active discharge of their profession."

This is the background my Pastor friend, and others, need to hear. When someone argues for justice in those Roman military, commercial courts, without understanding the "radical change in the administration of justice" which took place in 1848, they will have no lawful precedent in which to base their Scriptural argument. The court makes its decisions based upon expediency, not true Law. With this introduction, let me quote from parts of the speech given by Justice Edmonds declaring this "radical change" to these young attorneys.

"It was the intention of the New Constitution in abolishing the Court of Chancery, not to destroy its functions, but to remove the Court as a separate tribunal from among our institutions. Its powers and duties were therefore carefully preserved, and were vested in the Supreme Court, which had always, until then, been a court of law as distinguished from one of Equity. This arrangement of the functions of those two tribunals naturally produced in the minds of those acquainted with the organization of the judicial tribunals, the idea that the Court of Equity was to be swallowed up in the Court of Law, and that the diffuse, dilatory, and expensive proceedings of the former were to be replaced by the more terse, pointed, and expeditious habitudes of the latter; or, in other words, as the Court of Chancery had drawn its origin and its practice from the Civil Law and the Supreme Court, in imitation of the King's Bench, from the Common Law, so by this re-organization of the Courts, the precepts of the Civil Law, so far as they governed the mere machinery of conducting an action in its progress, should give place to the precepts of the Common Law, and that the uniformity of proceeding which was aimed at, should be that of the Common Law, rather than of the Civil Law, because it was the former which had always guided that Court, into which the Court of Equity was now to be absorbed." Page 7 and 8.
"Such, I say, was the impression that was produced by the manner in which our Courts were re-organized, and by the accustomed clause in the Constitution, declaring the Common Law as it existed in this country in 1775, to be the law of this State. There was no express enactment in the organic law to that effect; but the impression obtained, notwithstanding the power conferred upon the Legislature to sweep away from our jurisprudence all or any part of the Common Law.
"That impression, however, is now to be removed, for it would seem to have been the intention of the Legislature, by this Code of Practice, to remove the whole Common Law mode of procedure, and to substitute in its place the practice of the Civil Law, and reversing the expected order of things, to swallow up the Supreme Court, as formerly constituted, so far at least as practice and pleading are concerned, in the Court of Chancery.
"This is the first great and leading feature in the New Code, to which our attention is to be directed, and which must be constantly borne in mind, in order to have a right understanding and just appreciation of the radical change which has been made." Pages 8 and 9.
"The changes which have been made are indeed radical and essential; but, with the exception of a few minor matters, peculiar to ourselves, nothing novel or startling has been introduced, nothing indeed that has not been tried and found to work well in this or some other country, in the present or some past period. Nothing, so far as I have been able to discover, has been lopped off, which has not been condemned by some of the most enlightened members of the profession; and nothing introduced that is calculated to impair the rights of property or to interfere with the enjoyment of liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It will add, for a while, and until we shall become acquainted with its provisions and familiar with its workings, to the labors both of the Bench and the Bar; but this will be more than compensated by the extent to which the profession will, in time, be relieved from the mere office drudgery and labor, to which, under the old system, they were condemned, and for a very inadequate remuneration. It will enable them to secure, what has for some time been difficult to obtain, a just compensation for their services, and as it will leave them at liberty to turn their attention to the principles instead of the mere practice of law, to the merits rather than to the proceedings of their cases, it must, I am persuaded, elevate the standing and enlarge the usefulness of the profession.
"Errors and omissions will doubtless be found in it. The haste [*expediency] with which the Legislature exacted the important work to be performed, seeming to expect a Code of Practice "by return mail," and a codification of the whole law "by next week," and which denied to the proposed reforms before enactment, that one examination, in or out of the Legislature, so essential to the perfection of such a work, render these things inevitable. The Commissioners would perhaps have better consulted their own reputation and the welfare of the community, by a successful resistance to this unnecessary haste in so important an undertaking. But be that as it may, time and patience will remedy the evils arising from this cause, and I cannot persuade myself but that we shall ere long--through much tribulation perhaps--enter a haven of safety and ease in the practice, where, amid our repose, we may look back with complacency upon the trials through which we have passed, and have time to wonder at the infatuation which induced us to permit for so long, the numerous ills from which we shall be happily relieved at last, and which nothing but the most inveterate habit would ever have persuaded us to endure for a moment." Pages 45, 46 and 47. [*Insertion added.]

If my Pastor friend does not yet see the documented truths outlined in "How The Church Fell From Grace" and "The Book Of The Hundreds," then I would suggest he (and others) visit the local Law Library and read "A Manual of Roman Private Law," by William W. Buckland, or "Jewish and Roman Law," Two Volumes, by Boaz Cohen, or other such works (available through The Christian Jural Society Press). The radical "legal" change which took place in 1848 - and having since been adopted by the several States - combined with a quick glance at the military flags which hang in every court room today, should be ample evidence to prove the error of any mysterious formulas being calculated to win in the current court system.

If any are still not convinced, let me quote from a basic Encyclopedic source.

"The most important, however, of the attempts at codification which have been made in the United States are those of the state of New York, which had their origin mainly in the able and persistent efforts of David Dudley Field, which he began in 1839, by a public letter on the subject addressed to Gulian C. Verplanck, then a state senator, and continued by a series of addresses to legislative committees, of articles in the newspapers, and of pamphlets. The result of this agitation was that the revised constitution of New York, adopted in 1846, had two separate provisions in relation to codification. The first directed the appointment of three other commissioners to revise the rules of practice and pleadings in courts of record. Both commissioners made a partial report on Feb. 28, 1848, containing an incomplete code of civil procedure, in such shape as to cover the principal reforms proposed in the practice of courts of record in civil cases, and this report was immediately adopted by legislature. The complete codes of civil and criminal procedure were not reported until Dec. 31, 1849, and were never adopted by the legislature, although some portion of the amendments suggested by the commissioners were gradually incorporated by legislation into the text of the original and incomplete code enacted in 1848. On April 6, 1857, the legislature created a new commission to prepare codes of all the law not covered by the reports of the practice commission, and appointed David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, and Alexander W. Bradford the commissioners, for a term of five years, which was afterward extended for three years further. They reported a political code, a penal code, and a civil code. These codes have up to the present time been adopted by the legislature of New York; and indeed, although reported by committees, the legislature has always been too much occupied with special legislature of New York to give the necessary time for their consideration. The code of civil procedure, in whole or in part, has been adopted into the laws of 23 states and territories of the Union, viz.: New York, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, California, Oregon, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and Arizona." The American Cyclopedia, A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge (1873), [Edited by George Ripley and Charles A. Dana, Vol. V, Page 8, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 549 and 551 Broadway. London : 16 Little Britain].

In conclusion, it is only through Christ Jesus, as our Lawgiver and blood sacrifice, that mankind will have standing in Law when they phone the King's Men. It matters not how your minister or pastor (or anyone else) answers their phone, or what Holy Scriptures they use in their pleadings. When the next reformation and restoration of His church begins, without an understanding of where we are today and how this fits into legal history and the Scriptures, my belief is that those who ignore the importance of doing everything Lawful in the name of Christ Jesus, and ignore the history of the legal system, will be wasting God's time in sin.

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Romans 8:1-9.

Milton on Christian Liberty

Many are the ministers of God, and their offices no less many. None more different than state and church government.

The main plea [of those who assert the contrary] is that of the kings of Judah.

But to this I return: that the state of religion under the Gospel is far differing from what it was under the Law. Then was the state of rigour, childhood, bondage, and works; to all which force was not unbefitting. Now is the state of grace, manhood, freedom, and faith; to all which belongs willingness and reason, not force. The Law was then written on tables of stone, and to be performed according to the letter, willingly or unwillingly; the Gospel, our new covenant, upon the heart of every believer, to be interpreted only by the sense of charity and inward persuasion. The Law had no distinct government or governors of church and commonwealth, but the priests and Levites judged in all causes, not ecclesiastical only, but civil (Deut 17:8, &c.); which under the Gospel is forbidden to all church ministers, as a thing which Christ their master in His ministry disclaimed (Luke 12:14), as a thing beneath them (1 Cor 6:4), and by many other statutes, as to them who have a peculiar and far-differing government of their own.

I have shown that the civil power neither hath right nor can do right by forcing religious things. I will now show the wrong it doth by violating the fundamental privilege of the Gospel, the new birthright of every true believer, Christian Liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all;"

and [verse] 31:

"we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

It will be sufficient in this place to say no more of Christian Liberty than that it sets us free not only from the bondage of those ceremonies, but also from the forcible imposition of those circumstances, place and time in the worship of God, which though by Him commanded in the old Law, yet in respect of that verity and freedom which is evangelical, St. Paul comprehends--both kinds alike, that is to say, both ceremony and circumstance --under one and the same contemptuous name of weak and beggarly rudiments (Gal 4:3, 9, 10; Col 2:8 with 16), conformable to what our Saviour Himself taught (John 4:21, 23); Neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem. In spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.

They who would seem more knowing, confess that these things are indifferent, but for that very cause by the magistrate may be commanded. As if God of His special grace in the Gospel had to this end freed us from His own commandments in these things, that our freedom should subject us to a more grievous yoke, the commandments of men! As well may the magistrate call that common or unclean which God hath cleansed; as well may he loosen that which God hath straitened or straiten that which God hath loosened, as he may enjoin these things in religion which God hath left free, and lay on that yoke which God hath taken of. For He hath not only given us this gift as a special privilege and excellence of the free Gospel above the servile Law, but strictly also hath commanded us to keep it and enjoy it. Gal 5:13: You are called to liberty. 1 Cor 7:23: Be not made the servants of men. Gal 5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free; and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Neither is this a mere command, but for the most part in these forecited places, accompanied with the very weightiest and inmost reasons of Christian religion. Romans 14:9, 10: For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? &c. How presumest thou to be his lord, to be who only Lord, at least in these things, Christ both died and rose and lived again? We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. Why then dost thou not only judge, but persecute in these things for which we are to be accountable to the tribunal of Christ only, our Lord and Lawgiver? 1 Cor 7:23: Ye are bought with a price: be not made the servants of men. Some trivial price belike, and for some frivolous pretences paid in their opinion, if--bought and by Him redeemed, Who is God, from what was once the service of God--we shall be enthralled again and forced by men to what now is but the service of men! Gal 4:31, with 5:1: We are not children of the bondwoman, &c. Stand fast therefore, &c. Col 2:8: Beware lest any man spoil you, &c., after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Solid reasons whereof are continued through the whole chapter. Verse 10: Ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power. Not completed therefore, or made the more religious, by those ordinances of civil power from which Christ their head hath discharged us, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross (verse 14). Blotting out ordinances written by God Himself, much more those so boldly written over again by men! Ordinances which were against us, that is, against our frailty, much more those which are against our conscience! Let no man therefore judge you in respect of, &c. (verse 16). Gal 4:3, &c: 3: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, &c. to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, &c. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, &c. But now, &c. how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, &c. Hence it plainly appears, that if we be not free, we are not sons, but still servants unadopted; and if we turn again to those weak and beggarly rudiments, we are not free--yea, though willingly, and with a misguided conscience, we desire to be in bondage to them. How much more then, if unwillingly and against our conscience?

Ill was our condition changed from legal to evangelical,and small advantage gotten by the Gospel,, if for the spirit of adoption to freedom promised us, we receive again the spirit of bondage to fear; if our fear, which was then servile towards God only, must be now servile in religion towards men. Strange also and preposterous fear, if when and wherein it hath attained by the redemption of our Saviour to be filial only towards God, it must be now servile towards the magistrate. Who, by subjecting us to his punishment in these things, brings back into religion that law of terror and satisfaction belonging now only to civil crimes; and thereby in effect abolishes the Gospel, by establishing again the Law to a far worse yoke of servitude upon us than before. It will therefore not misbecome the meanest Christian to put in mind Christian magistrates, and so much the more freely by how much the more they desire to be thought Christian--for they will be thereby, as they ought to be in these things, the more our brethren and the less our lords--that they meddle not rashly with Christian Liberty, the birthright and outward testimony of our adoption; lest while they little think it--nay, think they do God's service--they themselves, like the sons of that bondwoman, be found persecuting them who are freeborn of the Spirit, and by a sacrilege of not the least aggravation, bereaving them of that sacred liberty which our Saviour with His own blood purchased for them." John Milton, from Of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes (1659), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp.226-228.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Pragmatism

PRAGMATISM, PRACTICALISM, HUMANISM. These words all refer to a recent philosophy, "the most recent and (philosophically speaking) fashionable 'ism' that the new century has produced, known by some as Humanism, and by others as Pragmatism" (Academy, August 4, 1906). The philosophy teaches that the whole meaning of a conception expresses itself in practical consequences, either in the shape of conduct to be recommended or experiences to be expected, if it is true. In short, "if it works, it is true." This was called practicalism by some because the test of truth is its results in practice (ultimately from the Greek "to do"; but William James, the American exponent of the philosophy, gave it the name pragmatism, from the same Greek verb, which has the same meaning as practicalism but is a trifle more euphonius. Humanism, from Latin humanus, pertaining to man, from homo, man, is applied to the philosophy because it judges truth not by abstract or theoretical principles, but simply by its practical outcome in human life. But the objection to the title humanism is that the word has already been applied to the work of the scholars of the Renaissance who revived the ideal of a perfect "human" life, on the basis of the Greek and Roman art, as contrasted with the spiritual ideal of the medieval theologians. Hence, when humanism is used for pragmatism, there is confusion. As is the case with most new words, the difference between the synonymes is not one of meaning, but of customary usage. Crabb's English Synonyms (1917), by George Crabb, A. M., pages 564 and 565.

PRAGMATISM (Gr., work, action, result, end). A system which consists in proving the truth of a proposition or even of a metaphysical system by its practical results. Thus the good and the true are manifested by the useful. The Pragmatism of William James and the Humanism of Schiller differ only in name, and assert the pre-eminence of the practical over the speculative, of will over mind; they have their origin in the philosophy of Kant. The true doctrine holds the pre-eminence of the speculative over the practical. The Decalogue is not true just because it happens to work well or is the best for the individual and the society--it is true in itself. Pragmatism judges of the truth of metaphysical principles by their moral consequences--this is the topsy-turvydom of ethics. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary, Third Edition (1961) [Macmillan Co., New York], page 392.

Remembering the Old Ways

The Christian Church

by E. W. Humphreys

"The meaning of the word church is the same as that of 'congregation,' or 'assembly.' In this sense, there may be a good or a bad church. But the specific meaning of the word church, at the present time, is a body of worshippers, united together (generally, [*not specifically]) in one place.

From the time of Christ, 'church' has been a very common name, and has been used to designate the followers of Christ. For three hundred years from the time of our Saviour, there was but one Christian Church, and with the exception of a few schismatics, here and there, all of the members agreed to disagree. For no one, for a moment, would assert that all the Christian fathers held the same views in regard to what they taught of the Christian doctrine. Alexandria, in Egypt, was the place where the first great division was made to the Christian Church.

It would be useless here to follow the Christian Church through the wilderness of the dark ages. Suffice it to say, the priests saw fit to take the Scriptures away from their followers, and taught them verbally what was true and what was false in doctrine. This was the state of the church when Martin Luther, of Wittenberg, in Germany, accidentally came across a copy of the New Testament. Luther knew there was something wrong, but could not tell what. One thing he was convinced of, that the sale of indulgences, or selling the right to sin, for money, a practice very common then in the [Roman] Catholic Church, was wrong. He challenged the indulgence agent to a debate, and Luther soon had debates enough. The ground that Luther and his associates took at this time was, that no person was bound to believe any thing of the doctrines of religion, unless taught in the Bible, and that any thing taught in the Bible must be believed, Popes, Councils, or Fathers, to the contrary, not with standing. Furthermore, Luther insisted that not only the preacher, but the layman also, had a right to read and judge what the Bible taught, each individual for himself. Although, perhaps not in the same words, yet in substance, Luther taught in the sixteenth century the same right of private judgment that the fathers of the present church taught in the nineteenth century, in North Carolina, by O'Kelly, in New England by Smith and Jones, and in Kentucky by Stone, Dunlavy, Purviance, and others.

We will not trace the fluctuation of parties in the church during the following two hundred years from Luther. We will only say, it was a constant effort of the one part to give the priest the power which he had lost, and on the other to grant the right of private judgment to every man. In all the struggles of Calvin and Servetus, Henry VIII, of England, and Charles V, of Germany, Cranmer and Wolsey, and Wesley and Whitefield, and especially the Exodus of the New England Puritans--all the church movements of this time were brought on by this contest."--Rev. E. W. Humphreys, in Gospel Herald, May 23, 1863, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 183-185.

Bits and Pieces

From the Christian meeting house to

the first Pagano-Christian Temple

For the first three centuries after Christ's Resurrection, the only "Church" known to His elect was the 'house church.' In 1989, Vincent Branick, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Dayton described these meeting houses:

"For the Christians, the synagogues quickly became off limits. The pagan temples involved too many unsavory associations. And the stately basilicas were centuries away. The private home on the other hand afforded a place of privacy, intimacy, and stability for the early Christian.

For about a century, the private dwelling shaped the Christians' community life, forming the environment in which Christians related to each other, providing an economic substructure for the community, a platform for missionary work, a framework for leadership and authority, and probably a definite role for women. Above all, the private home, and specifically the dining room (triclinium or diwan) provided an environment that corresponded remarkably with the Christians' earliest self-identification, reflecting Jesus' own choice of an "upper room" for His last supper, His choice of "non-sacred space" as the environment of His Work, and His insistence on familial ties among believers.

Sometime in the second half of the second century, Christians began to dedicate their homes to church assembly. The building ceased to be a residence. Modifications to the structure turned the dining room into a larger assembly hall. Other rooms assumed community functions. Although resembling a house, the building became a church. Eventually, Christians were allowed to rebuild their churches from the ground. In AD 314, a year after the Edict of Milan, the first of the basilicas appeared.

The Christians meeting in the dedicated churches and basilicas show an understanding of themselves different from that of the Christians meeting in the house churches. Leadership became concentrated in fewer hands, the hands of a special class of holy people. Church activities became stylized ritual. The building rather than the community became the temple of God. Whether environment determines ideology or ideology determines environment, the link between the two is clear when we examine the shift from the house church to the dedicated church." Vincent Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (1989) [Michael Glazier Publishing Co., Wilmington, Delaware], pp. 14-15.

New Birth

"All God's children are still-born. They come spiritually dead into the world. And dead they continue till they are born again of the Holy Ghost.

Every believer has four births. A natural birth into the world; a spiritual birth into the kingdom of grace, at regeneration; a birth into glory at death; and a new birth of his body from the grave at the resurrection.

No man can remember the day of his natural birth; but most of God's people can remember the day when they were born again." Augustus Toplady, quoted from The Works of Augustus Toplady (1794) [Sprinkle Publications, Harrisburg, Virginia], page 551.

Human Nature?

At an earlier time, the Christian clergy had the discernment to know what the term "man" and "human nature" really meant, that the "born again" Christian is no longer "a human being," and that Jesus the Christ was never "a human being." William Gurnall's instructions in 1665 to his Brothers in Christ are words to be well considered:

"Thou art trained up in such high and heavenly learning as no other religion in the world can show, and therefore your lives are to bear proportion to your teaching. It was a sharp reproof to the Corinthian saints, when the apostle said, "ye walk as men," 1 Cor. 3:3; that is, men in a natural state. And he that walks thus like men, will not walk much unlike the very beasts; for man is become brutish in his understanding, and it is worse to live like a beast than to be a beast.

Surely, Christians, if you have not your name for nought, you partake of a nature higher than human. Your feet should stand where other men's heads are; you should live as far above the carnal world as grace is above nature, as heaven is above earth. Christ would never have stooped beneath angels, but to raise your hearts and lives above men. He would never have humbled Himself to take the human nature, but on a design to make us partakers of the divine; nor would He of walked on earth, but to make a way to elevate our hearts to heaven. Say not, therefore, flesh and blood cannot bear such an injury or forbear such a sensual pleasure. Either thou art more than a man, or less than a Christian. Flesh and blood never revealed the Gospel to thee, flesh and blood never received Christ; in a word, flesh and blood shall never enter into the kingdom of God." William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour (1665), [The Banner of Truth Trust, Philadelphia, Penn.] Volume Second, page 575.

Anti-knowledge

"For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution but there was not one thing I knew about it. So, for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and various groups of people, 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution; any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.' During the past few years, you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge." From a speech delivered by evolutionist and senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Collin Patterson, at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, on November 5, 1981.

Marriage

"When a believer marries an unbeliever, what is it but reviving the old cruel punishment of tying the living and the dead together." Augustus Toplady, quoted from The Works of Augustus Toplady, p.550.

Issue the Thirty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Change of Mind, A Change Ways...

Unincorporated Associations and Religious Societies...

The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church...

The Vigilantes of Montana, A Book Review...

Maintaining general delivery, Part Four...

The Shetar, A Introduction...

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

A Change of Mind, A Change of Ways

by Randy Lee and John Joseph

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." Mat. 10:8

For all of Christ's remnant, "putting on the Mind of Christ" brings a change of ways, those changed ways being the Ways of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; not simply professing the Gospel, but repentance through living the Gospel. In this Light, we at The Christian Jural Society Press have examined our past ways (in respect to the ways we have made available The Christian Jural Society News, the various Study Materials, and Seminars to our Brothers and Sisters in Christ) and we now see that those ways are not His Ways.

That is to say, a price can not be put on the good and goods that He has freely given us, ("freely ye have received, freely give"). That which He has freely given us cost us nothing, for we came into this world with nothing and will leave with nothing. Therefore, we will no longer put a price on the things we have available.

We do not expect to be fed by miracles, as Elijah was: but will depend upon the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to incline and direct the hearts of our Brothers and Sisters to determine the worth of that which they may request from us.

We are assured in Scripture that Christ's hired servants shall have bread enough, and to spare; while we abide faithful to God and our Duty, and are in care to do our work well, we may cast all our other care upon Him; Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide for us and ours as He thinks fit.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" Romans 8:28-32

We will go into further detail on this subject in the next two Issues of The News. In the mean time, we welcome all positive or negative letters and phone calls concerning the above. If you want us to consider your letter for publication in The News, please make a note of that in your letter.

Unincorporated Associations

and Religious Societies

by Randy Lee

The purpose of the following article is to demonstrate to "the church" that in the "eyes" of Caesar, and according to The Word of God, being unincorporated/unregistered is not sufficient to avoid the Roman Imperial State's taxing authority, though it is a beginning.

In addition, its purpose is not meant to be a criticism of the many well meaning Christian men and women who have labored for The Lord in these matters, but simply a supplemental guide for the avoidance of 'rendering unto Caesar' that which is not and should not be his.

Being the same ungodly entities, 'The FEDS,' 'The Roman Imperial State,' 'The United States,' and 'Caesar' will hereafter be referred to as 'the State.'

Believing themselves to be free from the State's taxing authority after unincorporating, many of these local churches and their pastors have been, in recent years, pulled into Federal District Court for failing to pay their "fair share." At first glance, this would seem to be a breach on the part of the State. Therefore, we must go to the source, cause and origin of the State's presumed right of action to determine whether or not there is truly a breach, i.e., is the particular church "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" --for this phrase will ultimately determine whether or not there is a tax to be had on the part of the State.

The State, when pulling these unincorporated churches into court, usually designate them to be an "unincorporated association," not "a church." An unincorporated association is defined by the State to be:

"a body or collection of persons who have united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations, for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise, and who are called, for convenience, by a common name." Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 S. Ct. 289, 296 U.S. 344.

The important word above is "enterprise." Enterprise is defined in man's law to be:

"A business venture or undertaking." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.), page 531.

In conjunction with the above, we must look at the mode of operation conducted by the unincorporated 'church' to determine whether or not it is seen, in the "eyes" of the State, to be in fact "the church," or simply another one of its taxable entities subject to its jurisdiction, more commonly known as an unincorporated association/ religious society "doing business" or "engaged in an enterprise":

More importantly, we need to look at The Word of God to see what He has mandated concerning these matters, thereby showing the State to be, when proceeding lawfully, nothing more than Our Father's rod of correction for His remnant when they fall into error.

"By their fruits you will know them" is the best rule by which you can determine whether or not we're looking at the church or one of the State's taxable entities.

In short, is the subject church partaking of and feeding on the State's dunghill?:

"It has been said that equity will look through the form to ascertain the real intent of an association of individuals, and will give effect to the real purposes of the organization in order to promote fair dealing and effectuate justice."White v. Pacific Southwest Trust & Savings Bank, D.C.Cal., 9 F.2d 650.

We must always remember that, "When you play in Caesar's sandbox with Caesar's toys, you will ultimately play by Caesar's rules" (see Matthew 6:24). For as the apostle Paul said in so many words, "that which is not of the things of God through Christ Jesus, is but dung" (see Philippians, Chapter 3).

The main question we must examine (just as the State does) is: Does the subject church partake of and function according to Biblical procedure or according to the State's lex mercatoria?

Since we are looking at two diametrically opposed systems, the lines are easily drawn. On the State's side we have personal profit and private gain (modern commerce). On the Biblical side we have "there is no profit under the sun, for all is vanity and chasing after the wind" (see Ecclesiastes 2:7-17).

A clue to what determines "income" and subjection to the Commerce Clause can be seen in the following case:

"An income tax law may apply retroactively to "recent transactions" which includes the "receipt" of income during the year...." Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134.
"Recent transactions" and "receipts" are the indicators and evidence of "income" and profit seeking. But unless there is a record of such, there is no evidence, and therefore nothing to base a tax upon. When keeping a record of such 'transactions," one automatically becomes an agent of the State:
"A tax statute may validly require one making payments to another to act as agent of the state and collect the income tax from the one to whom payment is made." IHC v. Wisconsin Dept. of Taxation, 322 U.S. 435.

Bank accounts, check writing, bank money orders, debt based credit, receipts, employees, salaried pastors, etc., are the record and evidence that the association is engaged in an enterprise for profit-sake.

"Where the association is organized for commercial purposes, and operated for pecuniary (monetary) profit, it is no more than a partnership, and the rights and liabilities incident to that relation attach to its members, as well between the members themselves." Chastain v. Baxter, 31 P.2d 21.

So we see that "the church," when evidencing through the "record" that it is just another religious merchant pursuing the "almighty dollar,' in the "eyes" of the State it is nothing more than a "partnership" governed by and subject to the rules of the Law Merchant:

"THE LAW MERCHANT. Although much of the present law of sales, partnerships, insurance and bankruptcy is derived from the customs and usages of the law merchant (lex mercatoria), the law of negotiable instruments was, undoubtedly, the most remarkable development of the law merchant. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law to this day provides that "In any case not provided for in this act the rules of the law merchant shall govern." (Section 196, N.I.L.)
"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.

The Federal District Court, when hearing an IRS case is nothing more that the modern centralized "merchant court."

On the State's taxability of foreign associations engaged in an enterprise, the following commentaries and cases may shed additional light on the question of partnerships and associations:

"Whether a given association is called a corporation, partnership, or trust [*or church] is not the essential factor in determining the powers of a state concerning it. The real nature of the organization must be considered. The Michigan statute under consideration in this case (Comp. Laws 1915, 9071 read: 'The term 'corporation' as used in this act shall be construed to include all associations, partnership associations, and joint-stock companies having any of the powers or privileges of corporations (*foreign tax immunity) not possessed by individuals or partnerships, under whatever term or designation they may be defined or known in the state where organized.'
"There were two questions before the court: First, whether the Massachusetts legislature, in passing the statute taxing companies 'incorporated or associated under the laws of any government or state other than one of the United States,' had intended to levy the tax upon this type of English joint-stock company; and, secondly, whether Massachusetts could do this, if it had intended to do so. The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that its legislature could tax such a company, and that it had intended to do so as a company 'associated' rather than 'incorporated.' As some members of the company were British subjects, a tax on them might violate the commercial treaty of 1815 with England, [Oliver v. Liverpool & London Life & Fire Ins. Co., 100 Mass. 531. This view was supported by Mr. Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court, in his dissenting opinion.] and, as other members were citizens of New York, a tax on them might violate section 2, Article 4, of the Constitution. On the other hand, a tax on it would not offend the provisions of either of these instruments. Consequently, it must be conceded that the Supreme Court was deciding that the Liverpool Company was a corporation under Massachusetts law, even though Parliament did not intend to incorporate it." Stevens, Corporations (1949), pp. 30-31.

"An association in fact doing business as a legal entity (*having a common name) may be estopped to deny its own existence. Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 236.

When the body of the true church (the corpore') engages in profit seeking as evidenced through the use of the instruments and ways of the law merchant, it is nothing more than one of the State's taxable and floggable entities:

"Properly used, 'ultra vires' means beyond the scope of the corporate purposes and activities as agreed upon by the shareholders. As so defined and used, the ultra vires doctrine involves an application of the principles of the law of agency. Corporate acts which are illegal, prohibited by law, or against public policy are objectionable for those reasons, and because they are ultra vires, and they call for the application of the same principles that would be applied to the acts of individuals or unincorporated associations when those acts are illegal, prohibited, or contrary to public policy." Stevens, Corporations, pp. 292, 293.

By the Grace of God, we hope to cover this vital subject in further detail in upcoming Issues of The News.

The Prosecutorial Authority

and Power of Christ's church

by John Joseph

Part One

This beginning Work is to show the Authority and Power inhering in Christ's church to correct the things afflicting it in general, and its members in particular.

This is offensive in position and we must study this carefully so as not to fool ourselves into thinking that, because we profess Christianity, every thing we do is Christian and free from our personal taint. Nothing could be further from the Truth:

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine [*your] own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." John 5:19, 30.

Although many believe Christ's church is not to prosecute any matter but to be weak in the eyes of the world, such is an infection of the heart by worms of fear, complacency, apathy, ignorance, and outlawry. It is to be understood throughout this section of this work that it does not encompass every possible situation one may come across, but is to be used as a tool to be adapted and fitted for use by the Good and Lawful Christian, "who has studied to show himself approved of God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed of his calling, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

To begin this section of this work, we will look to Christ Jesus once again to see if He exercised any prosecutorial powers at all. Let us take the example of the moneychangers selling in the Temple. He testified that He had seen our Father already do this:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12-13.

Now, if Christ had carried banners or led a demonstration against the practice of the moneychangers in the Temple, what witness would He have? If Christ had merely said, "I believe this is against the law and you can't do this here," or, "I believe this is against the law and are violating my civil rights," what witness would He have? If Christ had merely paid the charge of the moneychangers, what witness would He have? If Christ wrote letters to the high priests denouncing such practices, what witness would He have? If Christ solicited signatures for a petition to human authority deriving revenue from this practice what witness would He have? If Christ filed complaints, affidavits, motions for discovery, motions for admissions, interrogatories, depositions, and other ilk, in the Roman imperial courts, what witness would he have? [Editor's note: The answer is the same for all questions.] If Christ had done any or all of the above, whose law would He have executed? To whom then would He have been faithful? It is because Christ did none of these things that His church has the standing above and outside of all codes, rules, and regulations:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13.

Is this a prosecution executed in Law by Christ? The answer to this question is a resounding "yes." This is clearly seen from the following passages of Scripture:

"For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written [*past tense]: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 149:4-9. [Emphasis and *insertion added.]

To better appreciate the significance of this Lawful Warrant of Scripture, we must look at the word "heathen" used here to signify someone or group of persons separate and distinct from His church, or strangers. Because His church is already reconciled to Him, then those who are not reconciled to Him must be those outside of Him and His church. This then gives us the reason for what He did, and the reason for executing His Law:

"We are confounded, because we have heard reproach: shame hath covered our faces: for strangers are come into the sanctuaries of the LORD's house." Jeremiah 51:51.

There is no other way to explain this use of the word. We see this in the following text aid:

1471. GOY. "It is originates from gewah (1465). It means person, inhabitant, populace, people, tribe, nation; the non-Israeli [*non-Christian or one who is not in the Body of Christ. (See Brother Warren Mark's Sermon on who True Israel is in the thirty-second issue of the Christian Jural Society News.)] or heathen peoples. It is a general word used to refer to nations at large, particularly Gentiles (as distinguished from Jews). Scholars now believe that the basic idea of goy is a defined group of people or a large segment of a given body which is defined by context. The pl. form (goyim) is often used to refer to the pagan nations which surrounded Israel [*Christ's church]. They were defined politically, ethnically, and territorially (Gen 10:5). In its general sense the term could even be applied to the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:2; 17:20; 21:18). Moses called Israel by that word (Ex 33:13; Deut 4:6, 7). Israel was a nation among other nations in the time of Moses, just as she was in Joshua's time (Josh 31:36). The pejorative sense includes uncircumcised nations (Jer 9:26). Goyim were wicked (Deut 9:4, 5), abominable (Deut 18:9; 2 Chr 33:2), and idolatrous (2 Kgs 17:29). God, through Moses and the prophets, warned the Israelites not to imitate the other nations (Deut 32:28; Is 1:4; Mal 3:9). God planned to save them through the Messiah (Is 2:2ff; 11:10; 42:6; 60:10ff). Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, Old Testament (1994), pp. 2307-2308 [*insert added].

The Warrant is served and executed by His church on the heathen, those who have incurred the wrath of God by being under the punishment of sin having not repented but remaining dead in their sins. See John 8:24.

We see Christ doing this when He declares the Law, "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." This is called a declaration in-Law. We are sure there must have been some objection, but on what grounds could one be raised other than by the Law of God? This is a part of the two-edged sword David wrote about in Psalms. We will of necessity return to this point.

The key is the doing of the act Lawfully--the same reason Christ did it, "to honour Him who sent Me"--and not for revenge. So we must then learn from the Scripture what it is we are to do. Again, David writes,

"Teach me to do thy will." Psalm 143:10.

This is the major difference between the religious corporation and Christ's church: Christ's church is engaged in being alive by doing His Will, while the religious corporation is dead and cannot do in any act whatsoever. (When did you see a piece of paper do any thing?) There are so many other verses of like import that to list them here would make this treatment larger than life.

Archibald Sympson said of this verse:

"He saith not, Teach me to know thy will, but to do thy will. God teaches us in three ways. First, by His Word. Secondly, He illuminateth our minds by the Spirit. Thirdly, He imprinteth it in our hearts, and maketh us obedient to the same; for the servant who knoweth the will of his master, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luke xii. 47." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Treasury of David, vol. III, p. 350.

Thomas Shepard remarked on the same passage of Scripture:

"The Lord doth no sooner call his people to Himself, but as soon as ever He hath thus crowned them with these glorious privileges, and given them any sense and feeling of them, then they immediately cry out, O Lord, what shall I now do for thee? How shall I now live to thee? They know now that they are no more their own, but His; and therefore should now live to Him."
"It is true indeed, obedience to the Law is not required of us now as it was of Adam; it was required of him as a condition antecedent to life, but of those that be in Christ it is required only as a duty consequent to life, or as a rule of life, that seeing He hath purchased our lives in redemption, and actually given us life in vocation and sanctification, we should now live unto Him, in all thankful and fruitful obedience, according to His Will revealed in the moral law. It is a vain thing to imagine that our obedience is to have no other rule but the Spirit, without an attendance to the Law: the Spirit is indeed the efficient cause of our obedience, and hence we are said to be "led by the Spirit" (Rom viii. 14); but it is not properly the rule of our obedience, but the Will of God revealed in His Word, especially in the Law, is the rule; the Spirit is the wind that drives us in our obedience; the Law is our compass, according to which it steers our course for us: the Spirit and the Law, the wind and the compass, can stand well together. "Teach me to do thy will; for thou art my God" (there is David's rule, viz., God's Will revealed); "Thy Spirit is good" (there is David's wind, that enabled him to steer his course according to it). The Spirit of life doth free us from the law of sin and death; but not from the holy, and pure, and good, and righteous Law of God." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Treasury of David, vol. III, p. 350.

We can see now the impotence of those who preach and practice the "we live under grace, not under Law" heresy. They know the will of God but do not execute it for "they are not under the Law but under grace." Because they believe they are not under Law they have no mandate, commandment, precept, judgment, statute or ordinance of God to execute. This is the condition of bastards. It is this heresy, in particular, that has caused the falling away, apostasy, spoken of by Brother Paul in his second letter to the church at Thessalonica. It is the same apostasy of the Pharisees--"lip service" but no execution of the Law in Truth.

This is such a gross mis-application of the Word written in Romans by Brother Paul, and certainly flies in the face of what he did--the Will of God. Brother Paul made a significant distinction in writing to the Romans which is overlooked by those who live under this detrimental and foolish doctrine:

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin [*redeemed by the Blood of Christ], ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. 6:14-18. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Brother Paul poses the question plainly, "Shall we sin because we are under grace?" And his answer is plainly, "God forbid." The central issue here is two-fold: One, to what law is Paul referring; and Two, what is grace.

Let us attack the first misconception. Brother Paul is referring plainly to the law of condemnation for sin--that law which punishes sin. This is seen in the above mentioned text at the end, "made free from sin (not the Law)," and it is seen again later when he writes to us:

"Was then that which is good [*God's moral Law] made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Romans 7:13.

Brother Paul here is not pleading any freedom from the Law declaring sin; but he is pleading that once he has come to Christ, he is free from the condemnation and punishment of sin by the Law--and not the Law declaring sin. Sin is still sin--that has never changed, because God has never changed. Notice in his question he asks "Has the moral Law become dead and of no effect as it relates to me?" And notice how he answers it: "God forbid." This is how Good and Lawful Christians are not under the dominion of sin. If one is free from the Law declaring sin, then how does one know what sin is, but by that Law declaring it? So we see then, that consistency is thus maintained by Brother Paul with our Lord:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5:13.
"Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another." Mark 9:50.

The other aspect is what "grace" is. And to find out what this means, we must go to our text aids:

5485. CHARIS. "has various uses, (a) objective, that which bestows or occasions pleasure, delight, or causes favorable regard; it is applied, e.g., to beauty, or gracefulness of person, Luke 2:40; act, 2 Cor. 8:6, or speech, Luke 4:22, RV, "words of grace" (KJV, "gracious words"); Col. 4:6; (b) subjective, (1) on the part of the bestower, the friendly disposition from which the kindly act proceeds, graciousness, loving-kindness, goodwill generally, e.g., Acts 7:10; especially with reference to the divine favor or "grace," e.g., Acts 14:26; in this respect there is stress on its freeness and universality, its spontaneous character, as in the case of God's redemptive mercy, and the pleasure or joy He designs for the recipient; thus it is set in contrast with debt, Rom. 4:4, 16, with works, 11:6, and with law, John 1:17; see also, e.g., Rom. 6:14, 15; Gal. 5:4; (2) on the part of the receiver, a sense of the favor bestowed, a feeling of gratitude, e.g., Rom. 6:17 ("thanks"); in this respect it sometimes signifies "to be thankful," e.g., Luke 17:9 ("doth he thank the servant?" lit., "hath he thanks to"); 1 Tim. 1:12; (c) in another objective sense, the effect of "grace," the spiritual state of those who have experienced its exercise, whether (1) a state of "grace," e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18, or (2) a proof thereof in practical effects, deeds of "grace," e.g., 1 Cor. 16:3, RV, "bounty" (KJV, "liberality"); 2 Cor. 8:6, 19 (in 2 Cor. 9:8 it means the sum of earthly blessings); the power and equipment for ministry, e.g., Rom. 1:5; 12:6; 15:15; 1 Cor. 3:10; Gal. 2:9; Eph. 3:2, 7. To be in favor with is to find "grace" with, e.g., Acts 2:47; hence it appears in this sense at the beginning and the end of several epistles, where the writer desires "grace" from God for the readers, e.g., Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; in this respect it is connected with the imperative mood of the word chairo, "to rejoice," a mode of greeting among Greeks, e.g., Acts 15:23; Jas. 1:1 (marg.); 2 John 10, 11, RV, "greeting" (KJV, "God speed"). The fact that "grace" is received both from God the Father, 2 Cor. 1:12, and from Christ, Gal. 1:6; Rom. 5:15 (where both are mentioned), is a testimony to the deity of Christ. See also 2 Thess. 1:12, where the phrase "according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" is to be taken with each of the preceding clauses, "in you," "and ye in Him." In Jas. 4:6, "But He giveth more grace" (Greek, "a greater grace," RV, marg.), the statement is to be taken in connection with the preceding verse, which contains two remonstrating, rhetorical questions, "Think ye that the Scripture speaketh in vain?" and "Doth the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) which He made to dwell in us long unto envying?" (see the RV). The implied answer to each is "it cannot be so." Accordingly, if those who are acting so flagrantly, as if it were so, will listen to the Scripture instead of letting it speak in vain, and will act so that the Holy Spirit may have His way within, God will give even "a greater grace," namely, all that follows from humbleness and from turning away from the world. See BENEFIT, BOUNTY, LIBERALITY, THANK. Note: The corresponding verb charitoo, "to endue with divine favor or grace," is used in Luke 1:28, "highly favored" (marg., "endued with grace") and Eph. 1:6, KJV, "hath made accepted"; RV, "freely bestowed" (marg., "enduced.")." W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, vol. II, p. 169.
GRACE. "This word is understood in several senses: for beauty, graceful form and agreeableness of person, Prov. 1:9; 3:22. For favor, friendship, kindness, Gen. 6:8; 18:3; Rom. 11:6; 2 Tim. 1:9. For pardon, mercy, undeserved remission of offenses Eph. 2:5; Col. 1:6. For certain gifts of God, which he bestows freely, when, where, and on whom, he pleases; such are the gifts of miracles, prophecy, languages, etc., Rom. 15:15; 1 Cor. 15:10 Eph. 3:8, etc. For the Gospel dispensation, in contradistinction to that of the law Rom. 6:14; 1 Peter 5:12. For a liberal and charitable disposition, 2 Cor. 8:7. For eternal life, or final salvation, 1 Peter 1:13. In theological language grace also signifies Divine influence upon the soul; and it derives the name from this being the effect of the great grace or favor of God to mankind. Austin defines inward actual grace to be the inspiration of love, which prompts us to practice according to what we know, out of a religious affection and compliance. He says, likewise, that the grace of God is the blessing of God's sweet influence, whereby we are induced to take pleasure in that which he commands, to desire and to love it; and that if God does not prevent us with this blessing, what he commands, not only is not perfected, but is not so much as begun in us. Without the inward grace of Jesus Christ, man is not able to do the least thing that is good. He stands in name of this grace to begin, continue, and finish all the good a does, or rather, which God does in him and with him, by his grace. This grace is free; it is not due to us: if it were due to us, it would be no more grace; it would be a debt Rom. 11, 6; it is in its nature an assistance so powerful and efficacious, that it surmounts the obstinacy of the most rebellious human heart, without destroying human liberty. There is no subject on which Christian doctors have written so largely, as on the several particulars relating to the grace of God. The difficulty consists in reconciling human liberty with the operation of Divine grace; the concurrence of man with the influence and assistance of the Almighty. And who is able to set up an accurate boundary between day's two things? Who can pretend to know how far the privileges of grace extend over the heart of man, and what that man's liberty exactly is, who is prevented, enlightened, moved, an attracted by grace?" Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 424.

So we see then that "grace" is Divine Favour (not a man's or any man's favour) extended to those who have come to the knowledge of Christ, by heeding His call to repent from sin declared by the Law:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:24-27.

We might equate it to a "pardon," "forgiveness" and words of similar import. The point here is that one cannot be a faithful brother or son by breaking the Law in our Father's house declaring sin, and maintain that a pardon extended once will always be available:

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
"But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;" Romans 2:8-9.

Giles' commentary in 1905 on the Spiritual World further clarifies this point:

"The Lord has so formed man that he is capable of receiving delight from everything around him. His whole form is a combination of organs or senses through which the material world comes to him and brings him delight. But in order to accomplish this end, the nicest order and adjustment of man's physical organism to the world without and to the world within him, is necessary, and must be constantly maintained. Any derangement of that order must necessarily defeat the end for which it was instituted. So long as the true order and exact relations are maintained, we are rewarded for every activity with delight. Every thing we hear, or see, or smell, or taste, or touch, gives pleasure. Every one who is in perfect physical health is physically happy. He has no sense of pain, and can have none. So long as he obeys the laws of physical life, there is no way in which pain can possibly reach him. All his delights are the rewards he receives for his works--for his obedience to the laws of his life. The reward flows from the obedience. It is not so much for doing right, as in doing right.
But if he violates this order, and disobeys these laws of his life, he suffers for it. He is punished. If he eats or drinks too much or too little, he violates a law of his life, and the penalty grows out of or flows from the violation of the law, in the same manner that the reward is the effect of his obedience. The pleasure and the pain are inseparably linked with the action. There is nothing arbitrary or uncertain in either case. The results in both arise from the same principle, and in their origin, intention, and effect, are both good. Man is drawn to orderly action by the pleasure, and deterred from evil by the punishment; and both the reward and the punishment are administered according to the work, whether it be good or bad. The pain, which is the punishment for violating a physical law, does not come from without any more than the pleasure. It is not annexed to it, but flows from it; it is inherent in it. And the punishment consists in pain, in feebleness; in being deprived of all the delights of health.
Now man, viewed as a spiritual being, is as really a man, an organized human form, as he is a material being; and all his enjoyments and sufferings flow from the orderly or disorderly action of these forms, in the same way, relatively, that his bodily sufferings and delights flow from the abuse or orderly use of his physical organism. This spiritual organism, as we have shewn in former lectures, is as variously and nicely related to all spiritual objects and forces as his material body is to this world; and its modes or order of action are laws of spiritual life. When these spiritual laws are obeyed, or we act according to the order and constitution given to man by the Lord, happiness, and happiness only, flows from the obedience. When they are violated, pain follows, and the duration and degree of the violation of the spiritual law. The pleasure and pain are not affixed arbitrarily; they both flow from the action of the same law, under different circumstances, and one is as inevitable as the other.
But we are not left to mere assumption or analogy on this subject. We know from experience that it is so, even in this [*temporal] world. Every one knows that he is always happy when he feels kindly and thinks truly, and endeavours to act right towards all others. The love of others as surely brings happiness with it as heat brings warmth. In the same manner hatred, or the indulgence of any evil passion, just as inevitably brings pain. No one can do a wrong action and escape the punishment. He may, indeed, escape the punishment which man has annexed to it; but he cannot escape the penalty of the spiritual law. A man may commit murder and never be detected. But can he avoid the consciousness of his crime? He may wash the stains of blood from his hands, but can he wash it from his soul? Can he forget? Whither can he flee from himself? What darkness can hide him? What hand shield him from the fiery stings and biting strokes of guilt? The real penalty, as you see, cannot be avoided. The laws of natural and spiritual life are the same in principle, and the rewards and punishments are administered in the same way. The penalty is inherent in the act, and flows from the act. And it cannot in any way be separated from it.
But this is not only true of that which is felt as punishment immediately, but of all the consequences which flow from it. Every thing we do, whether evil or good, reacts upon us. Good causes a greater good, and evil results in some form of punishment. Kindness towards others begets kindness in others towards us. A thoroughly honest and good man soon find himself surrounded with friends. The principle is seen in the great outward changes and facilities for business and pleasure that we possess at the present time. As soon as men began to turn their thoughts and affections to something useful--to mechanical inventions-- what a change it soon wrought in all our relations to outward things! How soon they began to react upon us for our good in a thousand different ways!
In the same manner, the evil passions and deeds of men have reacted upon them in some form of punishment. The thief and robber build their own prison, and shut themselves up in it. The outrages of evil men upon others render their confinement necessary to the general welfare, and thus the whole community stands arrayed against the evil. When a man of violent and vindictive passions gives vent to them in words and deeds of violence against other men, he soon calls down upon himself curses and blows, and even death. These are illustrations of the general principle that the life of every one reacts upon him either as reward or punishment, according to his deeds, so that it is strictly true that punishment flows from the evil, even when it seems to come from others. Giles, The Spiritual World (1905), pp. 136-140.

With our own children, we dis-inherit them when they are recalcitrant and rebellious to the law of our house. How much more so shall we be if we obey not the Law of our Father in His House?

"Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Romans 11:18-24.

Brother Paul concludes with this statement showing the true context of his earlier statements:

"Wherefore ye must needs be subject [*to God's Law], not only for wrath [*against sin], but also for conscience sake." Romans 13:5.

So we conclude that the doctrine of living under grace and not under law must be taken in its proper context, and not extended by natural reason to absurdity so as to engage in inconsistency, unbelief, and outright lie.

The Good and Lawful Christian must never use God's Law for personal revenge against either the un-godly or another brother. Personal revenge is not a Christian quality and God will not deliver your enemies into your hands for your revenge sake. Let us look at this term and two others, vindicate and avenge. For as we will see God vindicates and avenges the blood of his saints:

"AVENGE, REVENGE, VINDICATE, all spring from the same source, namely, the Latin vindico, justice, signifying to pronounce justice or put justice in force.
The idea common to all these terms is that of taking up some one's cause. To avenge is to punish in behalf of another; to revenge is to punish for one's self; to vindicate is to defend another. The wrongs of a person are avenged or revenged; his rights are vindicated. The act of avenging, though attended with the infliction of pain, is oftentimes an act of humanity, and always an act of justice; none are the sufferers but such as merit it for their oppression; while those are benefited who are dependent for support: this is the God Himself, who always avenges the oppressed who look up to Him for support; and it ought to be the act of all his creatures who are invested with the power of punishing offenders and protecting the helpless. Revenge is the basest of all actions, and the spirit of revenge the most diametrically opposed to the Christian principles of forgiving injuries and returning good for evil; it is gratified only with inflicting pain without any prospect of advantage. Vindication is an act of generosity and humanity; it is the production of good without the infliction of pain: the claims of the widow and orphan call for vindication from those who have the time, talent, or ability to take their cause into their own hands: England can boast of many notable vindicators of the rights of humanity, not excepting those which concern the brute creation.
'The day shall come, that great avenging day,
When Troy's proud glories in the dust shall lay.' --Pope.
'By a continued series of loose, though apparently trivial gratifications, the heart is often as thoroughly corrupted, as by the commission of any one of those enormous crimes which spring from great ambition or great revenge.'--Blair.
'Injured or oppressed by the world, the good man looks up to a Judge who will vindicate his cause.'--Blair." Crabbe's English Synonyms (1904), pp. 120-121. [Emphasis added.]

This then keeps the Good and Lawful Christian in Truth, under the Coverture of God our Father "whose hand is not shortened that it cannot save."

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us [*justify or vindicate--see "yasha'" next]. Isaiah 33:22.

Examining the last word above, we see this is, in deed, how God operates:

3467. YASHA. "A primitive root; properly, to be open, wide or free, i.e. (by implication) to be safe; causatively, to free or succor: --X at all, avenging, defend, deliver(-er), help, preserve, rescue, be safe, bring (having) salvation, save(-iour), get victory." Strong's Hebrew Chaldee Dictionary, p. 53.
3467. YASHA`. "Originally this root was believed to mean 'to be open, wide or free.' It is the opposite of tsarar (6887), to cramp. In other words, when one has plenty of room in which to move, he feels safe and secure. Yasha' means, therefore, to be delivered, saved; to get help; to deliver; give victory; to help; to take vengeance; to preserve (Judg 10:13; Jer 31:7). The ASV has 'rescue,' 'defend cause.' The RSV uses the word 'savior.' It is noteworthy that the personal name of our Saviour, Jesus, is derived from this root (see Matt 1:21). Also, in the NT, when the crowds cried out to Jesus at His triumphal entry, they used the word 'Hosanna' (Matt 21:9), which is directly traceable to this verb in the O.T. At first, yasha pointed to a physical deliverance from very real enemies or catastrophes. Later, 'save' developed a theological meaning. God is concerned about our physical well-being, our emotional status, and the salvation of our souls. God has the ability to save us from any thing which would harm us. Salvation is God's love in action. There is none outside of Him. Isaiah (49:6; 52:10) hints at an everlasting salvation which was coming. Some like Simeon (Luke 2:29, 30) and those who were like Anna (Luke 2:38), were waiting for it." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study, Old Testament (1994), p. 2324.

God's Law is for three purposes: One, to Glorify Him by Glorifying the Son; Two, glorify the church in Christ; Three, for the use of the Body of Believers, but never for private purposes--purposes separate from the Word of God revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord. This is evident from the following passages of Scripture:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him." John 5:23. [Emphasis added.]
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:16.

Only pagans, citizens, infidels, pharisees, lawyers, the heathen, and other anti-Semites ("he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:29.) go to civil law for revenge to glorify themselves, "I want - I want - for me...for me" is the cry; but,

"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." John 7:18.

Self-righteousness is for the private civilian pagans and heathens:

PAGAN. heathen. XIV--L. paganus rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pagus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, [*641] f. *pag-, p g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of paganus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christians calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of his militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen--OF. paien (mod. paien)=Pr. paien, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV. Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), pp. 640-641.
CIVILIAN. "One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957), p. 313.
PRIVATE. "Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public [*Christ's church] generally. Not official; not clothed with office [*of Christ]." People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721; Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1957), p. 1358. [Emphasis added.]

We cannot stress the importance of this enough. The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church is not inherent in the single Good and Lawful Christian, but inherent in the Body of Christ--His church:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.

This is completely separate and distinct from the ways of the world constructed by the commercial "wealth gospel" of Kant, Hegel, Darwin, Spencer, Lincoln, Lieber, Beecher, Grant, Sherman, Holmes, Hughes, Cardozo, Black, Frankfurter, Marshall, Blackmun, et al.:

"We cannot however forget that it was Hegel, the last of the great ratioalists, who maintained that through law a human being attains the dignity of a person whose attribute is expressed by property." Fowler, New Philosophies of Law, 27 Harv. L.R. 718, 727.

Only pagans, citizens, infidels, pharisees, persons, lawyers, the heathen, and other anti-Semites go to law for revenge and private enrichment beyond their wildest animal lusts--because being of the world means a man is measured by his wealth here on earth. This is why Brother Paul chided those who went to law in his letter to the Corinthians--they were behaving exactly as the heathen did, and do today. What witness of Christ is there in such Law-less behaviour? Surely we should not even consider going to Law without first consulting the Word of God and seeking what He would have us do to bring glory to Him. Is He glorified by the use of a foreign law for your own aggrandizement, enrichment, or lust? Is He honoured by you using Beelzebul? Clearly the answer to both questions, according to His Word, is no. Therefore, the Good and Lawful Christian cannot use such abominations:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Psalm 1:1-2.

What then is our remedy? Plainly none. In and of ourselves we deserve none and can create no law founded in Truth giving us our remedy. But God be thanked and praised with all our being, that being benevolent to us by extending His Grace to us, we have remedy by, in and through the Judgment of His Son Christ Jesus, Who is Blessed for ever and ever, Amen; and, Who has authorized His church to execute the same:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12. [Emphasis added.]

We also refer you to the top of this section beginning with Psalm 149:9. So we must now set our eyes on the mark:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33.

Let us then explore how we use God's Law to glorify Him, for this cause are we come into this world, just the same as Christ Jesus witnessed before Pilate:

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was [*were] I [*we] born, and for this cause came I [*we] into the world, that I [*we] should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." John 18:37. [Emphasis and *Insertions added].

For it is written,

"The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master." Luke 6:40.

Before we can invoke God's Law, we must be in and full of Truth, not just in word; but in thoughts and in deed. It is written,

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16-20.

Therefore, we must have a concept of what is Truth, and be able to distinguish it from a lie. This is the only way to bear witness to it.

TRUTH. "There are three conceptions as to what constitutes "truth": Agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself." Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685. [Christ has manifested all three requirements.]

Next, we must see how God uses His Law and the way He uses it. It is His intent manifested in His Law which is critical, for it does not allow us private revenge. We must be as careful as He is in paying scrupulous attention to details. If we do not do this, we deserve a judgment adverse to us, which tells us we have not "studied to show ourselves approved of God.rightly dividing the word of Truth." Let us look at Scripture and see how this is done, for we will see that God's Law expresses Who He is and how He is our Buckler and Shield:

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
"I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jeremiah 17:10.

God's Law is invoked to discern the thoughts and intents of our hearts (see Psalm 44:20-21; Psalm 139:1-2; Psalm 17:1-7), and the heart of the other person. This is His intent. In His Court, He is the Trial Judge Who "gives to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." This accords fully with Isaiah 33:22 and furthers His Government in accordance with Isaiah 9:6-7. In all cases in which His Law is used, the fixed yardstick being used is God's Law, not just to measure the adversary, but to measure us. God blesses at all times the Good and Lawful Christian who walks continually with Him, glorifying Him in all things:

"For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes." Jeremiah 16:17.
"There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." Job 34:22.

Next month, we will examine the ways in which one sets the the Record; the Ecclesiastical Court sitting as a Grand Jury; the Great Roll; Witnesses; and the Prosecutorial Powers involved in Trespass, Case, Trover, Waste, etc.

God willing, we hope to have available soon a pamphlet and tape series that will go into further detail to clarify the points of Christian Duty involved.

The Vigilantes of Montana

A Book Review

by Philip Randolph

The official title of this 1866 true story, consisting of 269 pages and being the first book ever published in Montana, is:

-------------------------

The Vigilantes of Montana

Popular Justice

in the Rocky Mountains

Being a Correct and Impartial Narrative of the Chase, Trial, Capture, and Execution of Henry Plummer's Road Agent Band, Together with Accounts of the Lives and Crimes of Many of the Robbers and Desperadoes, the Whole Being Interspersed with Sketches of Life in the Mining Camps of the "Far West"; forming the only reliable work on the subject ever offered to the public.

by Prof. Thos. J. Dimsdale

-------------------------

For background purposes, we first need to view some important truths in regard to vigilance and our Christian duty:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" 1 Peter 5: 8
Vigil - wakeful, watchful. Vigilo - to be awake, keep awake, watch. The Classic Latin Dictionary (1926, 1931), pp. 618, 619.

Wakeful, Watchful, Vigilant.
"We may be wakeful without being watchful; but we cannot be watchful without being wakeful. Wakefulness is an affair of the body, and depends upon the temperament; watchfulness is an affair of the will, and depends upon the determination: some persons are more wakeful than they wish to be; few are as watchful as they ought to be. Vigilance, from the Latin vigil, expresses a high degree of watchfulness: a sentinel is watchful who on ordinary occasions keeps good watch: but it is necessary for him, on extraordinary occasions, to be vigilant in order to detect whatever may pass. We are watchful only in the proper sense of watching; but we may be vigilant in detecting moral as well as natural evils." Crabb's English Synonyms (1916, 1956), p. 705.

Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus serrat lex. -- The law aids the vigilant, but not those who slumber. The Self-Pronouncing Law Dict. (1948), p. 870.

"Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But, let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." 1Thess. 5: 6-8.

-------------------------

The author, Thomas Dimsdale, arrived in the Montana territory in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus eighteen hundred sixty-three by way of Canada and England. He is described in the Foreword as "a gentle, kind-hearted Christian man." His account of Good and Lawful Christian Men battling the forces of darkness are a vivid reminder of the "old paths" that await the use of the Children of God. The following excerpts from his book clearly indicate that, "there is no new thing under the sun."

"Under these circumstances, it becomes an absolute necessity that good, law-loving, and order-sustaining men should unite for mutual protection and for the salvation of the community. Being united, they must act in harmony, repress disorder, punish crime, and prevent outrage, or their organization would be a failure from the start, and society would collapse in the throes of anarchy. None but extreme penalties inflicted with promptitude are of any avail to quell the spirit of the desperadoes with whom they have to contend; considerable numbers are required to cope successfully with the gangs of murderers, desperadoes, and robbers who infest mining countries, and who, though faithful to no other bond, yet all league willingly against the law. Secret they must be, in council and membership, or they will remain nearly useless for the detection of crime, in a country where equal facilities for the transmission of intelligence are at the command of the criminal and the judiciary; and an organization on this footing is a Vigilance Committee."

"In the case of the Vigilantes of Montana, it must be also remembered that the Sheriff himself was the leader of the Road Agents, and his deputies were the prominent members of the band."

"The marvelous riches of the great Alder Gulch attracted crowds from all the West, and afterward from the East, also; among whom were many diseased with crime to such an extent that for their cure the only available prescription was a stout cord and a good drop."

"The body of the slaughtered young man lay frozen, stiff and stark, among the sage brush, whither it had been dragged, unseen of man; but the eye of Omniscience rested on the blood-stained corpse, and the fiat of the Eternal Judge ordered the wildbird of the mountains to point out the spot, and, by a miracle, to reveal the crime. It was the finger of God that indicated the scene of the assassination, and it was His will stirring in the hearts of the honest and indignant gazers on the ghastly remains of Tbalt that organized the party which, though not then formally enrolled as a Vigilance Committee, was the nucleus and embryo of the order - the germ from which sprang that goodly tree, under the shadow of whose wide-spreading branches the citizens of Montana can lie down and sleep in peace."

"The reasons why the organization was so generally approved, and so numerously and powerfully supported, were such as appealed to the sympathies of all men who had anything to lose, or who thought their lives safer under the dominion of a body which, upon the whole, it must be admitted, has from the first acted with a wisdom, a justice, and a vigor never surpassed on this continent, and rarely, if ever, equalled."

The Vigilance Committees of old, as evidenced in this book, dealt with the same problem that exists today--rampant lawlessness. Where once the rope was the method used, today the dual-edged Sword of the Word--the Law of God--is ready in the substance of Lawful process for Christ's watchful and vigilant church to wield toward a similar end.

"Fiat justitia ruat coelum." -- Let justice be done though the heavens fall asunder.
"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." 1 Corinthians 16:13.
"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. For the Son of man is a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:33-37.

Maintaining general delivery

Part Four

Joyous News from Texas

by Randy Lee

In the ongoing effort of maintaining general delivery by speaking to the heart of those in The Postal Service who, at times, act out of ignorance of their duty to Christendom, we find that not all of their hearts are hardened.

Evidence of this is beginning to show its face, through the Grace of God, in places that one would least expect it. Texas, of all places!!

Texas, which in recent times, has been known for its hard line against those seeking Liberty in Christ, is beginning to show signs of a softening in many area of the bureaucracy.

Case in point: the series of letters below.

In the first two letters, the names and locations have been changed for discretionary purposes. Shirley Ann's letter at the bottom is intact as I received it. You can write to her for fellowship on these matters if you so choose.

Here we have, once again, a Postal Inspector interceding on behalf of a Postmaster in an effort to deny general delivery through the determination of whether or not the Patron is who he says he is.

In August I prepared the response letter for a Brother that had previously abated the Postmaster without success.

In an effort to clearly draw the line in the sand between the commercial aspect of the Postal Inspector and his U.S. Postal Service, and that of non-commercial general delivery, we see that the answer to the Inspector's letter cannot be directed to him, but instead to the Postmaster on her non-commercial side under The Post Office Department. To do otherwise is to join with and partake of the benefits offered by the commercial side, thereby bringing you under that side's codes, rules and regulations. That is not where you want to be!!

If you have any questions call 818-347-7080.

United States Postal Service
July 31, 1998

John R. Barnes
General Delivery
Kemp, TX 75142

Dear Mr. Barnes:

I have been advised by the Kemp, Texas Postmaster about your request to have mail delivered to you through General Delivery.

I have attached a copy of the U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual Section D930, titled General Delivery and Firm Holdouts. The Domestic Mail Manual dictates the rules and regulations that must be followed concerning various Postal topics including the proper delivery of "General Delivery mail."

General Delivery mail is a service provided as a temporary means of delivery. One of the requirements of General Delivery mail is the presentment of suitable personal identification. This is required so that your mail is protected against delivery to unauthorized persons.

Please contact me so we may discuss your allegation of non-delivery and any other Postal question you may have. I may be reached at (214)__________ or by mail at P.O. Box __________, Dallas, TX 75222-4-_______.

Respectfully, R. J. Grant

R. J. Grant
Postal Inspector
P. O. Box __________
Dallas, TX 75222-4-_______

(Response Letter)

From:

John Robert: Barnes
to be called for in general delivery
Kemp, Texas

On the tenth day of the eighth month
in the Nineteen hundred ninety-eighth year
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ

To:
Postmaster Helga Raymond
Dallas, Texas

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

Since R. J. Grant of THE UNITED STATES INSPECTION SERVICE is an employee of that modern commercial creation, I am instead writing to you and address you here in your capacity as the postmaster in Dallas under The Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department. I have also sent copies of this writing to R. J. Grant and Postmaster General William Henderson, as due notice.

After having called my First-Class mail Matter forth from the general delivery section at The Post Office Department with a writing handed to me marked July 31, 1998 from R. J. Grant of THE UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE,' with a copy of the (1/98) version of D930 (see attached), I was deeply disturbed by its contents. I recognized in his writing that he expressed many presumptions and statements in its contents that are based on facts not in evidence.

These erroneous presumptions on his part are as follows:

2. That transients are the same as customers.

3. That I have been receiving 'General Delivery Service.'

4. That calling my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery is a 'service.'

5. That I am a Mr. or Mister.

I will here address these presumptive errors in his beliefs:

1. I am not a customer of The Postal Service. I am transient, homeless and a sojourner on the land, and have always called my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery, wherever I happen to sojourn, for fellowship between the Body of Believers and myself, and not for any commercial purposes.

2. Please note that according to your DMM, "general delivery is intended primarily [not exclusively] as a temporary means of delivery." In addition, please note that at D930, 1.1(a), general delivery is for transients and customers not permanently located. 1.1 (b) and thereafter addresses the restrictions to customers only, not to transients. Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM would not differentiate between 'transient' and 'customer' at 1.1(a) if the two terms conveyed the same meaning, and would not have dropped 'transient' after 1.1(a) if the restrictions or requirement for identification applied to transients. I hope and pray that you will note the significance of these differences in Law. Since the First-Class mail Matter that is sent to me never has any monetary value, J. D. Butler's claim of protection of it by The Postal Service through an identification request is not necessary or warranted. As the maxim of Law states, "The cause of the church is a public cause," therefore I do not involve or concern myself in or with private matters.

3. I have never received 'General Delivery Service.' I have always exercised my vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery. These traditionally vested and Inherited Rights in general delivery established by and for the church existed prior to the creation of THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and The Post Office Department. Therefore, the question arises: can the created deny or disparage the creator? Those learned men and women in the law who write your DMM are very careful not to. Even under the international law of belligerent occupation, during time of war vested and Inherited Rights are not violated by the occupier, but protected and preserved. I hope and pray that you will take into consideration these political questions,.as they do.

4. Being a Good and Lawful Christian calling my First-Class mail Matter forth in general delivery is not a 'service' delivered by THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, but an extended governmental duty of The Postal Service from The Post Office Department. History and the nonexistence of legislation concerning general delivery clearly shows this. They have been very careful by way of the creation of the commercial 'General Delivery Service' not to violate those Rights of the church for all Good and Lawful Christians to call their First-Class mail Matter forth from the non-commercial venue of general delivery under The Post Office Department.

As a side note, I want to make it clear to you that I do not look to any Postal Service publications or rules such as the DMM for my Right in general delivery. I have pointed these sections out to you simply to display to you that those that write your guidelines recognize the protections that must be left in place according to Law, beyond the reach of the employees of The Post Office Department, THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and THE UNITED STATES INSPECTION SERVICE. The following maxim of law clearly shows this:

May Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ continue to Richly Bless you,

John Robert: Barnes

(Fellowship Letter from Shirley Ann)

To: Randy Lee

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

In August, I requested help from you concerning our perplexity on how to answer a Dallas U.S. Postal Inspector's letter sent to my Brother in Christ, John Robert, which suggested he "call to discuss" the copy of D930, and to fill out the Postal Service Identification Request Form for "protection" of his "First-Class mail being delivered to General Delivery Service," "customer" status, etc. This Inspector's letter was prompted by a phone call from the Kemp, Texas Postmaster (a woman) asking for help after she had been served with a Non-Statutory Abatement. She then refused to give my friend his mail Matter, which contained the Registered Mail "return receipt" card with her signature evidencing she had been served the Abatement.

When you informed us that the Postal Inspector is strictly under the commercial "U.S. Postal Service" and not having duties under the Postmaster General in his capacity under The Post Office Department, we realized that he could not be served an Abatement to answer his letter. We re-typed the answer letter you faxed to us and sent copies of it to the Kemp Postmaster and to the newly appointed U.S. Postmaster General William Henderson. Upon receipt of the letter, the Kemp Postmaster completely changed her attitude--absolutely amazing.

Randy, we are grateful to God for this experience, and for your help, seeing that a letter of clarification has worked in place of the Abatement. Case in point: the same Postal Inspector was contacted by another "abated" Postmaster (in Neches) the following week, and, after sending the same letter to the Postmaster there (with copies, etc., as above) my other Christian Brothers had no problems receiving their First-Class mail Matter in general delivery at either post office; in fact, the greetings by both Postmasters and all clerks have continued to be very friendly, on-going for two months now.

Praise His Holy Name, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11.

Love and Blessings to You All in Christ Jesus,

Shirley Ann.
general delivery
Flint, Texas.

The Shetar

An Introduction

The following is from the introduction of a law review article from The Georgetown Law Journal written by Judith A. Shapiro. There are approximately 30 footnotes that are not included here. For a complete copy of this 22 page, 184 footnoted law review , give us a call at 818-347-7080.

"English law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English law.

Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement--shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. Both "movable and immovable" property were subject to distraint.

The Jews in Norman England had a specified legal status. They alone could lend money at interest. They were owned by the King, and their property was his property. The King suffered their presence only so long as they served his interests--primarily as a source of liquid capital.

Because moneylending by Christians was infrequent, English law had not established its own forms of security. The Jews operated within the framework of their own legal practice, which was based on Talmudic law developed over centuries of study. But the peculiar status of the Jews as the Crown's de facto investment bankers encouraged the King to direct his courts to enforce the credit agreements made by Jews under their alien practice. This nourished the growth of Jewish law in a way that blurred the absolutes of feudal land tenure. Previously inalienable rights in land gave way to economic necessities, and the English ultimately adopted the Jewish practices.

In 1290, the Jews were expelled (from England), but their credit practices remained.

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today

Written and Compiled by Randy Lee

"He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the heathen." 1 Kings 21:2.

Pagan

"One who worships false gods, or one of a nation or community that does not worship the true God; a heathen; one who is neither a Christian, a Mohammedan, nor a Jew; formerly, one not a Christian people." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1546.
"The divisions of Christianity suspended the ruin of Paganism." GIBBON

pagano-Christianism

pagano-Christianism. "Christians receptive of pagan characteristics or features." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1546

Christmas

The apostles and the church of the 1st and 2nd century after Christ's resurrection, knowing first hand that birthday observances were strictly a pagan practice, did not celebrate His birth. However, by the late fourth century Christmas was celebrated by many, although on differing dates in different locals. December 25th eventually became the officially recognized date for Christmas because it coincided with the pagan festivals celebrating Saturnalia and the winter solstice (sun worship). As Christianity spread throughout Europe it assimilated into its observances, likened to Rome's embracement of the idols of its conquered peoples, many customs of the pagan winter festivals such as holly, mistletoe, the Christmas tree/goose, etc.

The Law of our Father in Heaven warns us of such practices:

"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." Jer. 10:2-4
"Observe thou that which I command thee this day: Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exod. 34:11-16

The ways of the heathen were nailed to the cross for His chosen, for His sake:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:4-6

The Birthday Celebration

The only two occurrences of birthday celebrations in Scripture are found to be practiced by pagans only, first in Genesis by Pharaoh:

"And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants." Genesis 40:20

And the second by Herod:

"But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask." Matthew 14:6

And Brother Mark's account:

"And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." Mark 6:21-22

The Christmas Tree

The Christmas tree is of Babylonian origin representing Nimrod redivivus-- "the slain god come to life again."

In Pagan Egypt at the winter solstice, it was the palm tree denoting the reincarnated Pagan messiah as Baal-Tamar. In Pagan Rome it was the fir referring to him as Baal-Bereth (lord of the fir-tree) and was displayed on December 25th being Natalis invicti solis, "the birth-day of the unconquered Sun", the day when their victorious sun-god reappeared on earth.

Easter and Lent

The word Easter is of Chaldean origin, being Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, "the queen of heaven," whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was identical with that now in common use. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar (see Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p 629).

The worship of Bel (Moloch) and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain by the Druids, "the priests of the groves." The Beltane festival was held each April, known as Easter-monath.

Writing in 550 A.D., Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, in contrasting the early church with the Romish Church in his day, said that "it ought to be known that the observance of the forty days (Lent) had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive church remained inviolate." With an adjustment of the calendar in the 5th century to "revive' the Romish Church, Paganism and Christianity were further amalgamated under Lent, known at that time as the "month of Tammuz," the annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of the Babylonian god of agriculture and spirit of vegetation, Tammuz, the husband of Ishtar.

The Snare of Serving false gods

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that He abhorred his own inheritance. And He gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did He deliver them; but they provoked Him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, when He heard their cry:" Psalm 106:34-44

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Babylon

"Like Jerusalem, Babylon has a three-fold significance in Scripture, historic, prophetic, and symbolic (or typical). Historically, it may refer to the great city on the Euphrates River, to the kingdom of Babylon, or to the plain referred to as Babylonia. The empire of Babylon was used by God in the final defeat of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar begins the times of the Gentiles (Jer. 27:1-11; Dan. 2:37-38). The final and complete destruction of Babylon is foretold in the prophets (Isa. 13:17-22; Jer. 25:12-14). The city fell to the Medes in 539 B.C., but the vast desolation spoken of by the prophets has not yet come to pass.

Three primary passages (Isa. 13; 14; 47; Jer. 50; 51; Rev. 16:17-19:5) predict Babylon's ultimate destiny. The universal sweep, particularly in Isaiah's prophecy, exceeding the scope of Babylon even in the days of its greatest glory, suggests that many aspects of this prediction have not yet been fulfilled. God did not change the whole earth when Babylon fell; in fact, the city was not destroyed at that time.

Our chief concern is with the significance of Babylon in the book of Revelation. The characteristics of the people of the land of Shinar, rebellion against God, self-sufficiency, lust for power and glory (Gen. 8:10; 11:1-9), have marked the history of Babylon through the centuries and are basic in the Babylon passage of the Apocalypse.

The exact meaning of the term "Babylon" in Revelation has been disputed from the times of the church fathers. Called a harlot repeatedly (17:1, 5, 15, 16), she is said to be seated on many waters, which are defined as peoples (vs. 15). She is also portrayed as sitting upon a scarlet beast, who represents worldly powers arrayed against the Lamb of God. The beast ultimately turns upon the harlot to destroy her. In Rev. 18 Babylon is given prominence as a commercial power.

What is the meaning of Babylon in these passages? The older commentators tended to make it a prophecy of the evil world. Others have insisted on a specific geographical reference, such as Jerusalem. But the mention of rivers and ships and extensive commercial activity does not fit the holy city. Others have identified Babylon with the city of Rome, basing the identification largely on the mention of seven hills (Rev. 17:9). The fundamental objection to this interpretation is that the persecution of the Christians by the Roman Empire stopped at the advent of Constantine, whereas Rome was taken by the barbarians only a century later. Still another view refers the passage to literal Babylon on the Euphrates, which is now a heap of sand and ruins. Others believe that the reference is symbolical, that Babylon is not to be defined geographically but ecclesiastically. Some in this group interpret Babylon as the papacy, which through the centuries has persecuted multitudes of the saints of God. The Reformers shared this view. Others of this group understand the passage as a description not so much of the Roman Church at the end of this age as of apostate Christendom as a whole.

Whatever be the final conclusion on the identity of Babylon, the following factors are clear: (1) at the end of this age two powerful forces, a federation of nations and an ecclesiatical apostate body, will unitedly exercise jurisdiction over the world; (2) there will be a persecution of the saints of God; (3) a godless, economic, commercial worldwide activity will hold sway; (4) a dual judgment will bring this condition of abomination to an end; (5) the ecclesiastical power will be torn to pieces by the federation of nations; and (6) the whole ungodly system, staggering in the drunkenness of Babylonian pride, power, and wealth, will be destroyed by an act of God, which will bring rejoicing to the people of God (Rev. 18:20). If there is any chronological sequence in these last chapters of the book of Revelation, this judgment on Babylon will soon be followed by the battle of Armageddon." W. M. SMITH , from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

"The literal Babylon was the beginner and supporter of tyranny and idolatry ......This city and its whole empire were taken by the Persians under Cyrus; the Persians were subdued by the Macedonians, and the Macedonians by the Romans; so that Rome succeeded to the power of old Babylon. And it was her method to adopt the worship of the false deities she had conquered; so that by her own act she became the heiress and successor of all the Babylonian idolatry, and of all that was introduced into it by the immediate successors of Babylon, and consequently of all the idolatry of the earth. Rome, or "mystical Babylon," is "that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (17:18)." Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Remembering the Old Ways

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Luke 16: 19-20

Remembering the Poor Man vs. The Modern Get Rich Gospel

"As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious. The tendency of the gospel of Christ is both to reconcile us to poverty and affliction and to arm us against temptations to worldliness and sensuality. We need not call it a history of a particular occurrence, but it is matter of fact that is true every day, that poor godly people, whom men neglect and trample upon, die away out of their miseries, and go to heavenly bliss and joy, which is made the more pleasant to them by their preceding sorrows; and that rich epicures, who live in luxury, and are unmerciful to the poor, die, and go into a state of insupportable torment, which is the more grievous and terrible to them because of the sensual lives they lived: and that there is no gaining any relief from their torments. Our Saviour came to bring us acquainted with another world, and to show us the reference which this world has to that; and here it does it. In this description we may observe:

I. The different condition of a wicked rich man, and a godly poor man, in this world. We know that as some of late, so the Jews of old, were ready to make prosperity one of the marks of a true church, of a good man and a favourite of heaven, so that they could hardly have any favourable thoughts of a poor man. This mistake Christ, upon all occasions, set himself to correct, and here very fully.

[1.] Christ would hereby show that a man may have a great deal of the wealth, and pomp, and pleasure of this world, and yet lie and perish for ever under God's wrath and curse. We cannot infer from men's living great either that God loves them in giving them so much, or that they love God for giving them so much; happiness consists not in these things.

[2.] That plenty and pleasure are a very dangerous and to many a fatal temptation to luxury, and sensuality, and forgetfulness of God and another world. This man might have been happy if he had not had great possessions and enjoyments.

[3.] That the indulgence of the body, and the ease and pleasure of that, are the ruin of many a soul, and the interests of it. It is true, eating good meat and wearing good clothes are lawful; but it is true that they often become the food and fuel of pride and luxury, and so turn into sin to us.

[4.] That feasting ourselves and our friends, and, at the same time, forgetting the distresses of the poor and afflicted, are very provoking to God and damning to the soul. The sin of this rich man was not so much his dress or his diet, but his providing only for himself.

2. Here is a godly man, and one that will be for ever happy, in the depth of adversity and distress (v. 20): There was a certain beggar, named Lazarus. A beggar of that name, eminently devout, and in great distress, was probably well known among good people at that time: a beggar, suppose such a one as Eleazar. Some think Eleazar a proper name for any poor man, for it signifies the help of God, which they must fly to that are destitute of other helps. This poor man was reduced to the last extremity, as miserable, as to outward things, as you can lightly suppose a man to be in this world.

(1.) His body was full of sores, like Job. To be sick in body is a great affliction; but sores are more painful to the patient, and more loathsome to those about him.

(2.) He was forced to beg his bread, and to take up with such scraps as he could get at rich people's doors. He was so sore and lame that he could not go himself, but was carried by some compassionate hand or other, and laid at the rich man's gate. Note, Those that are not able to help the poor with their purses should help them with their pains; those that cannot lend them a penny should lend them a hand; those that have not themselves wherewithal to give to them should either bring them, or go for them, to those that have. Lazarus, in his distress, had nothing of his own to subsist on, no relation to go to, nor did the parish take care of him. It is an instance of the degeneracy of the Jewish church at this time that such a godly man as Lazarus should be suffered to perish for want of necessary food." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible.

Bits and Pieces

Christian Liberty

The Good News, which is the Gospel, is that God Himself opens the way to obedience through faith in Jesus Christ. Christian Liberty thus bears two faces:

(1) Freedom from human disability and enslavement to Satan:

"He hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." Colossians 1:13 (see also Ephesians 2:2 and John 8:32, 36).

(2) Freedom for striving to do the will of God. To love Him and to know Him:

"He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.

If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." John 14:21,23 (see also Romans 3:20, John 8:31-32).

"Christian liberty emerges out of duty. The sense of duty has its origin in God, who lays the demands of His law upon everyone through the witness of conscience. Some seek relief from the divine presence in assorted forms of pseudo-freedom, philosophies, mysticisms, wealth, power, rebellion. Others pursue oblivion via drugs, busyness, dropping out, the abuse of others. But the witness of God is never stilled --and detached from duty, choice becomes freedom's counterfeit "license", slavery to fad, fashion, passion, whim, greed, megalomania. And license is the dance of death.

In a word, the God who liberates us from Egypt sets before our feet the way of life as illumined by his law (Exod. 20:2-17; Ps. 119:105), and grants us, through Christ, the gift of the Spirit by whom we can be free, that is, we can seek to do what God commands." Lester De Koster

Christian Humanism

defined

"The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to offer a formulation of Christianity that included an acceptance of classical achievements as he stated in the Apology (1.46) that Christ the Word had put culture under his control. Such an approach, he believed, would restrain believers from leading vulgar lives while at the same time keeping them from attaching more importance to human culture than to the truths of the faith.

Christian humanists acknowledge the contributions of other forms of humanism, such as the classical variety that discovered the value of human liberty, and the Marxists, who realize that man has been estranged from the good life because he is dispossessed of property and subordinated to material and economic forces. However, they caution that these other forms can degenerate into excessive individualism or savage collectivism because they operate without God. The Christian humanist values culture but confesses that man is fully developed only as he comes into a right relationship with Christ. When this happens, a person can begin to experience growth in all areas of life as the new creation of revelation (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)." R. G. CLOUSE, from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.

Bibliography. L. Bouyer, Christian Humanism; Q. Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism; H. Kung, On Being a Christian; J. Maritain, True Humanism; J. I. Packer, Knowing Man; G. Toffanin, History of Humanism; C. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness; W. Bouwsma, The Interpretation of Renaissance Humanism.

Hedonism

defined

"From the Greek hedone, pleasure. Hedonism comprises all those ethical theories which identify the moral goal as happiness, pleasure. The ancient Cyrenaics assumed that accurate foresight of the pleasurable or painful results of actions constituted wisdom; later they emphasized present pleasure as the result always to be sought. Epicureans modified this, cultivating a total life of pleasure against merely momentary pleasures: "pleasure through prudence" ensuring sublety, variety, permanence, to satisfy a rational being. Neither "pure" nor "modified" hedonism provided truly moral guidance.

"Psychological hedonism" held that pleasure/ pain governs all choices (Bentham); desiring anything and finding it pleasurable are inseparable (Mill). Certainly, any object must attract (move with anticipated pleasure) before it can be chosen: yet desire for some object must precede pleasure in its attainment; pleasure itself, nor even pleasant things, are not always chosen, since that would yield no moral guidance.

"Egotistic hedonism" (Hobbes) held that, general happiness being an abstraction, each should seek only his own; or, that each seeking his own would promote general happiness. But that even refined selfishness always promotes the general good contradicts all experience.

"Altruistic hedonism" (the very influential Utilitarianism) held that each should seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Mill), intellectual identification with others (Sidgwick), or emotional sympathy (Hume), making others' happiness necessary to one's own. But if pleasure be the goal, why should others' pleasure deny one's own? To appeal to justice and unselfishness introduces nonhedonist considerations. And can pleasure be so totaled, and shared out?

Most modern Christians are hedonist enough to expect happiness to follow dedication, though they translate pleasure into "blessing" and assume that God's love means divine concern to shelter, comfort, and reward the good. A mature Christian hedonism, while energetic for the happiness of others, would never make its own happiness a goal, but only a reward, if God so wills, for life devoted to disinterested service of Christ; while in "happiness" it would include total spiritual welfare, with felt divine acceptance." R. E. O. WHITE

Issue the Thirty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

A Short Study of the Edification and Preservation of His church and state...

The Servant, A Word Study...

The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part Two...

Opinion, A Word Study...

The Spirit of Adoption...

In Whose Name Do You Call? Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

A Short Study of

Edification and Preservation

of His church and state

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

It is clear from these Holy Words, that, for the unity of the church to take place, and be maintained, doing the will of Our Father takes precedence over all else. Not lip service to it--not something similar to it--not the modern Christian Humanist mime of it-- --but doing it through fully and selflessly putting on the mind of Christ. Every word that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ spoke, clearly shows us what that will and mind is:

"Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in Him:" Ephesians 1:9-10

Over the past five hundred years, the combining of Christianity's selflessness with Humanism's selfness has resulted in the current confused doctrines of Christian Humanism, which, instead of gathering, divides. One of the main tools for "de-edifying" and dividing His church, used by these powers of darkness, is the doctrine of "religious relativism" (the "belief" that meaning and truth vary from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time ["Liberty of Conscience"]), wherein the attempt is made to undermine the church and God's Word and Will by those who "relativize" divinely revealed absolutes.

Either God's Will and His Word is true and binding for all people at all times...

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of Thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

...or it is true for no one at any time, and all are "free" and "at liberty" to do their own will at all times--but:

"And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way." Judges 2:19

"Edification and Preservation" are words that we have partially defined in the past, without fully explaining Biblically how important it is to the unity of Christ's church and state. The Humanist world has its mime of these two words and their functions; therefore we find it imperative to do a comparison to avoid any confusion that may exist.

In the study of words, not only their definitions, but their spiritual implications are so very important to the Good and Lawful Christian, because it is largely by the spoken word that you evidence whether you are either free in Christ, or a slave to sin:

"And He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Matthew 15:10-11

And again He warns us of the importance of words:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.

This is how important words are to Him--the Saviour of the moral world-- and because we are His disciples they must be important to us to the same degree of importance as they are to Him.

The word "idle" here is translated from argos (ar-gos'), meaning ineffective, and worthless.

With the writing, speaking and hearing of words, there is the ever-present danger of confusing Divine Truth with man's philosophy and opinion. Many Good and Lawful Christians in the past, and in recent times, have found that since the early church of the 1st and 2nd century, the philosophy and opinion of men have, to too large of a degree, taken precedence over Scriptural Truth in those divisive "ism" institutions of "higher hierarchy" purporting to be "The Church" (Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Methodism, etc., etc., etc.). We are told of such folly:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians 1:12-13

When looking to the philosophies and opinions of men, no matter how Godly they may appear, you take on all of their divisive "conceptual" baggage. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" is imperative, for we are warned that a continual separation of the wheat from the chaff is taking place according to God's plan:

"Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired; Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD's anger come upon you. Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD's anger." Zephaniah 2:1-3

In comparing the executorship of Christ's Laws and Ways and doing the will of the Father by the early church--with the modern religious corporations and commercially blessed denominations rationalizing themselves to be "The Church"--we see why the modernist's push for church reconstruction and innovation, rather than resurrection and re-establishment of the church through execution of the Law of the Lawgiver, has left these Churches with no other avenue than to preach the hedonistic "Health and Wealth Gospel" so prevalent today. A typical example of this depraved mentality was witnessed recently on what is known as "The Beast Channel," that "around-the-clock evangelizism network," stating to:

"Invest in us. Send your investment today of 35.00 dollars or more and we'll send you this video tape. You know, you do not receive anything free from God. Only when you give freely to us, you receive freely from Him."

Those were the exact blasphemous words spoken by "the Pastor." Since we must give account of the words we speak in the day of judgment, we are subject to the wrath of God for speaking like and following the ways of the natural man, which are unclean ways and words of death --"idle words." And elsewhere it is written:

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate [*sanctified], saith the Lord, and touch not [*nor partake of] the unclean thing [*that which is impure or defiled]; and I will receive you." 2 Cor. 6:17. [*Insertions added].

The downfall of Old Testament Israel and the "New Testament Church" can be traced to that unclean and accursed thing:

"Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed: neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you. Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you." Joshua 7:12-13.

He does not speak of an accursed physical thing here, but the spiritual:

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matthew 12:34-35.

The purpose and meaning of edification is seen in the following verses:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection. Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." 2 Corinthians 13:8-10

Let us then examine today's understanding of edification, and the secular mime:

"EDIFICATION. 1. Building (now rare) 1549; concr. A building -1584. Also fig. 2. fig. A building up in faith and holiness of life (cf. 1 Cor. XIV.) ME.; mental or moral improvement; instruction (now often ironical) 1660." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), vol. I, p. 584.

Note the Biblical substance of the above definition. Law is interwoven into it. From Strong's Greek Dictionary we see that the words edify and edification used in the New Testament have a specific meaning:

"Edify. 3618 oikodomeo (oy-kod-om-eh'-o); to be a house-builder, i.e. construct or (figuratively) confirm: -- (be in) build (-er, -ing, up), edify, embolden."

Now, let us look at the Humanist mime:

"EDUCATION. 1. The process of nourishing or rearing-1661. 2. The process of bringing up (young persons); the manner in which a person has been brought up, Obs. exc. With notion of 3. 1531. 3. The systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young (and, by extension, to adults) in preparation for the work of life. Also the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Often qualified, as classical, legal, technical, etc. 1616. Also fig. 4. Hence, Culture or development of powers, formation of character. Often qualified, as intellectual, moral, etc. 1860. 5. attrib., as E. Society, etc. 1662." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), p. 584.

The first thing to notice is the ambiguity of substance in the mime--what or where is the nourishment? Is it nourishment in Truth or a "socially engineered" simulation of it? We should also take careful note of the Marxist philosophy in this mime, particularly definition #3. Note, too, the purpose of education--"culture or development of powers."

Let us now investigate what "culture" is, because culture is bandied about by many modern media pundits:

"CULTURE. 1. Worship 1483. 2. 3. cultivation; spec. the artificial development of microscopic organisms, esp. bacteria, in prepared media; concr. the product of such culture 1884. 4. fig. Improvement or refinement by education and training 1510. 5. absol. The training and refinement of mind, tastes, and manners; the condition of being thus trained and refined; the intellectual side of civilization 1805. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1955), vol. I, p. 473.

It is important at this juncture to point out that the words train or training in the above context are used in a commercial and social engineering sense, as they are defined as "to treat so as to bring to the proper or desired form," and "to instruct and discipline in or for some particular art, profession, occupation, or practice."

Another Christian Humanist mime is:

"RECONSTRUCTION. To remodel; to form again or anew." Webster's New International Dict. (1931), p. 1784.

Since "there is no new thing under the sun" (see Ecclesiastes 1:9), what is there to "form anew" or "remodel," other than that which the natural man seeks to form or model in his own image. The "ideas" of Reconstruction and Innovation must presuppose that Christ's remnant no longer exists, and by implication, that God's Word is not "completely" true. Instead of gathering, these new ideas of the natural man further divide.

In conclusion, we will leave you with several verses concerning edification for study in order that you may further unify the church:

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than He? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." 1 Corinthians 10:21-24
"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." Romans 14:19
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." 1Thessalonians 5:9-15

The Servant

A Word Study

by Randy Lee

In his Synonyms of the New Testament, Christian etymologist Richard Chenevix Trench wrote the following concerning the importance of the study of words:

"The words of the New Testament are eminently the stoicheia (rudiments, elements) of Christian theology, and he who will not begin with a patient study of those, shall never make any considerable, least of all any secure, advances in this: for here, as everywhere else, sure disappointment awaits him who thinks to possess the whole without first possessing the parts of which that whole is composed."

With the above in mind, it is our hope the following study of the word "servant" will give all servants of Christ Jesus a better understanding of their office and duty. The bulk of the information is drawn from Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament and Kenneth Wuest's Studies in the Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.

There are five Greek words used in the New Testament that speak of one who renders service, the translation of which is not however uniformly given by the use of the single word "servant." They are doulos, therapon, diakonos, oiketes, and huperetes.

Doulos

Doulos is the most common word. It designates one who, (a) was born into his condition of slavery, (b) one bound to his master as his slave, (c) one who was in a permanent relationship to his master, which relationship could only be broken by death, (d) one whose will was swallowed up in the will of his master, and (e) one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests. This word was used in the first century as a designation of a class of slaves that represented a most abject, servile condition. It is the word taken over into the New Testament to designate a sinner as a slave (Romans 6:17). It is also used to speak of a believer as a bondslave of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ (Romans 1:1). However, in this latter case the servility and abjectness are not included in the meaning of the word, but the fact that the finger of God through the Bible writers used it to describe the Christian shows that He desired to retain its connotation of humbleness on the part of the slave. As bondslaves of Christ Jesus, we are to ever remember that we must serve Him in all humility of mind. Using the various meanings of doulos, we see how the classical usage of the word is in exact accord with its spiritual implications in the New Testament. For instance, a sinner is born into slavery to sin by his physical birth, and into a loving and obedient servitude to the Saviour Who has freely given you a spiritual new-birth. Doulos is found in the following places: Matthew 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27, 28; 18:23, 26, 27, 28, 32; 20:27; 21:34, 35, 36; 22:3, 4, 6, 8, 10; 24:45, 46, 48, 50; 25:14, 19, 21, 23, 26, 30; 26:51 --Mark 10:44; 12:2, 4; 13:34; 14:47. --Luke 2:29; 7:2, 3, 8, 10; 12:37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 47; 14:17, 21, 22, 23; 15:22; 17:7, 9, 10; 19:13, 15, 17, 22; 20:10, 11; 22:50. --John 4:51, 8:34, 35; 13:16, 15:15, 20; 18:10, 18, 26.--Acts 2:18; 4:29; 16:17. --Romans 1:1; 6:16, 17, 19, 20.--I Corinthians 7:21, 22, 23; 12:13.--II Corinthians 4:5.--Galatians 1:10; 3:28; 4:1, 7.--Ephesians 6:5, 6, 8.--Philippians 1:1; 2:7.--Colossians 3:11, 22; 4:1, 12.--I Timothy 6:1--II Timothy 2:24.--Titus 1:1; 2:9.--Philemon 16.--James 1:1.--I Peter 2:16.--II Peter 1:1; 2:19.--Jude 1.-- and Revelation 1:1; 2:20; 6:15; 7:3; 10:7; 11:18; 13:16; 15:3; 19:2, 5, 18; 22:3, 6. Doulos is translated in these passages by the words "servant, bond, or bondman." The verb douleuo which has the same root as doulos, therefore having the same implications, and which means, (a) to be a slave, (b) to serve, (c) to do service, (d) to obey, and (e) to submit to, -- in a good sense meaning, "to obey one's commands and render to him the services due," is found in Acts 7:6; Romans 6:18, 22; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:19; Galatians 4:3; Titus 2:3; and II Peter 2:19. It is translated either by the word "servant" or "bondage," together with the accompanying verb, and in Titus 2:3 by the word "given."

Therapon

Concerning the word therapon, Trench says:

"The therapon...is the performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freemen or slave he renders them; as bound by duty, or impelled by love; and thus, as will necessarily follow, there goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tenderer, nobler, freer than those of the doulos. Thus Achilles styles Patroclus his therapon..., one whose service was not constrained, but the officious ministration of love; very much like that of the squire or page of the Middle Ages. In the verb therapeuo (to serve, do service, to heal, cure, restore to health),...as distinguished from douleuo..., the nobler and tenderer character of the service comes still more strongly out. It may be used of the physician's watchful tendance of the sick, or man's service to God.

"It will follow that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, calling Moses a therapon in the house of God (3:5), implies that he occupied a more confidential position, that a freer service, a higher dignity was his, than that merely of a doulos, approaching more closely to that of an oikonomos (the manager of a household, a steward, a superintendent) in God's house; and referring to Numbers 12:6-8, we find, confirming this view, that an exceptional dignity is there ascribed to Moses, lifting him above other doulos of God...It would have been well if our Translators had seen some way to indicate the exceptional and more honorable title given to him who 'was faithful in all God's house'."

Therapon occurs but once in the New Testament, at Hebrews 3:5.

Diakonos

Diakonos is derived from the verb dioko meaning "to hasten after, to pursue." In comparing this word with doulos and therapon, Trench has the following to say:

"The difference between diakonos on one side, and doulos and therapon on the other, is this--that diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work;...not in his relation, either servile, as that of the doulos, or more voluntary, as in the case of the therapon, to a person. The attendants at a feast, and this with no respect to their condition as free or servile, are diakonos (John 2:5, Mat.22:13, compare John 12:2). The importance of preserving the distinction between doulos and diakonos may be illustrated from the parable of the Marriage Supper (Mat. 22:2-14). In our Version the king's 'servants' bring in the invited guests (v. 3, 4, 8, 10) and his 'servants' are bidden to cast out that guest who was without a wedding garment (v. 13); but in the Greek, those, the bringers-in of the guests, are doulos: these, the fulfillers of the king's sentence, are diakonos--this distinction being a most real one, and belonging to the essentials of the parable; the doulos being the ambassadors of Christ, who invite their fellowmen into His kingdom now, the diakonos angels, who in all the judgment acts at the end of the world evermore appear as the executors of the Lord's will."

Thus, diakonos represents the servant in his activity for the work he is to do. It speaks of one who executes the commands of another, especially of a master. The word is found in Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11.--Mark 9:35, 10:43.--John 2:5, 9; 12:26.--Romans 13:4; 15:8; 16:1.--I Corinthians 3:5.--II Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 13.--Galatians 2:17.--Ephesians 3:7; 6:21.--Philippians 1:1.--Colossians 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7.--I Thessalonians 3:2. --and I Timothy 3:8, 12; 4:6.

Diakonos is translated in these places "minister, servant, deacon." The verb diakoneo which is from the same root and which means (a) to be a servant, attendant, or domestic, (b) to serve, to wait upon, to minister to one, (c) to wait at table and offer food and drink to guests, to supply food and the necessaries of life, (d) render ministering offices to, (e) to minister a thing to one, and (f) to serve one with or by supplying anything; and is found in Matthew 4;11; 8:15; 20:28; 25:44; 27:55.--Mark 1:13, 31; 10:45; 15:41.--Luke 4:39; 8:3; 10:40; 12:37; 17:8; 22:26, 27.--John 12, 2, 26.--Acts 6:2; 19:22.--Romans 15:25. --II Corinthians 3:3; 8:19, 29.--I Timothy 3;10, 13.--II Timothy 1:18.--Philemon 13.--Hebrews 6:10.--and I Peter 1:12; 4:10, 11. Diakoneo is translated in these places "minister, serve, administer."

The word diakonia which has the same root as diakonos and means "service, ministering," used especially of those who execute commands, is found in Luke 10:40. --Acts 1:17, 25; 6:1, 4; 11:29; 12:25; 20:24, 21; 21:19.--Romans 11:13; 12:7; 15:31.--I Corinthians 12:5; 16:15.--II Corinthians 3:7, 8, 9; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; 8:4; 9:1, 12, 13; 11:8.--Ephesians 4:12. --Colossians 4:17.--I Timothy 1;12.--II Timothy 4:5, 11.--Hebrews 1:14.--and Revelation 2:19. Diakonia is translated in these places, "ministry, serving, ministration, office, administration, service."

Oiketes

Oiketes has the same root as the Greek word for "house" (oikos). It designates a house-servant, one holding closer relations to the family than other slaves. Trench says of this word:

"Oiketes is often used as equivalent to doulos. It certainly is so in I Peter 2:18; and hardly otherwise on the three remaining occasions on which it occurs in the N.T., (Lk. 16;13; Acts 10:7; Rom. 14:4); nor does the LXX (Ex. 21:27; Deut. 6:21; Prov. 17:2) appear to recognize any distinction between them; the Apocrypha as little (Eccl. 10:25). At the same time oiketes ('domesticus') does not bring out and emphasize the servile relation so strongly as doulos does; rather contemplates that relation from a point of view calculated to mitigate, and which actually did tend very much to mitigate, its extreme severity. He is one of the household, of the 'family,' in the older sense of this word; not indeed necessarily one born in the house; oikogenes (born in the house, home-bred, said of a slave) is the word for this in the LXX (Gen. 14:14; Eccl. 2:7)."

Huperetes

Lastly, Trench says that huperetes is:

"a word drawn from military matters; he was originally a rower..., as distinguished from the soldier, on board a war-galley; then the performer of any strong and hard labor; then the subordinate official who waited to accomplish the behests of his superior, as the orderly who attends a commander in war...; the herald who carries solemn messages....In this sense, as an inferior minister to perform certain defined functions for Paul and Barnabas, Mark was their huperetes together (Acts 13:5); and in this official sense of lictor, apparitor, and the like, we find the word constantly, indeed predominantly used in the N.T. (Mt. 5:25; Lk. 4:20; John 7:32, 18:18; Acts 5:22). The mention by St. John of doulos and huperetes together (18:18) is alone sufficient to indicate that a difference is by him observed between them; from which difference it will follow that he who struck the Lord on the face (John 18:22) could not be, as some suggest, the same whose ear the Lord had just healed (Lk, 22:51), seeing that this was a doulos, that profane and petulant striker a huperetes, of the High Priest. The meanings of diakonos and huperetes are much more nearly allied; they do in fact continually run into one another, and there are innumerable occasions on which the words might be indifferently used; the more official character and functions of the huperetes is the point in which the distinction between them resides."

Huperetes is found in the following places: Matthew 5:25; 26:58.--Mark 15:54, 65.--Luke 1:2; 4:20.--John 7:32, 45, 46; 18:3, 12, 18, 22, 36; 19:6.--Acts 5:22, 26; 13:5; 26:16.--and I Corinthians 4:1. It is translated by the words "officer, servant, minister."

The following is a brief summary of this word study for contrast purposes:

Doulos, the most common word, and one that spoke of a slave in the most servile condition, is not a specialized word. The chief idea that it conveys is that the slave is bound to his master. He is in a condition of bondage. The word doulos comes from deo which means "to bind." A doulos was a person who was born into the condition of slavery, one who was in a permanent relationship to his master which only death could break, one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests.

Therapon lays the emphasis upon the fact that the person serving is a performer of present services, with no respect to the fact whether as a freeman or a slave he renders them, whether bound by duty or impelled by love. There goes habitually with the word the sense of one whose services are tender, nobler, freer than those of a doulos.

Diakonos speaks of the servant in his activity for the work, not in his relation, either servile, as that of a doulos, or more voluntary, as in the case of a therapon. The word speaks of one who executes the commands of another, especially, those of a master.

Oiketes designates a household slave, one holding closer relation to the family than other slaves. He is one of the household of the "family."

Huperetes emphasizes the official capacity of the servant. It designated the subordinate official who waited to accomplish the behests of his superior.

To narrow the definitions down even more, we could say that doulos is a slave in his servile relation to his master; therapon, a slave whose services are more tender, nobler, and freer; diakonos, a slave seen in his activity executing the commands of his master; oiketes a household slave; and huperetes, a slave holding a subordinate official position.

The Prosecutorial Authority

and Power of Christ's church

Part Two

by John Joseph

"If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand [*at the bar] before the LORD, before the priests and the judges [*the church in Christ], which shall be in those days; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:16-19

This is another place the Good and Lawful Christian separates from the pagan. The Good and Lawful Christian uses the Law of His Sovereign in the Court of His Sovereign; and, the pagan must use the pretence of law written in codes, rules and regulations by his "sovereign" in the "court" of his purported "sovereign." Are the two equal or the same? Clearly the answer is "no" as seen from above. Note too, that in God's Law there is no separation of jurisdiction under man's law. In other words, man cannot use his forms of law to set up a jurisdiction outside of God's creation. This principle in Law is recognized:

"Rule of court must be subordinate to law, and in case of conflict the law will prevail." Suckley's Administrator v. Rotchford (1855), 12 Grattan (Va.) 60, 65 Am.Dec. 240.

It is the Law that is used which sanctifies one to the Sovereign of the Law:

"Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word [*in and of Christ]." Psalm 119:9. [*Insertion added].

Let us examine this further:

"Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth." Psalm 119:142 [Emphasis added].
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160.
"He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." Deuteronomy 32:4.
"The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." Psalm 19:9 [Emphasis added].
"Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth [*Law and Word of our Father]." John 17:17, 19 [*Insertion & emphasis added]

When one is sanctified by the Law, one is under the sanctifying Law and the Lawgiver giving Sanctification. If God's Law is the Truth, and the Good and Lawful Christian is in Christ, then the Good and Lawful Christian is in the Truth under the Law of God:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." John 14:6.
"Verse 6. I am the WAY-- That leads so the Father:--the TRUTH that teaches the knowledge of God, and directs in the way:--the LIFE that animates all those who seek and serve him, and which is to be enjoyed eternally at the end of the way.
Christ is the WAY: 1. By his doctrine, John 6:68. 2. By his example, 1 Peter 2:91. 3. By his sacrifice, Hebrews 9:8, 9. 4. By his Spirit, John 16:13.
He is the TRUTH: 1. In opposition to all false religions. 2. To the Mosaic law, which was only the shadow, not the truth or substance, of the good things which were to come. And 3. In respect to all the promises of God, 2 Corinthians 1:20.
He is the LIFE, both in grace and glory; the life that not only saves from death, but destroys it." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 5, pp 256-257.

And by corollary then, the pagan is not in the Truth; and, because not in Truth is subject to God's Judgment of wrath for his "law" is a lie. This is the stranger of Jeremiah 51:51. This accords with Brother Paul's explanation of the Good and Lawful Christian being not subject to God's wrath when he sojourns in Christ.

Looking back at Christ's work in the Temple, we see that a declaration in Truth is to set the Law of the court. The Law opens and sets the Court, which means it sets the lex loci of the Court itself. Being in God's Court then requires the use of His Law exclusively--codes, rules, and regulations, have no standing in this Court, because of the following:

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" Psalm 94:20.
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.
"And He said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:23.
"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."Matthew 15:6b-9. (see also Isaiah 29:13 and Ezekiel 33:31).

We have seen that the Truth is in Christ and in the Law of God, for the two are one being merged in the Ministerial Office of Christ, alone. The Law describes the duties and obligations appertaining to the Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ. But where do we find such Law? There are two places, first,--

"But the word [*of God revealed in Christ] is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." Deuteronomy 30:14.
"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in My statutes, and keep Mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be My people, and I will be their God." Ezekial 11:19-20.
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21.
"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith [*in Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life], which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:8-14. [*Insertion and emphasis added].

Confession is done not only by words, for the fruits of the Word written on our hearts manifested in the works we do in faithfulness to Him who sent us speak louder than mere words:

"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me." John 5:36.
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me." John 10:25.
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to My gospel." Rom 2:14-16.

So don't be dragged about by every wind of doctrine, ideology, or patriot package, ad nauseam:

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalm 118:8.
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." Psalm 146:3.
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" Ephesians 4:14.

Knowing that the Law is written on our heart is only one witness, so we must look elsewhere for supporting witness, for God, solely by His Grace, gave us these rules of evidence in Scripture and He would not leave us destitute of witnesses:

"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." Deuteronomy 19:15.
"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Matthew 18:16.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." I Thessalonians 5:21.

So we look elsewhere for other witnesses of God's choosing and we find the following:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Romans 8:16.
"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I John 5:8.

So here we have our witnesses. We have other witnesses, such as our brothers in Christ, the angels in heaven, creation, Sacred Scripture--

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us," Hebrews 12:1.

The important thing is all these witnesses must corroborate us or we are not in Truth. This is because all of these witnesses corroborate each other in Truth. So knowing this, we must frame the action at-Law in Truth so as to set a Record in God's Court which can then be used to execute the Judgment of Christ against all those heathen and ungodly and bind the fetters of iron on their earthly kings and princes:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth [*according to the judgment written] shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19. [*Insertion added].

The Record is not what you think. Most people have the idea of a record being something written on paper. This is partially true; but, the Record we are referring to here is the record of you sojourning in covenant with God in and through the Sacred Ministerial Office of Christ which all Good and Lawful Christians "occupy til He comes":

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Genesis 17:7.
"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations;" Deuteronomy 7:9.

Note carefully the words of the Christ in Luke 10:16-20. This historical and judicial Record found and built in and on Truth is so important that upon it a whole community, His church, is built by God Himself by and in His Word:

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalm 127:1.
"Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:" Deuteronomy 29:14.
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20.
"Truth is the bond of union among saints." David Fernice, in conversation, quoted by Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794), p. 604.
"It was the people of Israel which from its very beginning--since it was created by the Mosaic revelation of God--understood its relation to God as historical, and its history as the result of its relation to God. Yahweh is the Covenant God, and the covenant of God with Israel and of Israel with Yahweh is the content of its history. History is that which takes place between the personal God and His people. No other nation, either before or after Israel, ever understood its history in this way. In accordance with this truth, therefore, even at the stage of the early Mosaic revelation the life of the people of Israel was conceived in personal terms. In the national life of Israel the main concern was not with culture, civilization, technique, world-conquest, or political power--although these motives certainly often predominated very strongly in actual fact--but with one thing only: the obedience of the nation to one God, and the union of the members of the nation to one another in community, based upon this relation to God. From the very outset the ethos of Israel is strictly personal and social." Brunner, Man in Revolt, (1946), page 448.

Christ's church also has a Record in Him, which distinguishes it from the purported record of the world, because it is in Truth being one of His Works:

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4. [Emphasis added].
"All believers who have been baptized have, by participation in that rite, attested to their identification with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, which the rite symbolizes. [*It is upon this doctrine that Christ's church stands having all things common.] Since they share with him by faith in his obedience unto death, they also now share with him in the new life that is brought into being by the resurrection. Here is a form ofexistence that is not subject to death, and that is triumphant over sin and the powers of evil which held the old life in subjection. [*If triumphant over sin in the spiritual realm, it is triumphant over its manifestations in the physical realm.] Paul states the concept of the new creation succinctly in writing to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:22): 'as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' Again, we see the Hebrew condition of the solidarity of God's people expressing itself in the inclusion of all humanity under two heads: Adam and Christ." Kee and Young, Understanding the New Testament (1957), page 282. [*Insertions added].

It is this Record in Truth that is evidence of your covenant with God, for those who have no Record in Truth of covenant with God are strangers to Him and His church:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant, nor bound by it [*i.e., Law-less], are also said to be strangers to the covenant." Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1590. [*Insertion and emphasis added].
"The life of the community, like the life of the human body, is dependent on certain central organs. No member of a human body can live independently, although the body can continue to function even after some members have been removed. For Paul the central organ in a human body was the head, which he regarded as the seat of life. Analogously, the life of 'members' in the Body of Christ was dependent upon the Head--that is, Christ. The Head (Colossians 2:18, 19) is not only the source of life for the entire body; it also determines the form of the body's growth and integrates the life of the whole body. The theme of the oneness of the body and its dependence on the head is developed much more elaborately in the letter to the Ephesians, which, though it parallels Paul's thought, was probably not written by him.
"The community [*Christ's church], therefore, cannot consider itself as autonomous. It depends for its existence and for its continuance on Jesus Christ, who called the community into being, who died to seal the covenant on which the community is founded, and who has sent the Spirit to guide and empower its corporate life [*in Him]." Kee and Young, Understanding the New Testament (1957), pp. 283-284. [*Insertions and emphasis added.]

"A state is a community [*in Christ] or assemblage of men and the government the political agency through which it acts in international [*or interstate] relations." Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Russia, 21 F.2d 396, 400. [*Insertion added. Definition here is misleading: a physical body of an agent must exist prior to its contract of agency. There is no contract between the government of a State and the state itself. Therefore, agency is a misleading term.]

Because God's Law is Truth, and the Record is established by His Law, then only those having covenant with Him are Parties of Record in Truth. Thus those: One, who truly do not honour the Son cannot honour the Father Who has sent Him; and Two, who have their names Recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life and in the Life of His church here (the two witness rule) possess evidence of their sanctification in and allegiance to Him alone.

It is in this Office that the Record of you and your acts must be found. This means then, that if you do any thing for revenge, you are not sojourning in the Truth, i.e. but travel in a lie outside the Office of Christ, and seek your own glory:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my [*our] trust." 1 Timothy 1:9-11. [*Insertion and emphasis added].

This is why merely carrying a Bible, mechanically mouthing a collection of buzz words, or going "to church" (to give lip service) mean nothing because they are not evidence of you sojourning with God: i.e.:

"And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." Matthew 8:20. See also Luke 9:58.
"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers [*executors] of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:13. [*Insertion added.]

Having all the marks of commerce means one travels with another god--the god of the "health and wealth gospel" with a twist of "rapture fever" and "prophecy scare" added to round out the weapons of the destroyer and increase his revenue. The witness does not corroborate the profession:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone [*destitute of witnesses]. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:14, 17-24.

God alone prevails in all situations and the best we can do is glorify Him by honouring His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Christ Jesus, "in Whom we live, move and have our being." (2 Acts 17:28) The importance of setting a Record in God's Court cannot be stressed enough. This is seen later in the Book of Revelation when we all are judged out of the books--the Record in His Court which He keeps.

We will now have to concern ourselves with where in Sacred Scripture specific issues of Law are addressed, pray for the Holy Spirit of God to move us, and be able to "rightly divide the word of Truth" of the Sacred Scripture in the direction we are led. This will eventually lead us to examine the vulnerability of the religious corporation to the Lawful Execution of God's Law. This is not covered in very great detail in this work, but will be covered in another work yet to be published. Suffice it to say the following in this regard:

"Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." 1 Luke 22:3.
"Verse 3. Then entered Satan into Judas--The devil filled the heart of Judas with avarice; and that infamous passion led him to commit the crime here specified. This at once accounts for the whole of this most unprincipled and unnatural transaction. None but a devil, or he who is possessed by one, could have been guilty of it:-let the living lay this to heart. A minister of the Gospel, who is a lover of money, is constantly betraying the interests of Christ. He cannot serve two masters; and while his heart is possessed with the love of self, the love of God and zeal for perishing souls cannot dwell in him. What Satan could not do by the envy and malice of the high priests and Pharisees, he effects by Judas, a false and fallen minister of the Gospel of God. None are so dangerous to the interests of Christianity as persons of this stamp." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 5, pp. 922-923.

This accords fully with Brother Paul's epistle to Brother Timothy:

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10.
"Verse 10. The love of money is the root of all evil. Perhaps it would be better to translate all evil, "of all these evils"; i.e. the evils enumerated above; for it cannot be true that the love of money is the root of all evil, it certainly was not the root whence the transgression of Adam sprang, but it is the root whence all the evils mentioned in the preceding verse spring. This text has been often very incautiously quoted; for how often do we hear, "The Scripture says, Money is the root of all evil!" No, the Scripture says no such thing. Money is the root of no evil, nor is it an evil of any kind; but the love of it is the root of all the evils mentioned here." Adam Clarke, Commentaries on the Bible, vol. 6, p. 188.

Good and Lawful Christians need and want not these wasters of Christ's inheritance in their midst:

The Kind We Don't Want

"When a minister is in search of popularity and a big salary, I don't blame him for leaving the Christian Church and going to some other denomination. He can't be a success in the Christian Church, and is not needed among us. We want ministers whose chief aim is to save souls --ministers who are willing to preach the Gospel to the poor, even for a small salary. Men who after large salaries may get their reward. I honor the minister who labors to save souls, and will not leave a field of usefulness for "filthy lucre's sake." Rev. H. M. Eaton, Herald of Gospel Liberty (1908), p. 209.

The singular Good and Lawful Christian does not carry the lex talionis (law of retaliation) of the prosecutorial power with him. The reason is plain enough: Christ was not slain from the foundation of the world for just one of His church, but for all His church:

"We are called, since the Christ has given himself a sacrifice for us. In a correspondence with other types and forms of sacrifice, it is written, wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. This is made the ground of a principle of duty, and we are bidden, let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. This is not the suffering of the Christ as an equivalent for the suffering of humanity, nor as a substitute for humanity; it is the sacrifice of the Christ fulfilled in humanity. It is the adoption of the sacrifice by participation by humanity; let us go forth, therefore, unto him without the camp bearing his reproach. The Christ had said, if any man will come after me, let him take up his cross and follow me; and he said of his disciples, in their continuing relation with him, ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and the baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.
"There is thenceforth in the life of humanity the manifestation of redemptive forces. There are redemptive forces continuing in the coming of the Christ and in the life of the spirit, in his redemptive kingdom on the earth. They come forth in the life of righteousness in the family and the nation. These are the forces which work through the life of humanity, in conflict with the evil of the world. The law of sacrifice becomes, then, the law of life. The contradiction in the revelation of the Christ is verified and solved in the course of history, and the words are justified: he that loseth his life shall find it. The work of the sacrifice goes on in the process of history. The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world prefigures its course. The condition of the life of the last nation becomes the same as the first, the sacrifice of the worthier of her children. Their sacrifice is the perpetuation of the life of the nation; their sacrifice is the way to her deliverance from slavery; their sacrifice is the ground of her unity and peace. This was not the sacrifice of a certain number of men for a certain other member of men; it was not the sacrifice of a certain smaller number of men that a certain larger number might be exempt from sacrifice, and might live in self-indulgence. It was sacrifice for the life of the nation. It was life through death. It was that in all there might be the spirit and recognition of the law of sacrifice, the self-renunciation of the individual, which is the only way to the perfect self-realization, and the beginning of the life that is eternal. This law has a moral ground, which cannot be comprehended in the atomy of human society, nor in the severance through society of the superior from the inferior, nor in the apprehension of it as an accumulation of private interests, nor in any detachment of its from God.
"Henceforth the law of sacrifice becomes the law of power. In this world of forms the symbols of sacrifice become the symbols of power. The Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world becomes, in the mystic vision of St. John the Divine, the Lamb that sits in the midst of the throne. This type is not lost in history. The manifestation of power is not in a separation from men, nor in the assertion of a dominion over men, but in the service of men. It is not the Caesar that becomes the enduring power with men. The nation, which in this last age, is the exponent of the highest historical forces, has its foundations, its unity and order and freedom, laid in sacrifice. But it is through sacrifice, as through the negation of this finite world, that there is the coming off the life that is eternal, the realization of the life that is infinite.
"The sacrifice of the Christ was the perfect and finished sacrifice,-- the sacrifice of one who bore the burden of this finite world, in the fulfillment of the perfect righteousness, the manifestation of the perfect love, the revelation of the perfect life. It was the will of God before the foundation of the world; it was the sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, the foundation of eternal life and unity and peace." Mulford, The Republic of God (1881), p. 186-189.

The whole of the Prosecutorial Authority and Power of the church rests solely and squarely upon the Atonement and Judgment of Christ Jesus, from the foundation of the world, "In the beginning God (Elohim)" and "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."; and not in codes, rules and regulations from after the sixth day of Creation. This is where His church departs from the religious corporation. His church pre-existed the religious corporation of man. To build your life on His Foundation has one requirement: Repentance to Him who calls you out of the world from before the foundation of the world. Without heeding His call, there is and can be no Lawful vesting of Authority. And, without the Lawful vesting of Authority there is no Lawful power that can be wielded for His Glory. Source, cause and origin are the material of the substance of all Authority and Power.

"Establishing the Record," "Execution," and "Prosecution" will conclude this series next month.

Opinion

A Word Study

"OPINION. Opinion, view, belief, conviction, persuasion, sentiment come into comparison when they mean a more or less clearly formulated idea or judgment which one holds as true. An opinion is a more or less carefully thought-out conclusion concerning something that is or may be questioned. The word not only does not exclude the suggestion of consideration of all the evidence and of arguments on both sides, but it sometimes implies such consideration; as, Justice ---- presented the minority opinion at today's session of the Supreme Court; the critics differ in their opinion of the quality of the book; to seek an expert opinion on the authenticity of a painting; the attending physician said he would like the opinion of a consulting physician. However, the term [*589] more consistently suggests (even in the preceding instances) a personal element in the judgment, the possibility of being in error, and the strong probability that it will even be disputed." Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms (1951), pp. 588-589.

"OPINION. In Practice. The statement or reasons delivered by a judge or court for giving the judgment which is pronounced upon a case. The judgment itself is sometimes called an opinion; and sometimes the opinion is spoken of as the judgment of the court.

"The ultimate step taken by the court is commonly called a decision, or, in common law cases, a judgment; and in equity cases, a decree; where the opinion is unanimous it is, in America, often termed a 'per curiam opinion.'

"In England judgment is commonly used for opinion, and 'per curiam' is sometimes applied to any opinion of the whole court. Brief Making by Lile and Others, 2d. Ed. By R. W. Cooley, 102.

"A declaration, usually in writing, made by a counsel to the client of what the law is, according to his judgment, on a statement of facts admitted to him.

"An opinion is in both the above cases a decision of what principles of law are to be applied in the particular case, with the difference that judicial opinions pronounced by the court are law and of authority, while the opinions of counsel, however eminent are merely advice to his client or argument to the court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2419.

The Spirit of Adoption

from Adam Clarke's Commentaries

You are brought into the family of God by adoption; and the Agent that brought you into this family is the Holy Spirit; and this very Spirit continues to witness to you the grace in which you stand, by enabling you to call God your Father, with the utmost filial confidence and affection.

The Spirit of adoption. Adoption was an act frequent among the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, by which a person was taken out of one family and incorporated with another. Persons of property, who had no children of their own, adopted those of another family. The child thus adopted ceased to belong to his own family and was in every respect bound to the person who had adopted him, as if he were his own child, and in consequence of the death of his adopting father he possessed his estates. If a person after he had adopted a child happened to have children of his own, then the estate was equally divided between the adopted and real children. The Romans had regular forms of law by which all these matters were settled.

Whereby we cry, Abba, Father. It has been remarked that slaves were not permitted to use the term Abba, father, or Imma, mother, in accosting their masters and mistresses. And from this some suppose that the apostle intimates that being new brought from under the spirit of bondage, in which they durst not call God their Father, they are not only brought into a new state, but have got that language which is peculiar to that state. Some have supposed that the apostle, by using the Syriac and Greek words which express Father, shows the union of Jewish and Gentile believers in those devotions which were dictated by a filial spirit. Others have thought that these were the first words which those generally uttered who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit. It is enough to know that it was the language of their sonship; and that it expressed the clear assurance they had of being received in to the divine favour, the affection and gratitude they felt for this extraordinary blessing and their complete readiness to come under the laws and regulations of the family, and to live in the spirit of obedience.

"And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Gal 3:29-4:7.

"And if ye be Christ's. Or, as several good MSS. read, 'If ye be one in Christ.' If you have all received justification through His Blood, and the mind that was in Him, then are ye Abraham's seed; you are that real, spiritual posterity of Abraham, that other seed, to whom the promises were made; and then heirs according to the promise, being fitted for the rest that remains for the people of God, that heavenly inheritance which was typified by the earthly Canaan.

"The heir, as long as he is a child. Though he be appointed by his father's will heir of all his possessions, yet till he arrive at the legal age he is master of nothing, and does not differ from one of the common domestics.

"But is under tutors, 'guardians' and governors, those who have the charge of the family. These words are nearly similar; but we may consider the first as 'executor,' the last as the person who superintends the concerns of the family and estate till the heir become such as we call 'trustee.' Until the time appointed of the father. The time mentioned in the father's will or testament.

"Even so we. The whole Jewish people were in a state of nonage [*infancy] while under the law. The elements of the world. A mere Jewish phrase 'the principles of this world'; that is the rudiments or principles of the Jewish religion. The apostle intimates that the law was not the science of salvation; it was only the elements or alphabet of it; and in the gospel this alphabet is composed into a most glorious system of divine knowledge. But as the alphabet is nothing of itself unless compounded into syllables, words, sentences, and discourses, so the law taken by itself, gives not salvation. It contains in deed the outlines of the gospel, but it is the gospel alone that fills up the outlines.

"When the fulness of time was come. The time which God in His infinite wisdom counted best, in which all His counsels were 'filled up'; the time which His Spirit, by the prophets, had specified; and the time to which He intended the Mosaic institutions should extend, and beyond which they should be of no avail. [*It is God's counsel which set aside the veil penetrated by Christ Jesus.]

"God sent forth His Son, Him who came immediately from God Himself, made of a woman, according to the promise, Gen iii, 15; produced by the power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary without any intervention man. [*Solely by the will and power of God Almighty.] Made under the law. In subjection to it, that in Him all its designs may be fulfilled and by His death the whole might be abolished, the law dying when the Son of God expired upon the Cross.

"To redeem them. To 'pay down a price' for them, and thus 'buy them off' from the necessity of circumcision, offering brute sacrifices, performing different ablutions, etc. That we might receive the adoption of sons. Which adoption we could not obtain by the law for it is the gospel only that puts us among the children and gives us a place in the heavenly family.

"And because ye are sons. By faith in Christ Jesus, being redeemed from both the bondage and the curse of the law, God the father, called generally the First Person of the glorious Trinity, hath sent forth the Spirit--the Holy Ghost, the Second Person of that Trinity--of His Son, Jesus [*the] Christ, the Third Person of the Trinity.

"Crying, Abba, Father, from the fullest and most satisfactory evidence that God, the Father, Son and Spirit, had become their portion.

"Thou art no more a servant. You who have believed in Christ [*Jesus] are no longer a 'slave,' either under the dominion of sin or under the obligation to the Mosaic ritual; but a son of God, adopted into the heavenly family. And if a son, then an heir. Having a right to the inheritance because one of the family, for none can inherit but the children. But this heirship is the most extraordinary of all. It is not an heirship of any tangible possession, either in heaven or on earth; it is not to possess a part or even the whole of either. It is to possess Him who made all things; not God's works, but God Himself; heirs of God through Christ [*Jesus]." Adam Clarke, The Bethany Parallel Commentary of the New Testament (1981), pp. 1113-1115.

In Whose Name Do You Call?

Part Two

by Walter Gorden

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

To further expand upon the issue of Christian common Law (Biblical Law applied), and how this will effect the Lawful standing of Christian Ministers, Pastors, Preachers, Elders, Evangelicals, etc., please allow me to display some additional historical paths.

In Issue the Thirty-third under the article entitled, "In Whose Name Do You Call?" three primary issues were discussed. First, the foundational Truth why all of the King's Men must invoke a venue in Law through Christ Jesus before speaking to anyone on the telephone. Second, why ordained ministers of God do not have an absolute corner on Biblical Truth, or proper Scriptural interpretation without understanding History and Law, and finally, how David Dudley Field's codification from 1839 to 1857 created the political environment for all of the several states to "remove the whole common law mode of procedure, and to substitute in its place the practice of the Civil Law" and totally secularized law through the creation of "complete codes of civil and criminal procedure" which layed the basis for a new legalism, being "a political code, a penal code, and a civil code" and ultimately becoming the basis for the civil operation of the American military style, commercial court system that is in place today.

In this article, my objective is two-fold. First, to introduce you to James Coolidge Carter, L.L.D., and to show how this "evolutionist of law" posthumously aided the legislatures and governors of the States to ultimately evolutionize the "Field Code" to make it more palatable. As stated in the previous article referenced above, "The complete codes of civil and criminal procedure were not reported until Dec. 31, 1849, and were never adopted by the legislature, although some portion of the amendments suggested by the commissioners were gradually incorporated by the legislature into the text of the original and incomplete code enacted in 1848." And finally, to show how the written and unwritten laws created by the evolutionary and reasonable doctrines of humanist men are contrary to the distinct, and separate, written and unwritten Laws of Good and Lawful Christians.

James Coolidge Carter was a member of the New York Bar. In the Prefatory Note of his book entitled, "Law: Its Origin, Growth and Function. Being a Course of Lectures Prepared for Delivery before the Law School of Harvard University" published in 1907, the editor states on page vii:

"Mr. Carter's sense of the importance of the inquiries which he thus describes, and the strong affection which he always entertained for his Alma Mater and which led him to adopt for the expression of his ripened and mature views the form of lectures for delivery before its Law School, are touchingly shown by a provision of his will whereby he gave a large sum to the President and Fellows of Harvard College "which," he said, "I now wish may be applied to the establishment and maintenance in the Law School of the University of a fellowship of General Jurisprudence for the special cultivation and teaching of the distinctions of the donees in respect to the application of this fund. I mention my present preference." This was in addition to another large gift for the general purposes of the University.
"It was Mr. Carter's intention to deliver the lectures in the spring of 1905, and the rough draft of the manuscript was completed only a few days before he was stricken with the brief illness which resulted in his death on February 14, 1905. When he realized that he could never deliver the lectures, he expressed a wish that they be published by his Executors.
"The manuscript had never been finally revised by him; but it has been thought best to print this volume from it just as it left his hand, save the making of a few verbal corrections.

Within this "book on law," great care is taken by Carter to take the reader down the path of legal history. His views are not Christian, or Biblically based--for science, philosophy and Darwinism would place him in conflict with the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. For example, he says:

"Our earliest records carry us back a few thousand years only, and these exhibit man at a considerably advanced stage of progress. We do not know how long he has been upon earth; but we have sufficient reasons for the belief that he has been here for a period measured by millions of years. What progress may have been made during that period prior to any time of which we have any knowledge, we can not know with any certainty." Page 16.

As a matter of course, this same depraved view is also promoted today. Man's modern science, and recent archeological discoveries, seem to "prove" the argument of the anti-Christian "Christian evolutionist" group who believe that their "pure" race originated with Adam and Eve, and the "corrupt" races originated with the "beasts of the field" millions of years ago. For the depraved of that mindset there are no absolutes, for their evolutionary "knowledge" is wide open to change on their ride of "higher consciousness," and the vastly increased "critical knowledge" of the modernist and revisionist historian. Typical of this depravity of "the theory of evolution" is Carter's statement on Pg. 49:

"There are no Law-givers such as as are reverenced in history. Moses, Lycurgus, and Solon took the customs of their time, and gave them form and furnished better methods of securing their enforcement."

Or, by the "profoundness" of his depraved autonomous reason, he says:

"Under the great process of Evolution, man began to advance--to go no further back--from his savage condition to higher physical, moral, and intellectual levels; and this was not by virtue of his own conscious effort, but because of the nature of his original constitution and the environment in which he was placed. The process thus begun has been carried forward by designed effort, and it is that effort, and the rules which govern it, which most deserve our attention." Page 321.

On a less philosophical note, Carter makes great distinctions when referring to the written and unwritten law:

"The important question which concerns us is, What was the law administered [*before the Norman Conquest, 1066AD] in these tribunals [*Courts of the Hundred, and Courts of the County] and where was it to be found? The answer is very plain. It was custom. There was as yet no legislation, and consequently no written law." .... "All complaints by one man against another, whether of a civil or criminal nature, arose from the fact that something had been done contrary to the complaintant's expectation of what should have been done; and as every man expects that others will act according to custom, the complaint would be in fact, if not in form, that an act contrary to custom had been committed to the injury of the complaintant." Page 59. [*Insertions added, italics in original].

Further, he says:

"In the unwritten law of Custom, such anomalies [legislatively created law] cannot occur, for in that law there are no absolute and arbitrary rules. There is, indeed, one absolute rule, but it is not arbitrary. It is that custom must be obeyed. This is not the expression of will [of the legislature] but the dictate of order. Whether any particular conduct does or does not conform to custom can be told only when it comes for the first time to be displayed, and, in cases of dispute, only by the judges who are the experts appointed by society for that purpose. The vast body of so-called rules of law found in our digests and treatises and mentioned in the reports of decided cases are but the results, and logical deductions from the results of the cases thus decided, arranged and classified with regard to scientific order. None of them are absolute. They are all provisional and subject to modification." Page 233.

In discussing the written law of the modern day State, and additionally, the codification of the natural man's private law, he says:

In the present enlightened age we find a much greater resort to legislation; but the important question is whether its purpose and nature have changed. This is easily answered. The whole of the legislation of any American State, to take an example, is contained in its easily accessible statute-books. We may know the general contents of all of them from an examination of those of one State. They will be found to embrace its fundamental Constitution, creating the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Departments, the organization of the State into political districts, the creation of the various State and local officers and the designation of their duties; provision for the conduct of elections; a system for raising money to support State and local government by taxation and applying it in many different ways; provisions for creating and maintaining public highways, including railroads; for for forming corporations, for preserving the public health, and for supervising many important public concerns, such as banking, insurance, etc., and a multitude of other public provisions including the whole of the law relating to the designating and punishment of crimes. Besides this, we find in the numerous volumes of statute-books vast masses of matter which, though in the form of laws, are not laws in any proper sense. These consist in the making of provisions for the maintenance of the public works of the State, for the building of asylums, hospitals, school-houses, and a great variety of other similar matters. This is but the record of the action of the State in relation to the business in which it is engaged. The State is a great public corporation which conducts a vast mass of business, and the written provisions for this, though in the form of laws, are not essentially different from the minutes of ordinary corporate bodies recording their action. But when we search for any matter relating to the regulation of the ordinary (commercial) conduct of men in their transactions with each other--that is, to Private Law, we find exceedingly little, and we may say that it substantially true that the whole vast body of legislation is confined to Public Law, and that its operation on Private Law (the lex mercatoria) is remote and indirect and aimed only to make the unwritten law of custom more easily and certainly enforced. If we make a similar examination of the Statutes at Large of Great Britain the result is the same; and the same also, if we examine the legislation of Rome in the classic era of jurisprudence.
"There is one great seeming exception in the case of the various codifications of the customary law. We find in Roman Law the great volume of the Pandects; we find the Civil Code in France. There are Civil Codes in Germany. There is a reduction to writing of one or more chapters of Private Law in England; and there are Civil Codes in several American States. But the exception in these cases, when we consider its true nature, is more apparent than real. The law enacted in these Civil Codes was not made by the legislation enacting them. It existed, for the most part, as law before, and the enactment added no force to it. In the case of Rome, France, and Germany the unification of different peoples and provinces into larger nations had made it necessary for the tribunals to enforce different customs for different places, an inconvenient task; but this difference was gradually disappearing in the closer relations brought about by the consolidation of nationalities, and the main purpose of the codification was to hasten the coming uniformity, which could be completely accomplished only by legislation. The motive to such codifications as have taken place in the United States and Great Britain was the supposed increased accessibility of the law by enabling it to be found in a single book, the same motive which led to the production of Digests. The creation of new law was but a small part of the object." Pages 116-118.

We can see from the lengthy quote above, that there is a clear distinction private and public State codified law for "human beings," and the unwritten law, or custom, of "human beings." It is clear that all human laws, codes, customs, etc., as opposed to Christian common Law, or Biblical Law applied, are defective on their face and from their foundation. All law is religious. There is no doubt, through History, that all law and Law originates with some author, that author being either the autonomous reason of human depravity, or the Almighty Father of the Holy Scriptures.

Carter further states that:

"The Koran was a codification of Mahometan law, and if codification could anywhere succeed, it would be in the stationary society of Islam; but the learned doctors who administered that law found it pregnant with the same uncertainties, and removed them in much the same way. Says Gibbon:
"From the Atlantic to the Ganges the Koran is acknowledged as the fundamental code, not only of the theology, but of civil and criminal jurisprudence; and the laws which regulate the actions and the property of mankind are guarded by the infallible and immutable sanction of the will of God. This religious servitude is attended with some practical disadvantage; the illiterate legislator had been often misled by his own prejudices and those of his country; and the institutions of the Arabian desert may be ill-adapted to the wealth and numbers of Ispahan and Constantinople. On these occasions the Cadhi respectfully places on his head the holy volume and substitutes a dexterous interpretation more apposite to the principles of equity and the manners and policy of the times." Gibbon, vol.vi, p. 283.

"The extent of the uncertainty thus necessarily incident to statutory law is vastly greater than commonly supposed. The believers in codification are deluged by the notion that there is by means of language a capability, not only in making all things known by any persons clearly intelligible to others, but of making things clearly known which are in their nature uncertain. But upon any just comparison it will be found that the sum of the uncertainties arising from statutory law is many times greater in proportion to its extent than that met with in the administration of unwritten law. Such means of comparison as are open to us exhibit a significant result." Pages 282-284.

In conclusion, the written law and unwritten law, which govern the Good and Lawful Christian Man and Woman in all areas of life come from the Holy, Divine, Revealed and Infallible Scriptures. For the Christian people must return to the old paths, and seek the good ways, and walk therein (Isa 58:12, Jer. 6:16). The Scriptures teach that many Christians have fallen short of their duty to uphold the unwritten and written Law of His Word. A double witness by Matthew and Mark state:

"But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9
"Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:7-9.

During his captivity at Rome, Paul spoke to the flourishing church in the commercial metropolis at Ephesus:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. 4:14-24

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Christian Humanism

The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life. Justin Martyr appears to have been the first to offer a formulation of Christianity that included an acceptance of classical achievements as he stated in the Apology (1.46) that Christ the Word had put culture under his control. Such an approach, he believed, would restrain believers from leading vulgar lives while at the same time keeping them from attaching more importance to human culture than to the truths of the faith.

During the Middle Ages little attention was paid to humanism, but with the beginning of the Renaissance there was a revival of that perspective. Renaissance humanism was both an outlook and a method. It has been described as "man's discovery of himself and the world." The worth of earthly existence for its own sake was accepted, and the otherworldliness of medieval Christianity was disparaged. Humanists believed that the pursuit of secular life was not only proper but even meritorious. Closely allied to the new view of worldly life was a devotion to nature and its beauty as part of a broadened religious outlook. Yet Renaissance humanism must be viewed from another vantage point. Those involved in the movement were devoted to the studia humanitatis, or the liberal arts, including history, literary criticism, grammar, poetry, philology, and rhetoric. These subjects were taught from classical texts of the Greco-Roman period and were intended to help students understand and deal with other people. In addition, the humanists valued ancient artifacts and manuscripts and tried to revive classical life styles.

Many Christians, including Savonarola and Zwingli, reacted against the more secular approach of humanism; but others such as John Colet, Thomas More, and Erasmus felt that great benefits would come from the revival of classicism and the development of historical criticism. It has been pointed out that even John Calvin reveals the influence of humanism. The new Renaissance philological tools were helpful in studying the Bible, and the ancient view of man held the promise for better government and greater social justice. A wedding of the ethical and social concern of the Renaissance with the introspective force of Christianity held the possibility for church renewal in the minds of many sixteenth century scholars. Christian humanist teaching was kept alive by many Anglicans, by the moderates in the Church of Scotland, by certain German pietists, and through the philosophy of Kant. It continues in the twentieth century among such writers as Jacques Maritain and Hans Kung.

Those who believe that the Christian revelation has a humanistic emphasis point to the fact that man was made in the image of God, that Jesus Christ became man through the incarnation, and that the worth of the individual is a consistent theme in the teaching of Jesus. Indeed, when asked to give a summary of the life that pleases God, Christ advised his listeners to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:37, 39).

Bibliography. L. Bouyer, Christian Humanism; Q. Breen, John Calvin: A Study in French Humanism; H. Kung, On Being a Christian; J. Maritain, True Humanism; J. I. Packer, Knowing Man; G. Toffanin, History of Humanism; C. Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness; W. Bouwsma, The Interpretation of Renaissance Humanism.

Remembering the Old Ways

Knowing and Doing

A Portion of a Sermon Delivered on Lord's Day Evening September 20, 1868 by Charles Spurgeon

"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."-- John 13:12.

The original scope of these words was just this-- "If, as you say, you have understood the meaning of this-- the washing of your feet by your Master; if you have comprehended my intention in so doing, then it will be to your lasting honour and happiness if you do the same. I have symbolically represented to you, by washing your feet, certain virtues; you shall be a happy people if these virtues be found in you and abound." And have we not abundant proof that our Lord spoke the truth, for where are churches so happy as where they are knit together in brotherly love, where they have laid aside contentions about priority and distinction, and where each one becomes a servant of all, every one willing to take the lowest place, and no one contending who shall be the greatest? May we prove, as I trust in our measure we have already done, how true these words are, and never may Diotrephes be in our midst to strive for the preeminence, nor a root of bitterness spring up to trouble us. May we every one try to be like our Lord, and happy indeed shall we be, in such a case.

You will notice in the text that there are two "ifs"-- "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them" <Jn 13:17>. It appears, then, first, that genuine and acceptable service to Christ should be based upon intelligent knowledge-- "If ye know these things"; and secondly, that all intelligent understanding of the things of God should lead us to the practice of them-- "Happy are ye if ye do them." The first "If" shall be taken first-- "If ye know these things":

Our first observation is that this is an "if" even in this country. "If ye know these things." Alas! even in such a city as this, where the Gospel is to be heard in all our streets, and Bibles are to be found in all our homes, it is so sad that tens of thousands do not know these things. They are so careless about what God has revealed, that they will not even cross the threshold to listen to the Word of God. This day what a mass of Sabbath-breaking has grieved the Spirit of God! All around us there are those who are toiling hard six days in the week for themselves, and cannot give to their God, and, I may add, to their truer and nobler selves, this one day in which to think of Him. He has written to them the great things of His law, and they have trifled therewith. He speaks to them, and invites them to hear that their souls may live, but they would rather rest in their beds, or be found in any kind of pleasure sooner than seeking pleasure in the ways of God. Pity this poor city, you who know its sins: pray for it, you who know its high privileges and solemn responsibilites: work for it, you who have power with the heavenly Father, until at last the blessing shall come, and men shall no longer need to say to their fellows, "Know the Lord."

Bits and Pieces

The Driver's License and SSN

In 1997, the California State Appellate Court handed down a decision concerning the requirement of a Social Security Number by the DMV for the renewal of one's Driver's License. The case, TTAKOA NOWLIN et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 53 Cal. App. 4th 1529 was as follows:

"In Hershey v. Pennsylvania (1996) 669 A.2d 517, the plaintiff alleged that he had "rescinded" his SSN number, but produced no evidence showing that the number had been "revoked." In Penner v. King (Mo. 1985) 695 S.W.2d 887, plaintiffs refused to disclose their SSN's in applying for their driver's licenses because they alleged the disclosure violated federal statutes, infringed upon their constitutional right of privacy, and infringed upon their religious freedom. The court upheld the SSN requirement on the basis that the SSN is an important means of identification and method of avoiding fraud, as well as integral in locating interstate driving records. Therefore, the court held, the regulation is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest and justified infringement on the plaintiff's religious beliefs.

"Respondents here urge that the requirement of SSN's in driver's license applications intrudes upon their right to privacy. They claim that the Privacy Act of 1974 Section 7(a)(1) precludes collection of SSN's, and that U.S.C. 42 Section 405(c)(2)(C)(i) does not apply. We reject respondents' contention. As the foregoing authorities make clear, under U.S.C. 42 Section 405(c)(2)(C), the DMV may require applicants for new and renewal driver's licenses to provide SSN's. Lauderbach v. Zolin, 35 Cal. App. 4th 582 supports our further finding that since the DMV requires applicants to disclose SSN's on their applications, by inference, the DMV may therefore require those who do not have SSN's to obtain them. Lauderbach held that aliens ineligible to obtain SSN's because of their immigrant status may be denied driver's licenses. That is, obtaining a SSN is a proper prerequisite to obtain a driver's license. We conclude that the DMV may properly require applicants to obtain and disclose their SSN's. "

The General Post Office

Under the Constitution, Congress was given the power at Art. 1, Sec. 8 (7) "to establish post offices and post roads" only.

Walter Gordan in Michigan recently supplied us with information on the history of the "United States Postal Service" that we were not previously aware of. From one of the "Service's" publications, we find the following:

"Following the adoption of the Constitution in May 1789, the Act of September 22, 1789 (1 Stat. 70) temporarily established a post office and created the Office of the Postmaster General. The Postal Service was temporarily continued by the Act of August 4, 1790 (1 Stat. 178), and the Act of March 3, 1791 (1 Stat. 218). The Act of February 20, 1792 made detailed provisions for the Post Office. Subsequent legislation enlarged the duties of the Post Office, strengthened and unified its organization, and provided rules and regulations for its development.

"In 1829, upon the invitation of President Andrew Jackson, William T. Barry of Kentucky became the first Postmaster General to sit as a member of the President's Cabinet. His predecessor, John McLean of Ohio began referring to the Post Office, or General Post Office as it was sometimes called, as the Post Office Department, but it was not specifically established as an executive department by Congress until June 8, 1872 (17 Stat. 284-4)."

Considering the above information and its implications, we see that the early "temporary" development on the part of Congress were made because they did not have power to move the mail, but only to provide the buildings and roads for such. But, since the church had failed in its historical duty to maintain that standing of being the "mover," Congress took on that duty, one careful step at a time.

But consider: We have been in error in looking to The Post Office Department for our vested right in general delivery, being established by a statute in 1872. We should always refer back to "The General Post Office" because that is the original source for us in general delivery.

Masoretic Hebrew: A New Language

As they went about their business of "adding vowel points" to the ancient Hebrew text in the eighth century A. D., the Masorites had the power to create new words, such as Yahwah, from YHVH.

Adam Clarke, in the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture titled The Holy Bible..with Commentary and Critical Notes..., A New Edition, with the Author's Final Corrections, published in 1810, makes it clear that the work of the Masorites in adding vowels was much greater in scope and consequence than is commonly appreciated:

"The Masorites were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjunctions to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to A. D. 1030. Some think it did not commence before the fifth century."

The 1948 Encyclopedia Britannica wrote of Louis Cappel (1585-1658), a French Huguenot divine and scholar:

"As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Massorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier than the 5th century A. D."

In view of the observation of Clarke and Cappel (that the Masoretic Hebrew is a distortion of the original ancient Hebrew), those that "believe" that Yahweh is the sacred name of God should "consider to reconsider."

Issue the Thirty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Approaching the Year 2000...

Clarifying the Record...

The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part Three...

The things which are Caesar's...

Sojourner and Pilgrim, A Word Study...

Pagan Practices--The Sign of the Cross...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Approaching the Year 2000

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

In the coming year, it should be most edifying for all Christians to see the outcome of all the "prognostications" of doom and gloom by the various hucksters and spin doctors of the modern era, much like those of past generations going back to the year 1000, at which time the same type of propaganda and superstitions ran rampant. If nothing else, it has certainly been "profitable" for the "powers that wanna be," in more ways than one. The Y2K computer "problem," the "capping" of The Great Pyramid, the Clinton impeachment, and other such devices pitched and promoted by them to control the masses, is an ancient tactic of Babylonian origin. We were warned of "buying" into such folly:

"Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee." Isaiah 47:12-13.

Confusion reigns when we forget, or ignore, that Our Lord has forewarned us, "...take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." Mark 13:23

In the coming year, solely by the Grace and Will of God, for His Glory and Honor, we hope to present through The Christian Jural Society News, and in other writings, some subjects that have been of interest to us and some that have been requested by several Patrons of The News. In addition, we will revisit a few past subjects that have shown to be of great interest to many readers. The following is a short list of them:

Modern Christian Humanism.
The Early Church.
Office Found.
The Christian in Complete Armor.
The Roman and Egyptian Overseer vs. The Christian Overseer.
Human Nature vs. The Word made Flesh
Fictions of Law.
The things which are Caesar's.
Religious Societies and Unincorporated Associations.
Dereliction of Christian Duty.
The Lord of the Sword.
Hero Worship.

We will also continue to cover, from time to time, the following:

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today
Clarifying the Record

Additionally, to further edify our Lord's church and state, we welcome and encourage you, our Brothers and Sisters, to write articles for The News, suggest new topics that may interest you, and call or write for fellowship amongst the Body.

Clarifying the Record

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

Occasionally, questions and comments that may be of interest to the reader, are presented by Patrons concerning the writings in The News and the words spoken on audio tapes from seminars, radio shows, etc. We welcome these, for "iron sharpeneth iron." The purpose of the following is to hopefully clarify, by the Grace of God, the subjects presented. From time to time, under "Clarifying the Record," we will present our responses to various comments and questions received.

Comment:

While there may be a Biblical defense for traveling on the common ways sans driver's licence, Philippians 4:13 is not it. This was mentioned on the John Bryant interview and in Randy Lee's article [on "Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways."] "Strengtheneth" here does not mean authority; it means, "to empower: -enable (increase in) strength (-en) be (make) strong." Strong's 1743. Clearly the verse is lifted out of context for this application. In this application, it would mean one will be enabled by Christ to handle the jail sentence.

Response:

The "authority" to "exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways" is derived from the office of Christ, or "through Christ"--"the strength" or "the empowerment" being the result of the act "through Him." In, or through Christ--all true authority originates. Power without that authority belongs only to Caesar and/ or the natural man who ministers for him.

Comment:

I believe that your decision to not have prices anymore is very honorable, but also very questionable. I pray that your burden will be light.

Response:

Only the decisions made by self-will become "true" burdens. Those decisions based on His Will always beget blessings, and are burdenless (see Matthew 11:29-30), regardless of how they may appear to the flesh. Love is "price"less and His Mercy and Righteousness endureth forever:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him.

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." I John 5:1-4

Comment:

I want to comment on your decision not to charge for material ordered. Initially, I found your faith an inspiration and that still holds; however the question later came to my mind that we must be able to charge for some of our services or materials as Christians. Was that ever condemned? Matthew 10 seems to me to be addressing a very specific time period and ministry.

Response:

If Matthew 10 (or any other words that Christ speaks to us) is only for a particular time and ministry, then it can only be viewed as an historical record, and nothing more, which would leave the door open for all to "relativize" His whole Word. It was, and still is, His ministry. The only ministry is His ministry, which does not change, and which has no beginning and no end.

In addition to the "letter" of the words, we must, more importantly, consider the "Spirit" behind the words.

The bond of union of the church, or the union of His Body is--the truth in Christ. What price can be put on the Truth? If we are united in Christ, and we are to be "as" our Master, can we set a price on anything concerning Him and His Love. Did He?

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." Isaiah 45:13

That which the Lord allows us to make available is available only to the Body of Christ and those heeding His Call. That which we do for the Body is ultimately done for His Glory and Righteousness-- not for ourselves or individuals--for "the cause of the church is a public cause." Therefore, we can not put a price on that which He allows us to do for His Body.

You may say, "but, the workman is worthy of his hire." That is true! But who is it that determines that worthiness? He who determines his own worth by setting a price on it can only be doing that work for self, not for the Lord (see John 7:18). When laboring for the Lord, your worthiness can only be set by Him for Whom you labor (see Colossians 1:10-22), for it is He that gave you that labor to begin with (see Deuteronomy 8:18). If we are worthy, or unworthy, we are assured by Him that we will be paid accordingly (see Isaiah 59:17-18).

In short, if a brother, or friend (see John 15:13-15), gave you something for free, and later he needed it, would you charge him for it?

Comment:

Thank you for the tape of your radio interview with John Bryant. I enjoyed the material and hearing your voices after reading so much of what you have written. I was troubled by the implication of pacifism in this interview, which was held on the fifteenth day of the tenth month of this year. Pastor Weaver has a wonderful sermon entitled, "The Biblical Doctrine of Self-Defense."

Response:

We are not pacifists, but do recognize from Scripture that when God's people are taken into captivity, that captivity will not end until a record of honoring the covenant with the Father is established. All of the guns, and the blood and guts spilled thereby, will not bring "true" victory for anyone until His Chosen, as a people, establish that record of honoring Him. That is not to say that we should not defend ourselves when attacked, but how that defense is performed is up to the individual. Some prefer guns, some a knife, some a sword. It ultimately makes no difference what tool you use, if God is with you.

Comment:

I had a Christian friend who opened a restaurant that had a menu without prices. It said, "pay what you think the food was worth"--he went bankrupt. There may be a lesson there for you.

Response

Firstly, we are not a restaurant feeding the natural man's all-consuming belly (see I Corinthians 2:14), but instead seek to be servants of Jesus, the Christ in all that we say and do:

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men." Romans 14:17-18

Secondly, we are not in "business" to "service" the natural man, as your friend found himself to be. He was depending on the belly of the "consumer" to determine what the worth of the food was. In contrast to walking in faith, determination by the flesh, and the dependance thereon, always leads to ruin:

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Galatians 6:7-10

The Prosecutorial Authority

and Power of Christ's church

Part Three

by John Joseph

The lex talionis, however, is carried by God at all times who moves His church in His time and at the right moment in our time for the greatest effect here and His greatest glory. This is why we are counselled to rest in and wait on Him, which is the Duty of every minister of Christ:

"Wait on [*not for] the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD." Psalms 27:14.

"Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil [*forsake your revenge]. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth." Psalms 37:5-9.

"Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us." Psalms 123:2.
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Colossians 3:17.
"MINISTER. One who attends or waits on another; so we find Elisha was the minister of Elijah, and did him services of various kinds, 2 Kings 3:11. So Joshua was the servant of Moses, Exodus 24:13; 33:11. And these persons did not by any means feel themselves degraded by their stations, but in due time they succeeded to the offices of their masters. In like manner John Mark was minister to Paul and Barnabas, Acts 13:5. Christ is called a minister of the true, that is, the heavenly, sanctuary. The minister of the synagogue was appointed to keep the book of the law, to observe that those who read it, read it correctly, etc., Luke 4:20. The rabbis say he was the same as the angel of the church, or overseer. Lightfoot says, Baal Aruch expounds chazan, or minister of the congregation, sheliach hatzibbor, or angel of the congregation; and from this common platform and constitution of the synagogue, we may observe the apostle's expression of some elders ruling and laboring in word and doctrine, others in the general affairs of the synagogue. Ministers were servants, yet servants not menial, but honorable; those who explain the word, and conduct the service of God; those who dispense the laws and promote the welfare of the community; the holy angels who in obedience to the Divine commands protect, preserve, succour, and benefit the godly, are all ministers, beneficial ministers, to those who are under their charge, Hebrews 8:2; Exodus 30:10; Leviticus 16:15; 1 Corinthians 4:1; Romans 13:6; Psalm 104:4." Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), vol. II, p. 654. [Emphasis added.]
"But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." Luke 17:7-10.

Just as God separated the tribe of Levi from the rest of Israel to be His ministers, so did He separate His church from the world to be His Ministers and His Army:

"At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day." Deuteronomy 10:8.

Christ's church now, in one body, is the ark and the covenant is no longer borne on the shoulders of the priesthood, but is written on the hearts of all its members. We need not look to those things written on paper, but to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, who has given us a better Testament sealed by and in His Blood written on our hearts.

This is the same way a general plans his war. A general does not look to the law of the enemy to do any thing. He gets the best of his troops together for an assault but does not execute a war maneuver until he knows the outcome of it will give him the greatest advantage with the minimum loss of casualties. Thus, we are left with setting a Record for Him to act upon when He mobilizes His Troops in and of His church. This gives the advantage to Christ's troops at all times;

"They that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." Isaiah 40:31.
"Through God we shall do valiantly: for He it is that shall tread down our enemies." Psalm 60:12. See also Psalm 108:13.

As we stated before the singular Good and Lawful Christian is to set a Record so that God will move His church in one well conditioned Body. This raises the question then, that if you have stood on that which is unclean, i.e., codes, rules, and regulations, what and where is the record? Is it in Truth? It is not in Truth; because it and Christ Jesus bear witness against you and not for you. It is not in Christ for all codes, rules and regulations bring glory to the maker of them--the natural man, who cannot know the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14)--the Truth in Christ--and whose philosophies are vain deceit; and so dead and without standing in Law. God will not confirm a lie to be of or from Him; so, if your record is found in codes, rules, and regulations, there is no protection, no remedy, no Lawful recourse, and no call for the troops in the army of the Christ, because you have to stand on the foundation upon which His church stands:

"Behold, I have given him [*Christ and the Body of Believers] for a witness to the people, a leader [*political term] and commander [*war term] to the people." 11Isaiah 55:4. [Emphasis and insertions added.]
"For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." Isaiah 55:12-13.

The first part of the process then will be done by following the procedures given by Christ Jesus in Matthew 18. But be careful at this juncture. Remember, do not ever compromise any thing concerned with your relationship to Christ and His church:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6.

Any other means is necessarily un-Lawful having not originated in Him. What this does is lay the foundation and chain of witnesses for proving that the other person does not sojourn with Christ in His church. The Non-Statutory Abatement process is the last process to be used because the matter is brought to the attention of Christ's church in that particular locale; but it is not the last process to be used to bring someone to the knowledge of Christ:

"For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad." Mark 4:22.
"For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." Luke 8:17.
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans 2:16.
"Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." Luke 12:3.

Other actions are Trespass, Case, Trover and Waste. This concurs with the ways of God our Father: for how many witnesses did he send to the Israel in the Old Testament before sending His own Son? How many has He sent since to witness the Truth to the world? We read the record of Scripture where Israel would serve Pharaoh four hundred years because the Record of the Canaanites was not finished. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is also applicable: for Christ Jesus overcame the world because He has risen from the dead and the natural man still does not believe. We are admonished to this course of action by Christ Jesus:

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48.

Once the Record is set, then the evidence of non-response or un-Lawful response is taken before the Ecclesiastical Court sitting as a Grand Jury, because:

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:20.
"And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." 1 Corinthians 14:25.
"Reprobus quisque sua solius perit malitia--Every reprobate perishes in consequence of of his own wickedness only." Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794), p. 263.

This is witnessing the Truth, whether you personally rise or fall, God is glorified in all. Accordingly, the pagan will either come to repentance to Christ, or he will face the criminal punishments which follow. This is essential. For one does not have to respond in a legal proceeding, because only equitable interests are at stake; but, it is different in a Lawful proceeding, because interests are not at stake, but the Inheritance of Christ in His church. The reason is that issue is not between the two persons, but is between God and the two persons. Whichever one moves in faith in and to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, stands in and with Him and is victorious. This is why it is so important to be grounded in Sacred Scripture for Authority; and not the philosophies about Scripture or denominations founded in private "truths."

The same is true of the Body of Believers. It may Lawfully execute the Judgments already written in the Law:

"The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies." Isaiah 42:13.

This is not to say that evil intent on the part of either is presumed. Rather, the evil intent is displayed by the person whose heart is evil and God has declared it so in His Word and is used in testimony against him. Man can only presume evil because he cannot see the hearts of other men; but because God's Law tries the hearts of men, there is no presumption but only certain Knowledge and Wisdom in His Governance of His creation. Thus the pagan is openly shown to Christ's church who is vested with Lawful Authority and empowered in and by His Word to execute in righteousness the Judgments already written from before the foundation of the world.

This returns the Peace of Christ in the church in its specific locality:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14.
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." Isaiah 55:3.
"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17b.

In order for this to take place, however, all Good and Lawful Christians should have their Christian Appellations enrolled on the Great Roll in the county Clerk's office, who is the minister for Christ's church at that particular county:

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant [*minister]. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:10-12. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Note carefully the wording of Romans 13:1-4:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

The establishment of Christ's church in the county is partially evidenced by the Great Roll--the Great Roll, by itself, is not the Substance in the county. Without Good and Lawful Christians on the Great Roll, there is no evidence of Substance in the county; and sans this evidence, the Executors of Christ's Testament are either not present or incompetent. From this set of circumstances, the natural man, in his self-righteousness, concludes that Christ's church has died; but Sacred Scripture declares otherwise, and the maxims concur:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.
"Ecclesia non moritur --The church does not die." Black's Law Dictionary (4th. ed., 1957 & 1968) p. 602.

But for the humanist to know this, there must be a sign or evidence somewhere:

"For the Jews [*of the flesh and uncircumcised in heart] require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" 1 Corinthians 1:22. [*Insertion added.]

Thus testamentary administration, but not execution, is what is taking place today:

"ADMINISTER. To manage [*no vesting of title] the property of a person who dies intestate, i.e., without a will, or whose will incompletely disposes of his property, or whose will lacks a competent executor. [*"Faith without works is dead"] The purpose of administration is to distribute the property [*common wealth] to the persons entitled [*Christians]. The document granting the authority [*Scripture] under which this is done is called letters of administration." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 8. [*Insertions added].

This is the state of apathy, indifference, idolatry, and outlawry. I say this because when Good and Lawful Christians are not found on the Great Roll, there is no evidence of the appointment of an executor competent to execute the Testament of Christ. When the ungodly take charge of this administration, we deserve the conditions we see today. (See 1 Corinthians 2:14-15). The county Clerk then, is the custodian of Christ's church's history in that locale, which is the Roll of a Christian's Life in Christ's church having its counterpart in the Lamb's Book of Life:

"CHURCH, (a) the sacred building, aedes sacra: (c) the congregation, *coetus sacer: *sacra publica, orum; n. (the divine service): to go to church, *sacra publica adire; *sacra publicis adesse: to perform the church service (of the clergyman), rebus divinis interesse: to attend church, sacris adesse (of a layman): (c) THE CHURCH (i.e. the whole body of the visible Church), legis Christianae studiosi (Ammian, 25, 10); qui Christum sequuntur; civitas or respublica Christianorum; ecclesia (ecclesiastical)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), pp. 94-95.
"CHURCH-HISTORY. *res populi Christiani." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 95.

This is a critical part of returning to the old paths and ways of God, our Father. It should be pointed out, too, that none of the counties in any of the states before Lincoln's War were ever destroyed by him or an executive department set up in his image and likeness:

"The existence and the identity of the counties of the secession states were not altered or destroyed by the attempted secession." Dinwiddie County v. Stuart, 28 Gratt.(69 Va.) 526. See also Higgenbotham's ex'r v. Commonwealth, 25 Gratt.(Va.) 627; Harrison Justices v. Holland, 3 Gratt.(Va.) 247; Wade and others v. City of Richmond, 18 Gratt.(Va.) 583.

If the counties in the Christian states lawfully seceding did not lose their identity in Christ during Lincoln's War, the counties in the fallen states did not either, except by their own ignorance and outlawry. Only Christ's church never lost its identity with Him; and only they have the Warrant in Law and Duty to execute the Law. Therefore, the judicial tribunals in all of the original Christian states are still in place, all acts of legislatures not with standing:

"A military officer cannot, by a declaration of martial law, suspend judicial proceedings in the district under his command." Johnson v. Duncan's Syndics (1815), 3 Mart.(O.S.) 530, 6 Am.Dec. 675.
"The several tribunals of the rebel states, were recognized and never abrogated by the reconstruction acts, and also by the military authorities of the United States." Grant v. Chambers (1871), 34 Texas 573.

From the Great Roll, the county Clerk will summon, through the county sheriff, the Recognitors (see full Pamphlet for further explanation on "Recognitors") for the Court. The Great Roll is used for a number of purposes: summoning Recognitors for juries, county Militia, Electors, Inquests, &c. Absolutely no idolators, those having a driver's license, receiving Social Security, welfare, food stamps, credit/debit card holders, depositors, taxpayers, employees, employers, government agents, partners in commerce, &c. are qualified to be on the Great Roll. This may sound harsh; but, the qualifications for being on the Great Roll are found in Scripture and thus are removed from the vain imaginations of men. (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-11; Revelation 21:7-8; Revelation 22:14-15). Again, it comes down to Law: no man can serve two masters. There is only one thing worth defending and dying for--Christ's church; and only one chain of command to follow--God our Father in and through Christ Jesus:

"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:" John 5:22.

This is the way we must implement God's Law to right the things that afflict His church, being the only way to defeat the enemies of God our Father:

"Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify [*separate] yourselves [*from the unclean thing--codes, rules, and regulations] against to morrow: for thus saith the LORD God of Israel, There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee [*i.e., the civil rights acts--the god of gold and silver], O Israel: thou canst not stand before thine enemies, until ye take away the accursed thing from among you." Joshua 7:13. [Emphasis and *insertion added.]

So that the Word of God accomplishes that which He sent it to do:

"So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.

God's Word is never for nought. It depends solely on which side of it you are--in it, i.e., a Good and Lawful Christian; or outside of it--pagan, infidel, citizen, civilian, peasant, taxpayer, depositor, driver, idolator, doctor, lawyer, attorney, menstealer, whoremonger, &c.

Once the Record is set in Law His church can then move Lawfully to convene Ecclesiastical Courts at any time without restriction:

"Now the true Church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as, it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of his Church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world.
"The true Church hath power to call its councils.Now I said, the church, if it need a council, may call one; because the church of believers now seldom needs a council, seeing all things are so clear in the Word of God, with which the faithful are so well acquainted.For it is not dead laws and orders, written by men, will do the true church any good; but the Living Law of God, written in their hearts by the Spirit, as God hath promised to do, saying, I will write my Law in their hearts, and put it in their inward parts. For as the law of sin hath been written in our natures, to corrupt us, so the Law of the Spirit of Life must be written also in our natures, to reform us.
"The church hath power to judge of all doctrines, and that both of its officers and councils." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), p 303-312.

Now the world will try all sorts of things to escape the wrath coming but such is futile, from the following:

"The redemption of the Christ was the manifestation of that which is eternal in the being of God. It was not simply a provisional work, which had its ground in a preceding circumstance. It had not its origin in a transient condition, and it was not simply an adjustment to an antecedent condition. It was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
The redemption of the Christ has then no finite limitations. It has no measures of time. It is not limited by our computations of the years on [*185] this earth: the Christ, a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Mulford, Republic of God (1881), p. 185.

Because the foundation of Christ's church has no finite limitations, then His church is free to walk and execute His Judgments wherever that foundation has been laid by establishing a Record in Law. This is necessary to establish the Record of sojourning with Him who called His church out from the world; and sent His church into the world to bear witness of Him and the Truth in Him.

Now for some, not all, issues addressed in Scripture, the following are given for your edification, but please understand that you are responsible for writing the particular and specific process, if needed. Most actions will be in the nature of Trespass and following these Scripture citations is a skeleton of an Action in Trespass for your use. You are not to make profit from this, however, and God will judge you accordingly. You must modify it to suit the particular circumstances, facts, and parties. Be certain you do all your actions through the county Clerk. This is important, for: One, this is a court of general jurisdiction, because its Law is general, not private and is not concerned with private rights, i.e. civil actions; Two, no attorney has the standing in the Court of Christ's church to do any thing, because God is no respecter of persons; Three, actions in this venue and jurisdiction cannot be removed to another jurisdiction and then dismissed with a wave of the natural man's wand, for "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14; Four, your action for Christ's church becomes a part of the ecclesiastical history of His church in the particular location. Thus, a political question is raised by the sanctification of Christ's church from the world which the world cannot judge being under Judgment of Christ Jesus because "he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians 2:15.

We should always remember that:

"God's people are kings and priests, Rev. i. 6.
"1. As kings they are (1.) Ordained to a kingdom of glory; and in the mean while, have an internal kingdom of holiness and happiness. (2.) They are anointed with the Holy Ghost. (3.) They are crowned. The doctrines of the Gospel are the church's crown and ornament, Rev. iii. 11 & xii. 1. (4.) They have the sceptre of God's strength to lean upon. (5.) And a globe also. They only truly enjoy even present life. Earthly kings hold a globe in their hands; but the spiritual kings have the globe under their feet. (6.) They have robes. The inner robe of sanctification; and the outer robe of Christ's righteousness for justification before God, Psalm xiv. (7.) They have their guards: angels, grace, providence.
"Before conversion they are reges designati, kings elect; after it reges de facto, actual kings.
"2. As perhaps, they are devoted to God, and set apart for his service by a spiritual ordination. Here is a truly indelible character conferred: when the Holy Ghost lays the hand of his grace, not only upon the sinner's head, but upon the sinner's heart.--they offer up spiritual and moral sacrifices.--They pray.--They are blessers both in will and in act." Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794), pp. 543-544.

For a more complete understanding on this subject, a 101 page Pamphlet with 3 - 90 minute audio tapes on "The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church" is now available from The Christian Jural Society Press. For further information on this and other new Study Materials, call 818-347-7080.

The following citations are not all inclusive and you are encouraged to search the Scriptures to add others to these and to set new categories for your selves.

Abortion and Murder: Psalm 139:13-16; Exodus 20:13; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Deuteronomy 5:17; Psalm 100:3; Luke 1:41-44; Deuteronomy 30:19; Galatians 1:15-16; Exodus 23:7; Isaiah 44:24; Exodus 21:22-23; Proverbs 6:16-19; Matthew 18:10; Matthew 19:14; Genesis 9:6; Psalm 127:3-5; Psalm 128:3-4; Genesis 1:27; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 59:7; Matthew 18:14; Psalm 106:38; Deuteronomy 27:25; Isaiah 5:20-21; Matthew 2:18; Amos 1:13; Proverbs 24:11-12; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Genesis 2:7.

False Pastors, Ministers, Teachers, Preachers and False Preaching: Mark 7:6-13; Matthew 15:9; Isaiah 8:20; Isaiah 29:13; Isaiah 56:11-12; Acts 20:28-30; Ezekiel 34; Matthew 21:16; 1 Corinthians 1:26; Matthew 13:54; 1 Corinthians 16:17-18; Isaiah 30:10-11; Jeremiah 14:14; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; Galatians 6:12; Matthew 23:15; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Jeremiah 29:8-9; Galatians 1:6-11; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15; Isaiah 34:16-17; John 5:39-40; John 5:45; Micah 3:1-12; Jeremiah 5:4-6; Jeremiah 8:6-10; Jeremiah 29:9; Exodus 20:4; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 27:15.

The Lot of Idolaters: Psalm 97:7; Isaiah 59:8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15; Deuteronomy 20:14; Deuteronomy 21:10; Deuteronomy 25:19; Deuteronomy 30:7; Nehemiah 6:16; Psalm 3:7; Psalm 60:12; Psalm 66:3-7; Psalm 68:1-2, 21; Nahum 1:2; Psalm 49:10; Proverbs 13:22; Ecclesiastes 6:1-2; Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 27:15; Leviticus 26:1; Exodus 23:24.

Kidnap: Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.

Bribery and Graft: Exodus 23:8; Proverbs 15:27.

Treason: Exodus 23:24-25; Deuteronomy 7:5; Exodus 20:2-11; Exodus 23:32-33; Exodus 29:46; Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Deuteronomy 10:12; Deuteronomy 30:6; Matthew 22:35-40; Luke 10:25-37; Exodus 4:23; Deuteronomy 4:13-19; Deuteronomy 10:20-21; Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

The things which are Caesar's

by Randy Lee

"Shew Me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way." Mat. 22:19-22

Very handily in modern times have these verses been used by those who love the world, to convince God's children that it is all right to render unto Caesar; after all, Christ Himself said so!! Or did He? Is that what He is saying?

In this type of perverted interpretation, as it is in all proof-texting by the powers of darkness, the previous verses are never considered. The fact that He is speaking to the disciples of the Pharisees (v. 16), and the fact that He first asked, Whose is this image...?--is ignored--along with the fact that God's elect are forbidden to serve false images and gods (see Joshua 23:7) and Our Lord's admonition that we can serve only one master (see Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13).

It is clear that rendering unto Caesar is for those who are full of dead men's bones, for Our Lord has told us in these verses that all Caesar has is "an image," the shadow of substance--an image that will be worshipped by those who are blind to the Truth that "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof"--those whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (consider Revelation, Chapter 13).

Just as The Good Shepherd knows and loves His own, Caesar as well knows and loves his own (see John 15:19). Caesar's own are those that love the world and all that is offered to them by partaking of and rendering unto his image. The Christian is not to partake of that image--that spirit of the world, and the emptiness thereof:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:12-13
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." I John 4:3-5

The "elect" of God are but few, being those "chosen-out" of the world by Him from the many that are "called." Consider Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 20:1-16:

"They had reason to fear, lest they themselves should be found hypocrites at last; for many are called but few chosen. This is applied to the Jews <Mt 22:14>; it was so then, it is too true still; many are called with a common call, that are not chosen with a saving choice. All that are chosen from eternity, are effectually called, in the fulness of time <Rom. 8:30>, so that in making our effectual calling sure we make sure our election <2 Pet. 1:10>; but it is not so as to the outward call; many are called, and yet refuse <Prov. 1:24>, nay, as they are called to God, so they go from Him <Hos. 11:2,7>, by which it appears that they were not chosen, for the election will obtain, <Rom. 11:7>. Note, There are but few chosen Christians, in comparison with the many that are only called Christians; it therefore highly concerns us to build our hope for heaven upon the Rock of an eternal choice, and not upon the sand of an external call; and we should fear lest we be found but seeming Christians, and so should really come short; nay, lest we be found blemished Christians, and so should seem to come short, <Heb. 4:1>.

In this series, we will not violate the precepts of I Corinthians 2:13 by attempting to define the things of God, for we know that only the Holy Spirit can teach those things.

Its purpose is to display for the reader those things which have the marks of Caesar's image, in the hope that it can be used, by the Grace of God, as a guide for all to better avoid Caesar's world.

America's Roman Republic

Caesar's precarious image made of "iron and clay" has always been maintained through the Roman law (Civil law) and the contrivances thereof. Contrary to popular belief, the Roman law did not fall with the Roman empire, having been continued and enlarged throughout Europe during the Middle Ages, and a major expansion by way of the U. S. and State constitutions and the statutes, codes, rules, regulations, and other forms of law created thereby. Today, Roman law is defined as:

"Roman law. In a general sense, comprehends all the laws that prevailed among the Romans, without regard to the time of their origin, including the collections of Justinian. In a more restricted sense, the Germans understand by this term merely the law of Justinian, as adopted by them.
In England and America, it appears to be customary to use the phrase, indifferently with 'the civil law,' to designate the whole system of Roman jurisprudence, including the Corpus Juris Civilis." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed., 1990), page 1330.

In the 14th century, John Wycliffe said of the Roman law:

"Roman law is heathen men's law. There is no more reason and justice in the civil law of Rome than in the civil law of England." De Officio Regis.

The "Glory that was Rome" was transplanted to shores of the Potomac in 1789, and to every State capital fashioned in its image. Its full blossoming came through Abraham Lincoln's war and the expansion of the lex mercatoria created thereafter.

Many 'believe' that to worship an image, there must be a literal bowing down on the knee to it, as was practiced in the Old Testament. But Revelation 14:9-11 shows us otherwise:

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

IDOL, IMAGE

"Perhaps the best definition of an idol is something we ourselves make into a god. It does not have to be a statue or a tree. It can be anything that stands between us and God or something we substitute for God." Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

Receiving the mark of his name "in the mind" creates the automatic worship thereof. Believing in "the need" of the image is where the problem arises. The modern concepts of "I can't survive without it," "I must depend upon it," etc., leads one down that fleshly slippery slope of wanton sin:

"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:23-25

Next month, we will examine specifically "the things which are Caesar's" that effect our everyday life, and the ways we can learn to avoid them.

Sojourner and Pilgrim

A Word Study

of the Old and New Testament

from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

Sojourn - Old testament

A. Verb. gur, "to dwell as a client, sojourn." This verb occurs only in Northwest Semitic and outside Hebrew only as a noun. In biblical Hebrew the verb gur occurs 84 times and in every period of the language. This sense of gur should be distinguished from one that means "to be afraid of" <Num. 22:3>.

This verb means "to dwell in a land as a client." The first occurrence of the word is in <Gen. 12:10>, where it is reported that Abram journeyed to Egypt and dwelt there as a client. In <Gen. 21:23>, Abraham makes a covenant with Abimelech, saying, "...according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned."

B. Nouns. ger, "client; stranger." Ger occurs about 92 times and in every period of biblical Hebrew.

A "client' was not simply a foreigner (nakri) or a stranger (zar). He was a permanent resident, once a citizen of another land, who had moved into his new residence. Frequently he left his homeland under some distress, as when Moses fled to Midian <Exod. 2:22>. Whether the reason for his journey was to escape some difficulty or merely to seek a new place to dwell, he was one who sought acceptance and refuge. Consequently he might also call himself a toshab, a settler. Neither the settler nor the "client" could possess land. In the land of Canaan the possession of land was limited to members or descendants of the original tribal members. Only they were full citizens who enjoyed all the rights of citizenry, which meant sharing fully in the inheritance of the gods and forefathers-- the feudal privileges and responsibilites (cf. <Ezek. 47:22>).

In Israel a ger, like a priest, could possess no land and enjoyed the special privileges of the third tithe. Every third year the tithe of the harvest was to be deposited at the city gate with the elders and distributed among "the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates..." <Deut. 14:29>. In the eschaton such "clients" were to be treated as full citizens: "And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it [the land] by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel" <Ezek. 47:22>. Under the Mosaic law aliens were not slaves but were usually in the service of some Israelite whose protection they enjoyed <Deut. 24:14>. This, however, was not always the case. Sometimes a "client" was rich and an Israelite would be in his service <Lev. 25:47>.

The ger was to be treated (except for feudal privileges and responsibilites) as an Israelite, being responsible to and protected by the law: "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him" <Deut. 1:16>; "ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you" <Lev. 18:26>; "ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God" <Lev. 24:22>. The ger also enjoyed the Sabbath rest <Lev. 25:6> and divine protection <Deut. 10:18>. God commanded Israel to love the "client" as himself <Lev. 19:34>.

The ger could also be circumcised <Exod. 12:48> and enjoy all the privileges of the true religion: the Passover <Exod. 12:48-49>, the Atonement feast <Lev. 16:29>, presenting offerings <Lev. 17:8>, and all the feasts <Deut. 16:11>. He was also obligated to keep the purity laws <Lev. 17:15>.

Israel is told that God is the true owner of all the land and its people are but "clients" owing Him feudal obedience <Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19>. They are admonished to treat the client with justice, righteousness, and love because like Abraham <Gen. 23:4> they were "clients" in Egypt <Exod. 22:21>. In legal cases the "client" could appeal directly to God the great feudal Lord <Lev. 24:22>.

Two other nouns related to gur are megurim and gerut. Megurim occurs 11 times and refers to the "status or condition of being a client" <Gen. 17:8> and to a "dwelling where one is a client" <Job 18:19>. Gerut appears once to refer to a "place where clients dwell" <Jer. 41:17>. Some scholars think this word is a proper name, a part of a place name.

Sojourner - New Testament

A. Verbs. 1. paroikeo denotes "to dwell beside, among or by" (para, "beside," oikeo, "to dwell"); then, "to dwell in a place as a paroikos, a stranger" (see below), <Luke 24:18>, RV, "Dost thou (alone) sojourn...?" [marg., "Dost thou sojourn (alone)" is preferable], KJV, "art thou (only) a stranger?" (monos, "alone," is an adjective, not an adverb); in <Heb. 11:9>, RV, "he became a sojourner' (KJV, "he sojourned"), the RV gives the force of the aorist tense.

2. epidemeo is rendered "to sojourn" in <Acts 17:21>, RV.

B. Adjectives. 1. paroikos, an adjective, akin to A, No. 1, lit., "dwelling near' (see above), then, "foreign, alien" (found with this meaning in inscriptions), hence, as a noun, "a sojourner," is used with eimi, "to be," in <Acts 7:6>, "should sojourn," lit., "should be a sojourner"; in <7:29>, RV, "sojourner" (KJV, "stranger"); in <Eph. 2:19>, RV, "sojourners" (KJV, "foreigners"), the preceding word rendered "strangers" is xenos; in <1 Pet. 2:11>, RV, ditto (KJV, "strangers").

2. apodemos, "gone abroad" (apo, "from," demos, "people"), signifies "sojourning in another country," , RV (KJV, "taking a far journey").

3. parepidemos, "sojourning in a strange place," is used as a noun, denoting "a sojourner, an exile," <1 Pet. 1:1>, RV, "sojourners" (KJV, "strangers"). See PILGRIM.

C. Noun. paroikia, "a sojourning" (akin to A and B, Nos. 1), occurs in <Acts 13:17>, rendered "they sojourned," RV, KJV, "dwelt as strangers," lit., "in the sojourning"; in <1 Pet. 1:17>, "sojourning."

Pilgrim - New Testament

parepidemos, an adjective signifying "sojourning in a strange place, away from one's own people" (para, "from," expressing a contrary condition, and epidemeo, "to sojourn"; demos, "a people"), is used of OT saints, <Heb. 11:13>, "pilgrims" (coupled with xenos, "a foreigner"); of Christians, <1 Pet. 1:1>, "sojourners (of the Dispersion)," RV; <2:11>, "pilgrims" (coupled with paroikos, "an alien, sojourner"); the word is thus used metaphorically of those to whom Heaven is their own country, and who are sojourners on earth.

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today

The Sign of the Cross

by Alexander Hislop

The following is reprinted from Chapter V, Section VI of The Two Babylons (1916) by Alexander Hislop. All corresponding footnotes ( {1} ) are printed at the end of article.

The Sign of the Cross

In the Papal system, as is well known, the sign of the cross and the image of the cross are all in all. No prayer can be said, no worship engaged in, no step almost can be taken, without the frequent use of the sign of the cross. The cross is looked upon as the grand charm, as the great refuge in every season of danger, in every hour of temptation as the infallible preservative from all the powers of darkness. The cross is adored with all the homage due only to the Most High; and for anyone to call it, in the hearing of a genuine Romanist, by the Scriptural term, "the accursed tree" is a mortal offence. To say that such superstitious feeling for the sign of the cross, such worship as Rome pays to a wooden or a metal cross, ever grew out of the saying of Paul, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"--that is, in the doctrine of Christ crucified--is a mere absurdity, a shadow subterfuge and pretence. The magic virtues attributed to the so-called sign of the cross, the worship bestowed on it, never came from such a source. The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian Mysteries, was applied by Paganism to the same magic purposes, was honoured with the same honours. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians--the true original form of the letter T--the initial of the name of Tammuz--which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, as found on coins, was formed as in No. 1 of the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 43); and in Atrurian and Coptic, as in Nos. 2 and 3. That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of those initiated in the Mysteries{4}, and was used in every variety of way as a sacred symbol. To identify Tammuz with the sun it was joined sometimes with the circle of the sun, as in No. 4; sometimes it was inserted in the circle, as in No. 5{5}. Whether the Maltese cross, which the Romish bishops append to their names as a symbol of their episcopal dignity, is the letter T, may be doubtful; but there seems no reason to doubt that the Maltese cross is an express symbol of the sun; for Layard found as a sacred symbol in Nineveh in such a connection as led him to identify it with the sun{6}. The mystic Tau, as the symbol of the great divinity, was called "the sign of life;" it was used as an amulet over the heart{7}; it was marked on the official garments of the priests, as on the official garments of the priests of Rome; it was borne by kings in their hand, as a token of their dignity or divinely-conferred authority{8}. The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now{9}. The Egyptians did the same, and many of the barbarous nations with whom they had intercourse, as the Egyptian monuments bear witness. In reference to the adorning of some of these tribes, Wilkinson thus writes: "The girdle was sometimes highly ornamented; men as well as women wore earrings; and they frequently had a small cross suspended to a necklace, or to the collar of their dress. The adoption of this last was not peculiar to them; it was also appended to, or figured upon, the robes of the Rot-n-no; the traces of it may be seen in the fancy ornaments of the Rebo, showing that it was already in use as early as the fifteenth century before the Christian era."{10} (Fig. 44). There is hardly a Pagan tribe where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before the incarnation and death of Christ{11}. "It is a fact," says Maurice, "not less remarkable than well attested, that the Druids in their groves were accustomed to select the most stately and beautiful tree as an emblem of the deity they adored, and having cut the side branches, they affixed two of the largest of them to the highest part of the trunk, in such a manner that those branches extended on each side like the arms of a man, and, together with the body, presented the appearance of a HUGE CROSS, and on the bark, in several places, was also inscribed the letter Thau"{12}. It was worshipped in Mexico for ages before the Roman Catholic missionaries set foot there, large stone crosses being erected, probably to the "god of rain"{13}.

The cross thus widely worshipped, or regarded as a sacred emblem, was the unequivocal symbol of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah, for he was represented with a head-band covered with crosses (see Fig. 45){14}. This symbol of the Babylonian god is reverenced at this day in all the wide wastes of Tartary, where Buddhism prevails, and the way it is represented among them forms a striking commentary on the language applied by Rome to the Cross. "The cross," says Colonial Wilford, in the Asiatic Researches, "though not an object of worship among the Baud'has or Buddhists, is a favourite emblem and device among them. It is exactly the cross of the Manicheans, with leaves and flowers (and fruit also, as I am told), is called the divine tree, the tree of the gods, the tree of life and knowledge, and productive of whatever is good and desirable, and is placed in the terrestrial paradise"{15}. (Fig. 46){16}. Compare this with the language of Rome applied to the cross, and it will be seen how exact is the coincidence. In the Office of the Cross, it is called the "Tree of life," and the worshippers are taught thus to address it: "Hail, O Cross, triumphal wood, true salvation of the world, among trees there is none like thee in leaf, flower, and bud..... O Cross, our only hope, increase righteousness to the godly and pardon the offences of the guilty"{17}. Can anyone reading the gospel narrative of the crucifixion, possibly believe that that narrative of itself could ever germinate into such extravagance of "leaf, flower, and bud," as thus appears in this Romish Office? But when it considered that the Buddhist, like the Babylonian cross, was the recognized emblem of Tammuz, who was known as the mistletoe branch, or "All-heal," then it is easy to see how the sacred Initial should be represented as covered with leaves, and how Rome, in adopting it, should call it the "Medicine which preserves the healthful, heals the sick, and does what mere human power alone could never do"{18}.

Now, this Pagan symbol seems first to have crept into the Christian Church in Egypt, and generally into Africa. A statement of Tertullian, about the middle of the third century, shows how much, by that time, the Church of Carthage was infected with the old leaven{19}. Egypt especially, which was never thoroughly evangelized, appears to have taken the lead in bringing in this Pagan symbol. The first form of that which is called the Christian Cross, found on Christian monuments there, is the unequivocal Pagan Tau, or Egyptian "Sign of life." Let the reader peruse the following statement of Sir G. Wilkinson: "A still more curious fact may be mentioned respecting this hieroglyphical character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt adopted it in lieu of the cross, which was afterwards substituted for it, prefixing it to inscriptions in the same manner as the cross in later times. For, though Dr. Young had some scruples in believing the statement of Sir A. Edmonstone, that it holds that position in the sepulchres of the great Oasis, I can attest that such is the case, and that numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments"{20}. The drift of this statement is evidently this, that in Egypt the earliest form of that which has since been called the cross, was no other than the "Crux Ansata," or "Sign of life," borne by Osiris and all the Egyptian gods; that the ansa or "handle" was afterwards dispensed with, and that it became the simple Tau, or ordinary cross, as it appears at this day, and that the design of its first employment on the sepulchres, therefore, could have no reference to the crucifixion of the Nazarene, but was simply the result of the attachment to old and long-cherished Pagan symbols, which is always strong in those who, with adoption of the Christian name and profession, are still, to a large extent, Pagan in heart and feeling. This, and this only, is the origin of the worship of the "cross."

This, no doubt, will appear all very strange and very incredible to those who have read Church history, as most have done to a large extent, even amongst Protestants, through Romish spectacles; and especially to those who call to mind the famous story told of the miraculous appearance of the cross to Constantine on the day before the decisive victory at the Milvian bridge, that decided the fortunes of avowed Paganism and nominal Christianity. That story, as commonly told, if true, would certainly give a Divine sanction to the reverence for the cross. But that story, when sifted to the bottom, according to the common version of it, will be found to be based on a delusion--a delusion, however, into which so good a man as Milner has allowed himself to fall. Milner's account is as follows:-- "Constantine, marching from France into Italy against Maxentius, in an expedition which was likely either to exalt or to ruin him, was oppressed with anxiety. Some god he thought needful to protect him; the God of the Christians he was most inclined to respect, but he wanted some satisfactory proof of His real existence and power, and he neither understood the means of acquiring this, nor could he be content with the atheistic indifference in which so many generals and heros since his time have acquiesced. He prayed, he implored with such vehemence and importunity, and God left him not unanswered. While he was marching with his forces in the afternoon, the trophy of the cross appeared very luminous in the heavens, brighter than the sun, with this inscription, "Conquer by this." He and his soldiers were astonished by the sight; but he continued pondering till night. And Christ appeared to him when asleep with the same sign of the cross, and directed him to make use of the symbol as his military ensign"{21}.

Such is the statement of Milner. Now, in regard to the "trophy of the cross," a few words will suffice to show that it is utterly unfounded. I do not think it necessary to dispute the fact that some miraculous sign having been given. There may, or there may not, have been on this occasion a "dignus vindice nodus," a crisis worthy of a Divine intercourse, I do not inquire. But this I say, on the supposition that Constantine in this matter acted in good faith, and that there actually was a miraculous appearance in the heavens, that it was not the sign of the cross that was seen, but quite a different thing , the name of Christ. That this was the case, we have at once the testimony of Lactantius, who was the tutor of Constantine's son Crispus--the earliest author who gives any account of the matter, and the indisputable evidence of the standards of Constantine themselves, as handed down to us on medals stuck at the time. The testimony of Lactantius is most decisive: "Constantine was warned in a dream to make the celestial sign of God upon his soldiers' shields, and so to join battle. He did as he was bid, and with the transverse letter X circumflecting the head of it, he marks Christ on their shields. Equipped with this sign, his army takes the sword"{22}.

Now, the letter X was just the initial of the name of Christ, being equivalent in Greek to CH. If, therefore, Constantine did as he was bid, when he made "the celestial sign of God" in the form of "the letter X," it was that "letter X," as the symbol of "Christ," and not the sign of the cross, which he saw in the heavens. When the Labarum, or far-famed standard of Constantine itself, properly so called, was made, we have the evidence of Ambrose, the well-known Bishop of Milan, that that standard was formed on the very principle contained in the statement of Lactantius --viz., simply to display the Redeemer's name. He calls it, "Labarum, hoc est Christi sacratum nomine signum"{23}-- "The Labarum, that is, the ensign consecrated by the NAME of Christ"{24}. There is not the slightest allusion to any cross--to anything but the simple name of Christ. While we have these testimonies of Lactantius and Ambrose, when we come to examine the standard of Constantine, we find the accounts of both authors fully borne out; we find that that standard, bearing on it these very words, "Hoc signo victor eris," "In this sign thou shalt be a conqueror," said to have been addressed from heaven to the emperor, has nothing at all in the shape of a cross, but "the letter X." In the Roman Catacombs, on a Christian monument to "Sinphonia and her sons," there is a distinct allusion to the story of the vision; but that allusion also shows that the X, and not the cross, was regarded as the "heavenly sign." The words at the head of the inscription are these:--

"IN HOC VINCES{25}

Nothing whatever but the X is here given as the "Victorious Sign." There are some examples, no doubt, of Constantine's standard, in which the is a cross-bar, from which the flag is suspended, that contains that "letter X"{26}; and Eusebius, who wrote when superstition and apostasy were working, tries hard to make it appear that that cross-bar was the essential element in the ensign of Constantine. But this is obviously a mistake; that cross-bar was nothing new, nothing peculiar to Constantine's standard. Tertullian shows{27} that that cross-bar was found long before on the vexillium, the Roman Pagan standard, that carried a flag; and it was used simply for the purpose of displaying that flag. If, therefore, the cross-bar was the "celestial sign," it needed no voice from heaven to direct Constantine to make it; nor would the making or displaying of it have excited any particular attention on the part of those who saw it. We find no evidence at all that the famous legend, "In this overcome," has any reference to this cross-bar; but we find evidence the most decisive that that legend does refer to the X. Now, that that X was not intended as the sign of the cross, but as the initial of Christ's name, is manifest from this, that the Greek P, equivalent to our R, is inserted in the middle of it, making by their union CHR. Anyone who pleases may satisfy himself of this by examining the plates given in Mr. Elliot's Horæ Apocalypticæ{28}. The standard of Constantine, then, was just the name of Christ. Whether the device came from earth or from heaven--whether it was suggested by human wisdom or Divine, supposing that Constantine was sincere in his Christian profession, nothing more was implied in it than a literal embodiment of the sentiment of the Psalmist, "In the name of the Lord will we display our banners." To display that name on the standards of Imperial Rome was a thing absolutely new; and the sight of that name, there can be little doubt, nerved the Christian soldier's in Constantine's army with more than usual fire to fight and conquer at the Milvian bridge.

In the above remarks I have gone on the supposition that Constantine acted in good faith as a Christian. His good faith, however, has been questioned{29}; and I am not without my suspicions that the X may have been intended to have one meaning to the Christians and another to the Pagans. It is certain that the X was the symbol of the god Ham in Egypt, and as such was exhibited on the breast of his image{30}. Whichever view be taken, however, of Constantine's sincerity, the supposed Divine warrant for reverencing the sign of the cross entirely falls to the ground. In regard to the X, there is no doubt that, by the Christians that knew nothing of secret plots or devices, it was generally taken, as Lactantius declares, as equivalent to the name of "Christ." In this view, therefore, it had no very great attractions for the Pagans, who, even in worshipping Horus, had always been accustomed to make use of the mystic Tau or cross, as the "sign of life," or the magical charm that secured all that was good, and warded off everything that was evil. When, therefore, multitudes of the Pagans, on the conversion of Constantine, flocked into the Church, like the semi-Pagans of Egypt, they brought along with them their predilection for the old symbol. The consequence was, that in no great length of time, as apostasy proceeded, the X which in itself was not an unnatural symbol of Christ, the true messiah, and which had once been regarded as such, was allowed to go entirely into disuse, and the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah, was everywhere substituted in its stead. Thus, by the "sign of the cross," Christ has been crucified anew by those who profess to be His disciples. Now, if these things be matter of historical fact, who can wonder that, in the Romish Church, "the sign of the cross" has always and everywhere been seen to be such an instrument of rank superstition and delusion?

There is more, much more, in the rites and ceremonies of Rome that might be brought to elucidate our subject. But the above may suffice.

If the above remarks be well founded, surely it cannot be right that this sign of the cross, or emblem of Tammuz, should be used in Christian baptism. At the period of the Revolution, a Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, numbering among its members eight or ten bishops, strongly recommended that the use of the cross, as tending to superstition, should be laid aside. If such a recommendation was given then, and that by such authority as members of the Church of England must respect, how much ought that recommendation to be enforced by the new light which Providence has cast on the subject.

The Two Babylons was published originally in 1913 by A & C Black, Ltd., and reprinted in 1943 and 1959 by Loizeaux Brothers, Inc.

Endnotes

{1} From KITTO's Biblical Cyclopedia, vol. i, p. 495.

{2} From Sir W. BETHAM's Etruria, vol. i, p. 54.

{3} From BUNSEN's Egypt, vol. i, p. 450.

{4} TERTULLIAN, De Praescript. Haeret. cap. 40, vol. ii, p. 54, and Note. The language of Tertullian implies that those who were initiated by baptism in the Mysteries were marked on the forehead in the same way, as his Christian countrymen in Africa, who had begun by this time to be marked in baptism with the sign of the cross.

{5} STEPHEN's Central America, vol. ii, p. 344, Plt. 2.

{6} LAYARD's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 211; Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii, p. 446.

{7} WILKINSON's Egyptians, vol. i, 365, Plate.

{8} Ibid., vol. vi, Plate 76.

{9} PERE LAFITAN, Maeurs des Sauvages' Ameriquains, vol. i, p. 442.

{10} WILKINSON, vol. i, p. 376.

{11} CRABB's Mythology, p. 163.

{12} MAURICE's Indian Antiquities, vol. vi, p.49.

{13} PRESCOTT's Conquest of Mexico, vol. i, p. 242.

{14} From SMITH's Classical Dictionary, p.208.

{15} Asiatic Researches, vol. x, p. 124.

{16} The two at the top are Standards of Pagan barbarous nations of the East, from BRYANT's Mythology, vol. iii, p. 327. The black one in the middle, "The sacred Egyptian Tau or Sign of life," from WILKINSON, vol. v, p. 283. The two lowest are Buddhist Crosses, from Asiatic Researches, vol. x, p. 124.

{17} Review of Epistle of Dr. GENTIANUS HARVET of Louvaine, p. 251, A. The following is one of the stanzas of the above hymn in the original:--

"O crux, lignum trimphale Mundi vera salus, vale,

Inter ligna nullum tale Fronde, flore, germine."

The above was actually versified by the Romanisers in the Church of England, and published along with much besides from the same source, some years ago, in a volume entitled Devotions on the Passion. The London Record, of April, 1842, gave the following as a specimen of the "Devotions" provided by these "wolves in sheep's clothing" for members of the Church of England:--

"O faithful cross, thou peerless tree,

No forest yields the like of thee, Leaf, flower, and bud;

Sweet is the wood, and sweet the weight,

And sweet the nails that penetrate Thee, thou sweet wood."

{18} From hymn quoted at footnote {17}.

{19} TERTULLIAN, De Corona Militis, cap. iii, p. 80.

{20} WILKINSON, vol. v, pp. 283, 284.

{21} Church History, vol. ii, p. 41. Milner refers to EUSEB. Constant. xvii. But this is an error; it is De Vita Constant. lib. i, cap. 28, 29, p. 173.

{22} LACTANTIUS, De moribus Persecutorum, 44, pp. 565, 566. The exact words of Lactantius are as follows:-- "Commonitus est in quiete Constantinus, ut cæleste signum Dei notaret in scutis, atque ita prælium committeret. Fecit ut jussus est et transversâ X literâ summo capite circumflexo, Christum scrutis notat. Quo signo armatus exercitus capit ferrum."

{23} Ambrosii Opera, vol. iv, p. 327.

{24} Epistle of Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius about the proposal to restore the Pagan alter of Victory in the Roman Senate. The subject of the Labarum has been much confused through ignorance of the meaning of the word. Bryant assumes (and I was myself formerly led away by the assumption) that it was applied to the standard bearing the crescent and the cross, but he produces no evidence for the assumption; and I am now satisfied that none can be produced. The name Labarum, which is generally believed to have come from the East, treated as an Oriental word, gives forth its meaning at once. It evidently comes from Lab, "to vibrate," or "move to and fro," and âr 'to be active." Interpreted thus, Labarum signifies simply a banner or flag, "waving to and fro" in the wind, and this entirely agrees with the language of Ambrose "an ensign consecrated by the name of Christ," which implies a banner.

{25} "In this thou shalt overcome."

{26} Dr. MAITLAND's Church in the Catacombs, p.169.

{27} Apologeticus Adv. Gentes, cap. 16, vol. i, pp. 368, 369.

{28} Horæ, vol. i, pp. 226, 240.

{29} By GAVAZZI, in his publication entitled The Free Word.

{30} See WILKINSON, vol. vi, "Khem."

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Speculator

"Speculator. '4688' spekoulator (spek-oo-lat'-ore); of Latin origin; a speculator, i.e. military scout (spy or [by extension] life-guardsman): -- executioner." Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, page 66.

"Speculator, n. [L., a spy, explorer, investigator; cf. F. speculateur.] One who speculates; specif.: a. An observer; a contemplator; hence, a spy; a watcher. Obs. b. One who forms theories; a theorist. c. Com. One who speculates in business; one who engages in speculation." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 2006.

"Spekoulator ^4688^, Latin, speculator, primarily denotes "a lookout officer," or "scout," but, under the emperors, "a member of the bodyguard"; these were employed as messengers, watchers and executioners; ten such officers were attached to each legion; such a guard was employed by Herod Antipas, , RV, "a soldier of his guard" (KJV, "executioner")." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words.

"Speculator. 1555. [a. L., f. speculari.] 1. One who speculates on abstruse or uncertain matters; one who devotes himself to theoretical reasoning. 2. A watchman, sentry, or out-look, 1607. 3. One who engages in occult observations or studies-1691. 4. One who engages in commercial or financial speculation, 1778. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), page 1963.

Theory, Speculation

from Crabb's English Synonymes (1890), page 795.

"Theory, from the Greek, to behold, and Speculation, from the Latin, specto, to behold, are both employed to express what is seen with the mind's eye. Theory is the fruit of reflection, it serves the purposes of science; practice will be incomplete when the theory is false; speculation belongs more to the imagination; it has therefore less to do with reality: it is that which is rarely to be reduced to practice, and can therefore seldomer be brought to the test of experience.

Hence it arises that theory is contrasted sometimes with the practice, to designate its insufficiency to render a man complete; and speculation is put for that which is fanciful and unreal; a general who is so only in theory will acquit himself miserably in the field; a religionist who is so only in speculation will make a miserable Christian."

True Christianity depends on fact; Religion is not theory, but act. HARTE

It is amusing enough to trace the progress of a philosophical fancy let loose in airy speculation. GOLDSMITH.

Remembering the Old Ways

A Sketch of Modern Female Education

by Augustus Toplady

"From the present mode of female education, one would really imagine that the people of England were Turks, and did not believe that their daughters have souls.

"A lady of fashion, if she knows not God, usually brings up a daughter in the following style. Little miss, almost as soon as born, is (it may be) so straightened and pinched up in her dress (under pretence of giving her a fine shape), that her health, and, perhaps, her shape itself, are materially the worse for it during life.

"As succeeding weeks and months roll on, her constitution receives still farther detriment by the pernicious kindness of a too delicate and tender method of treatment. The nursery must always be over-heated in order to be well aired. Miss must never be dressed nor undressed but before a large fire. Nor have her hands and face washed but in warm milk and water, corrected with elder flowers or with a decoction of tansey. Nor on any pretence be carried, except when the sun shines, out of the house.

"At four or five years old she is taught to entertain false ideas of her own importance. Her mamma will not let her be contradicted. If she fall into a passion she must be soothed and humoured; not to say applauded as a child of spirit. If she invents a falsehood, instead of being punished as she deserves, is kissed and commended for her wit.

"By degrees she begins to consider herself as formed of more refined materials, and cast in a more elegant mould, than the generality of other people. She is struck with the love of pomp and equipage. Grows haughty and insolent to the servants. Values herself upon dress, and admires the reflection of her own face in the looking-glass.

"At six or seven years of age she looks over her papa and mamma when they play at cards; and miss has some idea of gambling, before she is thoroughly versed in A.B.C.

"In due season the care of her head is committed to a friseur; and Monsieur le Puff, fully cultivated by the milliner and the jeweller; who decorate with festoons the pyramid which the friseur has raised.--Perhaps the little pullet (shall I call her, or chicken) suddenly erects herself into a gigantic pea-hen, by tufting the pyramid with plumes half a yard high.

"But what is a superb roof without a well furnished front? swayed by this consideration, she begins to pencil her eyebrows, and to assume an artificial complexion. But let her not enamel. Let her also abstain from colouring her neck, her breast, and arms, lest she fall a martyr to white lead, and kill herself in a few months, as some ladies of fashion have done before her. That miss may be thoroughly accomplished from head to foot, the aid of a foreign dancing-master is called in. A French governess teaches her the language of that country, ere she is well mistress of her own, and perhaps points her mind with popery into the bargain. An Italian instructs her in the guitar. And a singing-master at least teaches her to squeak, if she cannot sing. She has also to attend her a monster unheard of till now, called a card-tutor, that she may know how to cheat with a genteel grace, when she goes into polite company.

"By this time I take for granted she is a perfect adept in several smaller, but not unnecessary embellishments, which the late Lord Chesterfield would have called female graces. Such as to lisp, to mince some words, and to be utterly unable to pronounce some letters, to be extremely near-sighted, to toss the fan with elegance, to manage the snuff-box according to art, to kiss a lap dog with delicacy, to languish with propriety, and be just ready on some occasions to faint away judiciously.

"And now for routes, balls, operas, public gardens, masquerades, card-parties, ridottos, and theatres. In a word, for every dissipation that can exhaust money, stifle reflection, kill time, gratify the lust of the eye, and feed the pride of life.

"Amidst all this profusion, if does not inherit what is called a great fortune, she may possibly lie upon hands, and die at last without changing her name. But if she be entitled to an opulent estate, it may sell her to some rake of distinction: and they may live together without quarrelling about three days; and prove faithful to each other for near a week. I mean she may marry a rake of distinction, if she do not previously steal a flying march to Scotland with her father's butler, or vale de chambre, or the friseur above-mentioned. In which case, the disappointed rake of distinction must hunt for a wife elsewhere.

"When the young lady becomes a mother, she gives her children an education similar to what she received from her own mamma. And thus the world goes round! Thus do unconverted people tread the same circle one after another! This is their foolishness, and their posterity praise their saying, and walk in the same steps until they drop into hell one by one. Dismal prelude to their meeting each other at Christ's left hand, in the day of judgment!

"I should have observed, in its due place, that miss would have been carried within the walls of the church a few weeks after she was born if the clergyman had not been sent for to christen her at home. She would also have gone to church on her wedding-day, but for one or other of the following circumstances. Supposing she takes a trip to Scotland, going to church on the occasion is out of the question.--And if she marry with her parents' consent, it is ten to one but that the ceremony is performed in her mamma's drawing-room, by special license. I must add that she would certainly see the inside of a church once a year (to wit, after every lying in,), if it were not the fashion among people of quality to be chambered instead of churched, by having the thanksgiving-service read in their own respective apartments. And thus, perhaps, miss never enters the house of God until, at her interment, she is carried in feet foremost." Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), pp. 608-609.

Bits and Pieces

Where is God?

"A certain philosopher once asked a Christian, 'Where is God?'--

The Christian answered,

'Let me ask of you, where is He not?'

Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 508.

Sheriff's Drug Program "just a business."

In the Winston-Salem Journal of December 17, 1998, sent to us by Robert Todd in North Carolina, an article concerning a local Sheriff brings to mind that the Law Officer that once was, no longer is. A few excerpts from the article:

"Sheriff Gerald Hege had said for several years that he hoped to use profits from the sales of his customized toys, posters and T-shirts to help Davidson County expand an anti-drug program in the schools, but he says now that his plans have changed.

"Hege has sold nearly $90,000 worth of posters, toys, statuettes, T-shirts, and mock magazine covers that have his name or image on them. The money has gone into a special account established in mid-1995. It's known as Hege's DARE fund because some of the money is spent for the DARE program in the schools, though Hege spends far more on restocking his inventory. Hege said the money in the account should be used for such things as pencils, bookmarks and balloons to reward students who graduate from the DARE program.

"County records show that Hege has spent a small percentage of the fund on these kinds of items.

"From July 1 to Dec. 9 of this year, Hege spent about $720 on DARE-related items: 800 bumper stickers, 2,000 balloons, and rent to set up booths at the Everybody's Day festival in Thomasville and at the county fair.

"Over the same time, he spent about $3,900 on Hege merchandise to sell.

"Hege said he doesn't plan to change the way he manages the account in his second term. "It's a business," he said, "you have to spend money to make money."

"Hege, who describes himself as a good marketer, said that if he tried to sell T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, "Say No to Drugs," he would sell only about four.

"But he said he can sell hundreds of T-shirts picturing him and his "spider car," the patrol car he drives that is decorated with decals of a spider on a web.

"Newly elected commissioner, Cindy Akins said, "I do not see DARE as a waste of money. If we don't get them (the youth) early, we're never going to get them."

No Cash

Due to the increased frequency of theft within the United States Postal Service, we strongly advise everyone to not send cash through the mails, to us or anyone else.

A recent News report revealed that several thieves inside and outside of the Postal System have master keys to drop-off boxes, and that approximately one billion (that's with a 'B') pieces of mail are lost each year by the Postal Service.

Temporizing

"He is a bad Christian who cuts the coat of his profession according to the fashion of the times, or the humour of the company he falls into." William Gurnall, in the year 1665.

Works before Grace

"We are apt to suppose that God is such a one as ourselves. If we wish to enjoy the patronage of a great man, we very naturally think we must say or do something that may acquire his esteem and recommend us to his notice. Thus also would we treat with God: when alas! the plain truth is, we can have, and say, and do nothing that He approves, until He Himself gives it of His free Grace and works it in us by His Spirit." Colonel Gallantin, Oct. 19, 1769.

Sincerity

"If a person was to attend the levee of an earthly prince every court day, and pay his obeisance punctually and respectfully, but at other times speak and act in opposition to his sovereign, the king would justly deem such a one a hypocrite and an enemy. Nor will a solemn and stated attendance on the means of grace in the house of God prove us to be God's children and friends if we confine our religion to the church walls, and do not devote our lips and lives to the glory of that Saviour we profess to love." Rowland Hill, Aug. 30, 1775.

Wisdom

Among men, a little science will make a great shew; but he only is wise in God's esteem who is wise unto salvation. Arrowsmith.

Putting on the Mind of Christ

"It cannot be overlooked in this important connection that He who summoned these uneducated, untaught, untrained men to His side, and to paths of Everlasting Glory, was never Himself the recipient of a single page of human learning. There is no record of a day nor an hour ever spent by the Messiah in the schools, the seminaries, or the colleges. On the contrary He has made it clear that He never listened to schoolmasters, tutors or professors. When He taught in the temple, during the feast of the tabernacles, there were those standing near Him who had come up, as He had, from Galilee, and who had known Him there from his childhood. They had seen Him daily in their midst, never in the school-room, never instructed by teachers. When, therefore, they heard for the first time His majestic sentences ring out on His startled audience they wondered, and greatly marveled amongst themselves, and finally one of them cried out:

"How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?"

His reply was decisive:

"My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me."

They had publicly proclaimed Him uneducated; that He had no knowledge of letters, having never learned. He made no contradiction; He simply pointed them to the true source of all His knowledge." THE HOLY SEPULCHER, A LAWYER'S VIEW OF THE DIVINITY OF JESUS OF NAZARETH, by former Congressman from Indiana, Daniel Wolsey Voorhees, January 9, 1897.

Issue the Thirty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Judge Quotes Scripture in Molestation Case, conclusion ...

The Philosophe...

Heroes and their Worship...

The things which are Caesar's, Part Two...

The Names and Titles of Jesus the Christ and His church

Unto Magistrates and Powers...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Judge Quotes Scripture in Molestation Case

Conclusion

by Randy Lee and John Joseph

In Issue's the Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh of The News, we presented this case to Patron's through newspaper article's supplied to us by The King's Men in Nebraska, accompanied with their actions concerning it, and our commentary.

Again, we thank The King's Men in Nebraska for sending us the concluding newspaper account, which follows. You will find our commentary on the final court decision immediately following the Associated Press report.

Washington (AP)--

The Supreme Court today refused to reinstate a child molester's prison sentence, set aside by Nebraska's highest court because a judge quoted Bible verses before imposing the man's punishment.

The justices, without comment, let stand the State court's ruling that the sentence could not stand because reasonable people might question the judge's impartiality.

In the appeal acted on today, State prosecutors said last June's ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court "will lead to extensive inquiry into the religious practices and beliefs of each individual judge in Nebraska's court system" and threaten each judge's religious freedom. Aaron Pattno pleaded guilty in Sarpy County, Neb., two years ago to sexual assault on a 13-year-old boy. Court records indicate that Pattno, 25, and the boy had been romantically involved for some time.

In ordering Pattno to serve 20 months to five years in prison, a State trial judge read a Biblical passage condemning homosexuality.

On appeal, the State Supreme Court ruled that the judge had erred. "If a judge's comments during sentencing could cause a reasonable person to question the impartiality of the judge, then the defendant has been deprived of due process and the judge has abused his or her discretion," the State Court said.

It added that, "relying on one's personal religious beliefs as a basis for a sentencing decision injects an impermissible consideration into the sentencing process."

The State Court, noting that sexual contact between consenting adults is not a crime in Nebraska, said Pattno's crime was sexual contact with a minor--not with another male. "Therefore, the Biblical scripture that the judge read was not relevant to the crime to which Pattno pled guilty.," it said.

Pattno was resentenced by another judge, who last September imposed a sentence of four years probation. By that time, Pattno had served 13 months in jail and under the original sentence had become eligible for parole.

State Attorney General Don Stenberg argued in the State's Supreme Court appeal that the first sentence should not have been set aside.

"The highest courts of other States ... have held that judicial reference to the Bible does not violate due process where the evidence in the record supports the sentence imposed," the appeal said.

"More importantly," it said, "this decision will have the effect of allowing criminal defendants (and) State prosecutors ... to investigate and inquire into a judge's religious beliefs in order to disqualify the judge or to have a conviction or sentence set aside."

The case is Nebraska vs. Pattno, 98-647

Commentary

At first sight, the decision by the Appeals Court looks as though all sanity has left American jurisprudence. That has been obvious for a long time now. But in this case, the decision is absolutely true.

If you remember from the previous articles on this case, we pointed out that the trial judge had quoted the New International Version of "the Bible," which is no better than a "restatement of the Law, much the same as the Babylonian Talmud. This being the case, the judge quoted nothing, about nothing. It was a ruse. On top of that, the Appeals Court is correct when it stated that the charges and the sentence had to do with child molestation, not homosexuality. Again, the quote, even if it had been quoted from The King James Bible, would not have applied.

But the beautiful thing about the final decision is that it shows how Babylon is so confounded, it does not see what it has done to itself. The statement by the prosecutor that, "this decision will have the effect of allowing criminal defendants (and) State prosecutors ... to investigate and inquire into a judge's religious beliefs in order to disqualify the judge or to have a conviction or sentence set aside," is absolutely true, and this is where the beauty is.

All Christians will now be able to question the religious practices of the judge. This runs very deep. The question raised will be, "how can a judge that is engaged in Humanism force his religious beliefs on the accused." More on this question in a future Issue of The News.

The Philosophe

The following is a reprint from Henry Steele Commager's book, "The Empire of Reason--How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment," written in 1978. His original footnotes ( {1} ) appear at the end of the article as "Endnotes."

Commager is a Humanist historian and author, with other books to his credit such as "The Defeat of America"; "Jefferson, Nationalism and The Enlightenment"; and "Freedom, Loyalty and Dissent."

The Term "Philosophe"

There is no satisfactory English equivalent for the term Philosophe-certainly not philosopher nor savant, nor sage, nor even that term which the French did use to designate the Philosophes, luminaries.{1} Yet the difference between philosopher and Philosophe is fundamental to an understanding of the Enlightenment. There were, to be sure, a few Philosophes who had some claim to be considered philosophers - Helvetius, perhaps, and Condorcet and Condillac, Gaetano Filangieri in Italy and Benito Feyjoo in Spain, and there were philosophers who, by our standards, must be counted among the Philosophes: Hume and Bentham, Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant among them.

The distinction between the two (we cannot say the two corps or fellowships, because the philosophers did not constitute a corps, though the Philosophes did),{2} is clear enough, but it emerges not from analysis or from definition, but from interpretation and description. The philosopher was a scholar, a savant, one who devoted himself single-mindedly to the search for Truth which was both universal and permanent. The Philosophe was interested chiefly in those truths which might be useful, here and now. The philosopher was preoccupied with the mind and the soul of the individual, and with great questions of theology and morality; the Philosophe was more concerned with society than with the individual, and with institutions than with ideas. Where the philosopher constructed systems, the Philosophe formulated programs. The ideal philosopher was something of a recluse-Kant is the symbol here-but the Philosophe was (not always in Scotland, or Germany) a man of the world, eager to enlighten, to change, to reform, even to subvert, and ready to take an active part in each of these enterprises. The worst fate that could befall a Philosophe would be exile or debarment from the drama that so fascinated him: imagine Voltaire a recluse, imagine Diderot silenced, imagine Franklin restricted to philosophical speculations, or Tom Paine confined to one country!

While many of the Philosophes were prepared to fashion political systems--or Utopias--they were not very interested in moral systems. What distinguished them everywhere was a commitment to the immediate and the practical--government, law, the penal code, censorship, slavery, religious bigotry. They believed ardently in posterity, but were not prepared to wait for it: Patience was not one of their virtues.

They were not interested in philosophy, and theology most of them (though not all) found a waste of time. They were Natural Philosophers-what we call scientists--and worshipped at the altar of Newton: A passion for astronomy, mathematics, botany, geology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, and medicine seems to have been their distinctive common denominator. They were educators, and they helped lay the foundations for modern education at every level from Pestalozzi and his kindergarten to Munchausen at Obuingen and Jefferson at the University of Virginia. They were revolutionaries prepared to subvert many of the institutions of society, and reformers ready to reconstruct society on rational lines. They were rationalists and Deists, hostile almost everywhere to revealed religion and to the ecclesiastical institutions which sustained it. They were humanitarians: They crusaded for the end of the debtor's prison, the galleys and the stake, the end of slavery, of torture, and of the Inquisition. They were-all of them-men of letters: the Duke of Gloucester could have addressed them collectively with his famous expostulation; Scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon, for all of them scribbled incessantly, and the twentieth-century mind boggles at the sheer volume of writing of busy men like a von Haller, a Voltaire, a Diderot, a Priestley, a Goethe, a Jefferson. They were citizens of the world, at home in a half dozen countries: French was their language and Paris their capital (though not for the Americans), but for art they looked to the ancient world, for music to Italy, for philosophy to England and Scotland, for government and law to England, for freedom to Holland, for morality to America, and for their ideal commonwealth to China, which they invented.

They were statesmen, too, but--to use John Adams's phrase--in posse rather than in esse. They yearned to play an active part in the affairs of government. They wrote elaborately on both the spirit and the substance of the laws and attached themselves, somewhat indiscriminately, to sovereigns they thought enlightened, or whom they hoped to enlighten. Thus, Voltaire rejoiced, for a time, in the company of Frederick the Great, and Diderot basked in the favor of the Semiramis of the North; Sonnenfels faithfully served Joseph II, and Struensee betrayed Christian VII; the American Count Rumford was the alter ego of the Elector of Bavaria and Pedro Campomanes attached himself to Carlos Ill of Spain, while Goethe was content to overshadow the Duke of Weimar. Only in America did the Philosophes have the happiness to be kings in their own right.

All of this might have added up to a political and a social philosophy, but the Philosophes had neither the desire nor the patience to do the addition: of the major figures only Vico and Montesquieu--both of whom belong to an earlier era--and Hume and Kant wrote formal philosophical treatises, and of these only The Spirit of the Laws had any significant influence on events or institutions. Even the American Philosophes, who did play an active role in public affairs, dashed off their political treatises only under pressure: thus Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, thus Adams's Defense of the Constitutions, thus even the Federalist Papers, originally not a political treatise but a journalistic tour de force.

-------------------------

The most elaborate of contemporary interpretations of the term Philosophe can be read in the various versions of an essay, Le Philosophe, published first in 1743 in a volume, Nouvelles Libertes de penser, and written (in all likelihood) by an obscure pamphleteer Cesar Dumarsais. This was reprinted, with variations, by Diderot in volume XII of the Encyclopedie,{3} elaborated by Voltaire in various versions of the Dictionnaire Philosopheque, and reprinted frequently thereafter. It is the Diderot version in the Encyclopedie that is, for our purposes, central, both because of the authority it derived from Diderot's sponsorship and because through the Encyclopedie it reached if not the largest, then the most distinguished audience.

'We should,' wrote Diderot (let us assign it to him for convenience), 'have a larger and more accurate conception [une idee plus vaste et plus juste] of the Philosophe,' and he proceeded to provide it. It is sufficient here to note some of the more perspicacious observations, and we can begin with the most famous of all: 'Reason is to the Philosophe what grace is to the Christian.'

Let us listen to some of the others{4}:

'The Philosophe is a clock which, so to speak, sometimes winds itself.'

'A Philosophe, even in moments of passion, acts only after reflection; he walks through the night but is preceded by a torch.'

'Your Philosophe does not think he lives in exile in this world. He does not believe himself to be in enemy territory. He is an honnete homme ...who wishes to render himself useful.'

'The temperament of the Philosophe is to act out of a feeling for Order and Reason....He is kneaded, so to speak, with the leaven of rule and of order....He is suffused with concern for the good of civil society, and he understands its principles better than other men.'

'Wickedness is as alien to the idea of a Philosophe, as is stupidity, and all experience shows us that the more rational and enlightened a man is, the more suited he is for the business of life.'

'Graft a sovereign onto a Philosophe of this character, and you will get a ruler who is perfect.'

Himself perhaps the most nearly perfect example of the Philosophe, Diderot returned to description and definition again and again; nowhere did he catch the public character of the Philosophe more incisively than in his Essay on the Reigns of Claudius and Nero{5}:

"The magistrate deals out justice; the Philosophe teaches the magistrate what is just and unjust. The soldier defends his country; the Philosophe teaches the soldier what his fatherland is. The priest recommends to his people the love and respect of the Gods; the Philosophe teaches the priest what the Gods are. The sovereign commands all; the Philosophe teaches the sovereign the origins and limits of his authority. Every man has duties to his family and his society; the Philosophe teaches every one what those duties are. Man is exposed to misfortune and pain; the Philosophe teaches man how to suffer."

The Philosophe was a 'citizen of the world,' not just of France, and one could compile a substantial anthology of European commentary on the term. Thus, Edward Gibbon, himself perhaps more of an erudite than a Philosophe, comparing the two in his youthful Essay on the Study of Literature (1761){6} paid tribute to the Philosophe:

"He weighs, combines, doubts and decides. Exact and impartial he yields only to Reason, or to that authority which is the rationale of facts (e.g., drawn from experience)....Ready and fertile in resources, he has no deceitful cunning; he is willing to sacrifice the most brilliant and specious theory and does not make his authors speak the language of his own conjectures. A Friend to Truth, he seeks only for those kinds of proof appropriate to his subject and with them he is content...Far from being satisfied with barren admiration, he dives into the most obscure recesses of the human heart to obtain a satisfactory explanation of his likes and dislikes. Modest and sensible he does not display his conjectures as truths, his inductions as facts, his probabilities as demonstrations."

In Naples, Gaetano Filangieri, who had created a Science of Legislation, wrote that a Philosophe "should not be an inventor of systems but an apostle of truth." It is his duty "to preach the truth, to sustain it, to promote it, and to illustrate it" for "he is a citizen of all places and ages, and has the whole world for his country and earth itself for his school, and Posterity will be his disciples."{7} Goethe-it was in his Dichtung und Wahrheit--was reminiscent rather than analytical.

Everyone, he recalled, "was now entitled not only to philosophize, but little by little to esteem himself a Philosopher. Philosophy, too, was taken to be common sense, more or less sound, which ventured to enter upon the Universal and to contradict inner and outer experiences....And so, at last, philosophers were to be found in all the faculties."{8}

"Falling back on Horace for his definition, Kant put it more succinctly than the others of his era: "Sapere Aude (Dare to think) that is the motto of the Enlightenment." It was, by implication, the definition of the Philosophe as well: one who dared to think.

"Needless to say, the Philosophes did not have things their own way when it came to definition or interpretation. The anonymous author of Les Choses comme-il-faut les Voir,{9} defined the Philosophe as 'an impertinent fellow behind whom lurked a bad man. In our own interests,' he added, 'we ought to drive out of society anyone who has the effrontery to bear the name.' And the irrepressible Horace Walpole wrote from Paris in 1765:

"Do you know who the Philosophes are, what the term means here? In the first place it comprehends almost everybody, and in the next means men who, vowing war against popery, aim at a subversion of all religion, and still many more at the destruction of regal power."

And he added that the Philosophes were 'insupportable, superficial, overbearing, and fanatical. They preach incessantly.'{10}

Curiously enough the distinction between the philosopher and the Philosophe is more appropriate to the American than to the Old World Enlightenment. For America had no philosophers, not after Jonathan Edwards, anyway, or--if you are amiable in your judgment--James Logan of Philadelphia or Cadwallader Colden of New York or Professor John Winthrop of Cambridge, but it was generously and even lavishly endowed with Philosophes. And what we have remarked of the Philosophes in general, was peculiarly true of the American variety: They were men of action rather than of reflection, launching a revolution (a successful one, too), drawing up Constitutions, drafting Bills of Rights, founding new commonwealths, and enlarging a new nation.

"The American Philosophes did not differ markedly in their thinking from their Old World associates. They too exalted Reason and worshipped at the altar of Liberty; they too cultivated the natural sciences and worked for a more humane society; they too were cosmopolitans. But there were differences, and these illuminated the larger differences between the Old World and the New World Enlightenment. Consider some of these.

"First there is a difference in time. We can date the Old World Enlightenment from the founding of the Royal Society in 1661, or perhaps from the publication of Newton's Principia in 1687. It died in the Terror. The American Enlightenment came half a century later--we can date it with some assurance from the founding of the American Philosophical Society in 1741. It lasted until well into the new century and it is permissible to draw down the curtain on it with the dramatic deaths of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1826. The delay and prolongation of the Enlightenment in America was not just a matter of cultural lag; it was, too, a tribute to the elementary fact that in America there was no Terror, no Thermidor, and no counterrevolution to bring the Enlightenment to a dusty climax. Here the Enlightenment blended gently into romanticism.

"Second, where in the Old World the Philosophes tended to be a class apart, a distinct and self-conscious element in society, almost a clique, in the New they were drawn from the rank and file of the people, and worked and lived with the people. They were not erudites, for the New nation had no erudites; they were not aristocrats not even aristocrats manque for there were no aristocrats: if you were a Benjamin Thompson yearning for rank, you went to Europe to become Count Rumford. They did not cultivate monarchs, but denounced them; they did not gather in salons--that came only in the new century; they did not have their own gazettes and journals, or launch their own encyclopedias, but imported these from abroad. They were lawyers and doctors, farmers and planters, merchants and clergymen; they drew strength from each other but more from the people they represented. They did not use the words Philosophe or Philosopher; the distinction of "Doctor" Franklin was about as far as they were prepared to go in the recognition of a special status, and that title was not commonly used for others.

"A third distinction between Old World and New Philosophes was in the realm of religion and morals. Of all the major American Philosophes, only Tom Paine--who was after all English--felt compelled to make an issue of his hostility to traditional Christianity, and that ruined him even with most of his fellow philosophers. Deists like Franklin and Jefferson had no trouble in reconciling their private skepticism with public orthodoxy, and a good many of them--Benjamin Rush and David Rittenhouse come to mind--were devout. Nor did the American Philosophe think himself exempted from the standards of conventional morality: How shocked John Adams was at the harmless flirtations of Dr. Franklin, and John Laurens at the immoralities of London. How shocked was even the sophisticated Jefferson at the wide-ranging amours of his French and English friends: That was the chief reason he advised against sending young men abroad for an education.{11} The connection between Enlightenment and libertinage, so familiar in France was, if not wholly unknown, then unacknowledged in America.

"This suggests a fourth distinction--that the American Enlightenment owed less to France than did the European. Franklin, to be sure, adored the French and Jefferson adored France, but when they went to France they went as masters, not as disciples. Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, Turgot, the Encyclopedistes--these meant nothing to the American Philosophes, or meant at best some convenient intellectual window dressing, and if Montesquieu was a name to conjure with, he was just a name: It was, after all, the Americans themselves who invented a true separation of powers. This is not to say that the American Philosophes were provincial; they were deeply immersed in English antecedents for their philosophy, and in the literature and history of Greece and Rome. It is interesting that the ancient world contributed more to the American than to the French Revolution.

"This independence dramatizes a fifth difference between Old World and New Philosophes, and one with far-reaching implications. The Old World Enlightenment was urban. Paris was its capital, but London and Edinburgh, Geneva and Amsterdam, Berlin and Hamburg, Naples and Milan--these were provincial capitals, which sometimes rivaled Paris. The Americans, to be sure, had no capital cities, though Philadelphia was rapidly becoming another Edinburgh or, perhaps, Weimar. Franklin was very urban, and so, too, Hamilton (whose credentials as a Philosophe were dubious), but the great majority of the American philosophers shared Jefferson's passion for the simple and virtuous life of the husbandman: During the whole of the American Enlightenment, every President was a countryman. All this was greatly to enhance the romantic element of the American Enlightenment.

"The predominantly rural character of the American Enlightenment accounts in part for a sixth distinction: the meager role that economics played in the thought of the American Philosophes. Jefferson, to be sure, was committed to agrarianism, and he read both the Physiocrats and the Ideologues,{12} but the commitment, one feels, was more moral than economic. Hamilton, like so many of his Old World contemporaries, thought in terms of economic nationalism and developed an American form of mercantilism, but he was the exception who dramatizes the American rule, for he was neither a Philosophe nor, for that matter, an American--not in his thinking anyway. The New World produced statesmen and jurists who could hold their own with the Old, but it produced no Adam Smith, no Bentham, no Turgot, no Johann Struensee, no Antonio Genovesi. It managed, instead, to do what the Old World Enlightenment was unable to do: It successfully combined mercantilism and physiocracy.

"A seventh--and doubtless the most important--difference between Old and New World Philosophes was one with which we are by now familiar: that the American Philosophe did not need to embark upon those crusades which engaged the energies of almost all the European, and was therefore free to follow his own. He was not called upon to uproot ancient abuses (always except for slavery, which he was unable to eradicate) or to topple a ruling class, to end feudalism, to wipe out the Infamy, to oust the Jesuits, to abolish the Inquisition. He could devote himself to activities that were constructive and productive, and that had a very good chance of being realized. Like his Old World associates he was engaged in a crusade, but it was a positive, not a negative, crusade. That is one reason why the literature of the American Enlightenment--except where it is almost ritualistically denouncing British tyranny and corruption--is so different from the literature of the French or the Italian. If the American Enlightenment produced no Candide, no Nathan the Wise, no On Crimes and Punishments, the European produced no Federalist Papers.

"Another reason for the difference in the literature of the two Enlightenments was the absence of any censorship in America. The American Philosophes did not have to be everlastingly on guard against the censorship of the State, the Church, and the University; they did not have to take refuge in evasion and subterfuge; they did not need to flee to some convenient Geneva or Amsterdam to escape imprisonment--or worse. Nor did they need to invent mythical Persian or Chinese visitors, or imagine Utopias on the Moon, or under the ground, or in Tahiti or the Andes, as a way of criticizing existing institutions. They could write boldly; they could attack the King, the Church, property--whatever they would--without fear of reprisal.

"Finally, the American Philosophes were not required to struggle against the Establishment: They were the Establishment. They did not wear out their hearts, or their lives, in futile efforts to overthrow the wrongs and tyrannies of the past; they could address themselves to building a future. They did not need to accustom themselves to failure, hoping that Posterity would vindicate them; they could take success for granted, and be confident that Posterity would remember them gratefully--as indeed it has. As they did not construct Utopias because America was itself Utopia, so they did not write treatises on Happiness or on Progress, confident that these could be taken for granted.

Endnotes

{1} Oddly enough there is no substantial monograph on the Philosophes, though all of the major treatises on the Enlightenment inevitably deal with them. Most perceptive is no doubt Peter Gay's first volume, The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism (N.Y. 1966). But see also Will Durant, Age of Voltaire, Ch. 28 (N.Y., 1965). Herbert Dieckmann's, Le Philosophe is largely textual analysis, see below, n. 3. There are a number of anthologies of Enlightenment literature which illuminate the character of the Philosophe. Thus, Peter Gay, ed., The Enlightenment (N.Y., 1973); Lester Crocker, ed., The Age of Enlightenment (N.Y., 1969); Isaiah Berlin, Age Of Enlightenment (N.Y., 1956); Norman Torrey, ed., Les Philosophes (N.Y., 1960). Better yet are biographies of the leading Philosophes such as Diderot, Voltaire, Helvetius, the Baron d'Holbach, d'Alembert, Hume, Beccaria, and others, all far too numerous to list here.

{2}[Peter Gay has assigned the word "family" to the Philosophes, see Ch. 1 of The Enlightenment, Vol. 1.

{3} For an analysis of Le Philosophe, a discussion of authorship, and a printing of some of the texts, see Herbert Dieckmann, Le Philosophe: Texts and Interpretations, Washington University Studies in Language and Literature, Vol. 18 (St. Louis, 1948).

{4} For an English translation of the article in the Encyclopedie, see N. S. Hoyt and T. Cassirer, eds., The Encyclopedie (Indianapolis, 1965). I have modified some of the translations.

{5} This quote can be found in Gay, Enlightenment, at 14.

{6} The Essay on the Study of Literature was originally written in French. It can be found in trans. in John L. Sheffield, ed., Miscellaneous Works of Edward Gibbon I (1837), 643.

{7} See Gay, Enlightenment, Vol.1, 129.

{8} See trans. by Parke Godwin N.Y., 1850), Bk. VII, 57.

{9} Qt. in Marius Roustan, Pioneers of the French Revolution (Boston, 1926), 19.

{10} To H. S. Conway, 28 October 1765, in Letters, IV, 427, ed., Peter Cunningham (1906).

{11} See the famous letter to John Bannister, 15 October 1785, in VIII Boyd, ed., 635.

{12} See Gilbert Chinard, Jefferson et les Ideologues (Baltimore, 1925).

Heroes and their Worship

written solely by the Grace of God

through Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour,

by John Joseph

We were bandying around subjects at the close of the year, and this one seemed to be one that really needed to be addressed this year. With the cheers and accolades heaped upon home-run hitters, the Sunday morning football games, Saturday morning cartoons with its "super-heroes," and seeming and professing Christians participating in these various theatres of Caesar's entertainment, it is no wonder that the church, in the eyes of the world, has become irrelevant, not just impotent. The is symptomatic of Christ's church has not necessarily forgotten and aside their first Love but has taken on a new lover while trying to please her True Lover. Israel was reproved time and again for having played the harlot, and God chastised them for such practice:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." 1 Corinthians 10:11-12.

Is this what Christ had intended for His church? Have Christians become so enamoured with the world to have cast off their first Love? I cannot answer these questions about every man, for it is a fact I do not know the hearts of any one man, much less my own. But I do know this: Our Lord is not pleased because His Law in Scripture no where condones this activity. In fact, it is condemned. This is evident when we read in Revelation about the church at Laodicea:

We should know and understand our God, His Son, His Spirit, and contrast them with the heroes of the world. We cannot turn to the theologian for he has no answers to this question, and we would be going to hearsay to find the answers God has already given us in His Word. We invoke what is called the "best evidence rule"--introduce the best evidence from the Author of that evidence. Hearsay is not the best evidence, especially in matters of such great importance.

We know that God is True in all ways in all things and there is no thing or issue in which He has not already given us His Truth:

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb." Psalm 19:7-10.

The Law is True because the Giver of it is True:

"Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." Deuteronomy 32:3 & 4.

Because of this we read the last words of Christ Jesus on the cross:

"Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth." Psalm 31:5.

Now that we know Who our God is, the next step is to find out what He has done for us, for we, in and of our selves, know not how to please God. Brother Ezekiel writes:

"Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations. And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite and thy mother an Hittite. And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee; but thou was cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born." Ezekiel 16:1-5.

This was the state of the church before Christ. His church was not washed in the blood of Christ, nor was it salted with the Word of God. No one of the world pitied the church or any one in and of the Body of Christ. The church was "fair game" "in the field." This is not the end, however.

Brother Ezekiel elaborates,

"And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when you was in thy blood, Live. I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and tou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare." Ezekiel 16:6-7.

You grew up into a fair maiden after I took you from the world, cleaned you from the ways of the world, and salted you with My Word and Ways. But God has yet done more:

"Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk." Ezekiel 16:8-10.

Notice here that Israel, who is now Christ's church, was brought under the covering of God solely by His Grace and favour, not by any of their own worthy or works. When we are brought under the covering of a tent, for example, we cannot see outside the tent, except through the Door of Christ. Does one bring an enemy into his house? Hezekiah was reproved for doing this, and so the Israelites went into Babylon. Note that when one is brought into the house a covenant must be reached. We see here that nothing is possible without God, and Christ testified to and verified the same. Christ's church did not clean itself of its blood and did not anoint itself with oil. Notice how the church is dressed and Who provided all these ornaments. Christ's church did not provide these for itself. Out of Love for His church did and does He provide for His church. The church has no unconditioned vested right in these ornaments however. They are given to His church on condition of the terms of the covenant God has established with it through Christ Jesus.

He gave us His Statutes, Judgments, Precepts, Ordinances, Commandments, to cover us and separate us from the ways of the world. This was finest embroidered work of the finest materials available, a work that all the world envied. All of our infirmities were covered and He entered into a covenant with us so we would have His Protection; and He anointed us to be able to execute His Judgments against and upon the heathen world. We once walked with our feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of Truth revealed in His Son and given to us in His Grace and Mercy.

"I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD." Ezekiel 16:11-14.

In Law, Fact and Deed, we in and of His church, were the most beautiful of all His Works. We had prosperity such as no nation any where on earth enjoyed. And our reputation was known throughout the world and went before us wherever we sojourned that this we were people that keeps covenant with our God. We were made perfect through our being unattracted by the ways of the world, with which God had blessed us.

No invention of man was ever clothed with such fine ornaments and raiment. His church is the envy of the world. This is why the church needs the Protection of its Beloved, because the world preys on His seemingly defenseless church. Brother David tells us that,

"He [*the wicked] hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten: he hideth His face: he will never see it." Psalm 10:11.

The wicked however, know not the ways of our God,

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.

and so would never understand,

"For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.Jeremiah 16:17.
"There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." Job 34:22.

Is there any place the church can hide when it fails to Love its Beloved?

His church was and is known of all the nations of the world. The world had never seen a Work such as this, and set itself to imitating it. When it could not imitate it, it set itself to amalgamating itself to it--incorporation. Philosophy, sophisms, reason, and vain deceit were the tools used to make this amalgamation as painless and undiscoverable as possible. Now what happened to His church? Did His church maintain that betrothal relationship He had covenanted with them? Brother Ezekiel unfolds yet more to us:

"But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, And tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them. My meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet savour: and thus it was, saith the Lord God. Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood. And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, (woe, woe unto thee! saith the Lord God;) That thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place, and hast made thee an high place in every street. Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms. Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger. Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way. Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied. Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith. How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord God, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman; In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! They give gifts to all whores: but thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them, that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom. Ezekiel 16:15-33

When you trust in your own beauty, you do not trust the Giver of that beauty. You are worshipping the creature more than the creator, Who is Blessed forever. See Brother Paul's discourse in Romans 1.

The things which are Caesar's

Part Two

by Randy Lee

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

As we pointed out last month, rendering unto Caesar is the exclusive business and activity of the disciples of the Pharasees (Matthew 22:16-22). Accordingly, those who do so become the disciple partaking of Caesar's world and his cursed tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The result of partaking of the fruit of that tree is the same today as it was earlier -- "thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:17).

We were all given, by the Grace of God, the opportunity of no longer partaking of that tree. The door back to the Garden and the Tree of Life was shut to Adam and his sons who live in the flesh (Genesis 3:24), but was re-opened--the veil being removed--through the Sacred Office of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ for those who love Him and continually wait on Him. But to Rightfully partake of that Office, we must first understand what love is, and the continuation in Him of it:

"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10
"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25

Consider the illustration by Michael Paul: McClinton below. Caesar welcomes you into his world--his world where private tombstones are reserved for the faithless according to their favorite benefits.

For Caesar to retain his self-created life, the things of his world must be continually attached to you, much like a mistletoe living off of a live tree. If it is detached, it dies. Just as the mistletoe has no life of its own separate from the living tree, Caesar becomes lifeless when the children of God detach themselves from that world, in and through Christ Jesus, for His Glory and Honor:

"And when He saw a fig tree in the way, He came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." Matthew 21:19-22

To avoid the things of Caesar we must first go the Word of God to understand what things are of Caesar. Though his name is not always specifically mentioned, we must look to the Spirit of the Word for guidance.

Contracts

Entering into contracts within Caesar's world is the downfall of most. All contracts are on Caesar's terms, in whatever form, are forbidden, for all promises are to be with God only. All others lead to destruction, and are to be avoided at all times:

"A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend." Proverbs 17:18
"He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretyship is sure." Proverbs 11:15

Our Brother Peter warns us of that dead-end road that leads to destruction for those who partake of an ungodly government and who look to the promises of men:

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:9-22

Real Estate Contracts

Real estate is a military/commercial creation of Caesar. It is only a "grant" of land to the subject, from the master:

"The feudal system originated in the relations of a military chieftain and his followers, or king and nobles, or lord and vassals, and especially their relations as determined by the bond established by a grant of land from the former to the latter. From this it grew into a complete and intricate complex of rules for the tenure and transmission of real estate, and of correlated duties and services.." Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed., 1979), page 560. [Emphasis in original].

When engaged with real estate, you can only expect equitable interest in the land, not ownership under the Lordship of Jesus, the Christ. In all purchases of real estate, only Caesar's fictitious creations can be used for the transaction, not Lawful coin:

"Equitable interest in contract.--While one's contract for the purchase of land, on which he has made payments, and under which he has taken possession, gives him an equitable interest in the land, on which he may give a real estate mortgage, his interest in the contract may be the subject of pledge. Ringling v. Smith River Dev. Co., 48 Mont. 467, 138 P. 1098.], such as an accepted bill of exchange [Cornwell v. Baldwin's Bank, 12 App.Div. 227, 43 N.Y.S. 771.], a promissory note [Wright v. Ross, 36 Cal. 414; Hall v. Page. 4 Ga. 428, 48 Am.D. 235; Mechanics, etc., Nat. Bank v. Pingree, 40 Ida. 118, 232 P. 5, 8 (cit. 31 Cyc.); Central Missouri Trust Co. v. Smith, 213 Mo. A. 106, 247 S.W. 241; Brown v. James, 80 Neb. 475, 114 N.W. 591; Polhemus v. Prudential Realty Corp., 74 N.J.L. 570, 67 A. 303; Rogers v. Sipley, 35 N.J.L. 86."

Until the status of God's land is re-established to its proper place by His children, the current status under Caesar, which Judge Henry Clay Dean exposed to us in 1868, will remain:

"Then he exacts an income tax upon every man who can make a thousand dollars per annum; this is to strike the young and thrifty classes, just entering upon active life, oftentimes with parents and invalid relatives to support. From him five percent is exacted. Slight taxes are imposed upon gross amusements, all to feed the greater vices of life.
Just here the tax list ends, as it reaches the mortgagor, the bondholder who owns the mortgage remainder of the real estate, and received the tax lists, stamp duties, excise and tariffs, to pay up the interests accruing upon the mortgage notes."

Next month, we will further examine "the things which are Caesar's," and the possible ways to avoid them.

The Names and Titles of Jesus, the Christ

Adam. I Corinthians 15:45

Alpha and Omega. Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13

Angel. Isaiah 63:9; Malachi 3:1

Anointed. Psalm 2:2; 45:7

Author and Finisher of our Faith. Hebrews. 12:2

Beginning of the Creation of God. Revelation 3:14

Beloved. Song of Solomon 1:13; Ephesians 1:6

Blessed. 1 Timothy 6:15

Bread of Life. John 6:48, 51

Bright and Morning Star. Revelation 22:16

Captain. Hebrews 2:10

Child. Isaiah 9:6

Christ. Matthew 1:16; 2:4

Covenant. Isaiah 42:6

Covert. Isaiah 32:2

David. Jeremiah. 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24, 25; Hosea 3:5

Day star. 2 Peter 1:19

Desire of all Nations. Haggai 2:7

Diadem. Isaiah 62:3

Eagle. Deuteronomy 32:11

Emmanuel. Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23

Express Image. Hebrews 1:3

Feeder. Isaiah 40:11

Firstfruits. 1 Corinthians 15:23

Prophet. Luke 4:19; Acts 3:22

Power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24

Physician. Matthew 9:12

Prince of Life. Acts 3:15

Ransom. 1 Timothy 2:6

Redeemer. Isaiah 59:20; 60:16

Refiner. Malachi 3:3

Rock. 1 Corinthians 10:4

Root of David. Revelation 22:16

Sanctification. 1 Corinthians 1:30

Seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2:16

Second Man. 1 Corinthians 15;47

Shiloh. Genesis 49:10

Son of man. Matthew 8:20

Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16

Spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45; Hebrews 9:14

Sun of Righteousness. Malachi 4:2

Teacher. John 3:2

The Christ. Matthew 16:16; John 1:41

The Word made flesh. John 1:14

Truth. John 14:6

Way. Isaiah 35:8; John 14:6

Witness. Revelation 1:5; 3:14

Worthy. Hebrews 3:3; Revelation 5:12

Advocate. I John 2:1

Amen. Revelation 3:14

Ancient of Days. Daniel 7:22

Apostle. Hebrews 3:1

Babe. Luke 2:16

Begotten of the Father. John 1:14

Bishop. 1 Peter 2:25

Branch of Righteousness. Zechariah 3:8

Bridegroom. Matthew 9:15

Brightness of the Fathers Glory. Hebrews 1:3

Chief Corner Stone. Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7

Chosen. Matthew 12:18; Luke 23:35

Consolation of Israel. Luke 2:25

Counsellor. Isaiah 9:6

Creator. Isaiah 43:15

Daysman. Job 9:33

Deliverer. Romans 11:26

Dew. Hosea 14:5

Door of the Sheep. John 10:7

Elect. Isaiah 42:1

Everlasting Father. Isaiah 9:6

Faithful Witness. Revelation 1:5; 3:14; 19:11

First begotten. Revelation 1:5

First and Last. Revelation 2:8

Propitiation. 1 John 2:2; 4:10

Purifier. Matthew 3:3

Priest. Hebrews 4:14; 7:26

Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Reaper. Revelation 14:15

Resurrection. John 11:25

Righteousness. Jeremiah 23:6

Rod and Branch. Isaiah 11:1

Ruler in Israel. Micah 5:2

Saviour of the world. John 4:42

Seed of David. 2 Timothy 2:8

Servant. Isaiah 42;1, 19; 44:21

Son of God. Matthew 4:3; 8:29

Son of the Blessed. Mark 14:61

Sower. Matthew 13:3

Stone refused. Matthew 21:42

Surety. Hebrews 7:22

Testator. Hebrews 9:16, 17

The Christ of God. Luke 9:20

The Word of God. Revelation 19:13

Vine. John 15:1

Wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24

Wonderful. Isaiah 9:6; 28:29

Unto Magistrates and Powers

by Robert Eugene

The following is a letter recently written to us by our brother in Christ, Robert Eugene, now sojourning in central Maine. We hope that it will edify and inspire you, as it has us.

Greetings to all in and by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

I was served a UNIFORM SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT for "timber theft" (civil violation) on the land that I occupy for my Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. When I refused to give my signature for "timber theft," the Ranger gave me another COMPLAINT for refusal to sign the USAC (criminal violation).

The Scripture teaches that "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." When the Ranger and deputy Sheriff came to give me the USAC, I told them I was a husbandman and that I was exercising husbandry, even though some call me the "land baron." A baron is a husbandman. I told them truthfully that I harvest only standing dead and blow downs, and that I built our house from blow downs.

Perhaps that was my first mistake, because I've heard that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Being as it may, I abated the ranger and judge, and their USAC and COMPLAINT. After they had refused the abatements via Registered mail, I had a friend serve them. At Default Judgment time, I again had my friend serve them, and I went with him. But this time they had set a trap. The ranger had the local police and seven other rangers waiting to arrest me on "failure to appear." At any rate, he was served.

They arrested me on the fourth day of the week, believing that four days in jail would intimidate me to succumb to "legal" process. They were wrong.

I have never had the "privilege" of being in the local county jail in the four years since I moved here, although I have had the "privilege" elsewhere. I am very familiar with their so-called "procedure," and this time it went as follows:

Question: What is your name?

Answer: Robert Eugene, spelled in proper English.

Q.: What is your birthday?

A.: I'm not sure.

Q.: What do you mean?

A.: Well, I was non compos mentis at the time.

Q.: What state were you born in, a literal state of all-knowing?

A.: No. ( he then said "no, is right.").

Q.: So, what state were you born in?

A.: Well, the Gospel according to John begins, "In the beginning was the Word." If you or I do not understand the meaning of "the Word," we can not discourse.

Q.: Where do you reside?

A.: I sojourn, and remain a sojourner.

Q.: Where is your house?

A.: Oh, I do stay from time to time at a dwelling house.

Q.: Is there a road nearby?

A.: Yes, Shirley Road.

He then said, "very well, sign here." I said, "it's impossible for me to do that, because there is a Proverb eleven, fifteen that says He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it. I told who I am, and you still refuse to write my name in proper English. I have no choice but to refuse to become surety for a persona."

By this time, they were beginning to realize that I was not cooperating to their advantage. In the holding tank, one of the officers stated that, "unless you sign, we won't give you any cloths." My reply was, "thank you anyway, I like what I have on."

Knowing from previous experience that they would not be bringing me before the judge until the second day of the following week, I decided to refuse all food and water offered to me. The only drawback to this was that I had only had a bowl of rice to start the morning off with, and nothing to drink with it (after about the second day into my fast, I was thinking that I should have taken up my friend David's offer on a sandwich for lunch).

Knowing they could hold me for thirty days on extradition to Hawaii for a previous probation violation, I had no choice but to fast. After about the third day of refusing to eat and drink, they became a little concerned--not for me--but for themselves.

On the second day of the week, after having made me walk from the jail to the courtroom, just before we got there, the jailer began to take off my fetters. I told him that if he took the fetters off, I was not going to volunteer into the courtroom, but rather volunteer out the front door. He left them on.

Then, in comes the prosecutor, and the first thing out of his mouth was, "are you Mr. Crane?" My answer was, "absolutely not." This really got us off to a good start, because he never spoke to me again.

As the jailer walked me into the courtroom and sat me down with all of the other sheep, the bailiff and prosecutor came out of the judge's chamber, and bailiff stated that they weren't ready for my case yet. I knew this would happened from previous experience.

On the way out of the courtroom, the deputy Sheriff (who was with the ranger the day they arrested me) is standing there and said to me, "they're not ready yet." I told him, "yes, they wouldn't slaughter me before the other sheep. They might catch on." I can only suppose that they could see the danger in exposing the lie before a class from the High school that was in attendance that day.

As a side note, this particular deputy Sheriff is a part time preacher, and a member of the local Masonic Lodge. I never really told you previously what I was up against here. For starters, all of the sheriffs in the County Sheriff's Department here meet at the Lodge. Outside of the towns here in New England, where the signs say "Incorporated in," there is a sign that says "Freemasonry accepted." I've been all over the country and have never seen such signs.

The county clerk of twenty-six years here is more than likely an Eastern Star. She will probably not change the way things are done, or make any exceptions. You might remember in Pilgram's Progress, that when when Faith and Christian come to cross the river to get to the gate of the Kingdom, Christian keeps going under, but Faith gets them both across, so it is also by faith in this part of the woods.

Back to being in vinculus.

During this time of being moved about, Richard and David, my only two witnesses were explaining to the high schoolers about the gold fringed flag and telling them to have their teacher take them to the law library downstairs to look up the definition of "name," etc. While this was going on, the prosecutor repeated asked David and Richard, "What is his name? -- Is it Robert Eugene Crane? Is it Robert E. Crane Jr.? What's his name?" David kept saying, "ask him." Richard told him, "he served a Non-Statutory Abatement; go read it."

The prosecutor asked them if they knew long long I would go without food and water. Richard said to him, "you better get a body bag."

One of the last times they came and asked me if I wanted to eat, I answered by telling them that the Scripture teaches me that all things are made possible through Jesus' name, but if they couldn't understand that, perhaps they would understand what Patrick Henry meant when he said, "give me liberty or give me death." The jailer said, "oh yea, I've heard that." I told him that perhaps then he could understand my position by what Christ Jesus meant when he told us that He was sent into the world, but is not of the world.

This amazed them, as it did me also.

Being brought back into court, my mouth was very dry. So, thinking to myself, I had four words of thought. "Keep your mouth shut!" Doing so will retain more moisture.

When they brought me before the judge, he was already seated. The prosecutor was at his table. But they didn't bring within the bar. They put me behind the railing on a bench, like a spectator. There were plenty of seats within the bar. But I didn't get one. They never invited me to walk through the gate. I really felt left out.

The judge proceeded:

"In the matter of Robert Eugene Crane--failure to appear on a UNIFORM SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT for timber theft and refusal to sign a USAC. How do you plead, Mr. Crane?"

I remained silent, knowing that if I answer to "Mr. Crane," I would waive all defects in their process.

He continued, "Are you going to say anything?"

Now, a Christian can never prepare for one of these "appearances," because one does not know how it will go for sure. Christ Jesus tells us "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." (Luke twelve, eleven and twelve). This is so True!!

I answered straight away, "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold (Proverbs twenty-two, one), and for the record my name is Robert Eugene spelled with an upper case "R," lower case "obert," upper case "E," lower case "ugene." The court is wherever I am without dishonor to the praetorium and without dishonor to the praetor, whom I believe to be Kevin Stithiam [the judge]. The praetorium being the county court, Mark fifteen, sixteen, and the praetor being the judge, Bouvier's Law Dictionary."

The judge continued, "How do you plead?"

I replied, "I plead in the Name of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ."

He could only say, "In the matter of timber theft, a civil violation, I have defaulted Mr. Crane in favor of Mr. Holtworth [prosecutor] in the amount of five hundred [and some odd dollars], and I fine you one hundred dollars for failure to appear--payment being deferred until such time as recognized by the court [or something to that effect]. In the matter of refusing to sign a USAC, if you should choose to plead guilty the fine will be a hundred dollars."

I said, "dollars of what?" I knew that I should never, never, do this, but I couldn't resist.

Ignoring my remark, he continued, "If you should choose to plead not-guilty, a Class ...... [something or another] is three hundred sixty-four days in jail, a Class ..... [something or another] is sixty days in jail, etc. Seeing that you refused the lawyer that we sent over to you, how do you plead?"

I thought on this one a moment, thinking I need some food for thought here. I answered, "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever."

They all remained silent for a moment, and at this point I was really beginning to be lead by the Spirit. I had just finished listening to the tapes you had sent to me, and the word "truth' was stuck in my forehead. I again began to speak, "you should all know that there are three things that constitute truth, and I'm sure that this man can tell you what they are [pointing to the prosecutor]."

When I had said this, the judge looked up and his face changed from white to ruddy red. I continued, "First; is the thought consistant? Second; does it conform to reality? And third; is there verification of it?"

I felt that I was doing very well at this point. I had full attention of everyone in the courtroom; you could of heard a pin drop! I continued, "Genesis one, one. Moses wrote it, Almighty God inspired it. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Also in Genesis, God blew the breathed into man and called them Adam, them being plural, meaning all men. And in the Gospel according to John,--In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made, John, chapter one, verse one through three. And at John three, sixteen--For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. And John one, four and five tells us--In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

"Now," I said, "the Word teaches us that Christ said, I am Alpha and Omega, Alpha being the first letter of the Greek alphabet and Omega being the last letter." "Well then," I said, "God created the heaven and the earth, God blows the breath of life into man, God creates everything between--day and night, the fowls of the air, the fishes of the sea--and had God blown the breathe of life into me, I would not be able to give breath to sound the letters and compound these letters into words so that we might have the opportunity to communicate; but if we are not in common unity, we cannot communicate, but rather, we can only discourse, and only presume what the other is saying."

At this point, I was just going for it, thinking he was going to cut me off at any moment. He didn't, so I continued, "The prophet Isaiah wrote that those that speak not unto the laws and testimony, there is no truth in them. Now, is the thought consistent? I would so from the beginning to the end. Does it conform to reality? I can't think of a better explanation of where my breath comes from. And is there verification of it? Yes (I said, waiving my Bible), it is right here in Scripture which is the Supreme Law of the Land, and he that denies it commits blasphemy."

Still, with no interruptions, I continued, "Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth--("there is that word truth again," I said)--but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world--("that's with a lower case 'g' on god," I said)--in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, Who is the image of Almighty God, should shine unto them."

At this point, my mouth was so dry I could barely speak. After a long pause, the judge said, "I will enter a plea of not guilty setting the date for February the 22nd at 8:30 in Superior Court, asking for a jury trial. Do you understand what I have told you?"

I said, "No. It is strange and foreign to my venue."

The judge then asked the prosecutor, "How long has this man been in jail?" The prosecutor answered, "Why don't you ask him?" So, the judge asked me, "How long have you been in jail?" I said, "From what I can see, it appears that there are two shifts in a day, and I have counted eight shifts since the time I was brought in, so I can only presume that I have been in jail for four days."

"Okay," the judge said, "court has been set; Mr. Crane is free to go. Being that you have refused to sign anything, do you still refuse to sign out?" I replied, "I cannot sign anything." The judge then said, "He is free to go, and he doesn't have to sign."

The Sheriffs looked like they were all in shock. So was I. To this day, it is still all cloudy and obscure to me. I still wonder if what I said meant anything to them.

They took me back to the jail and Sheriff told them I was free to go. The jailer, looking for the release papers, told me that I needed to sign out. The Sheriff told him that the paperwork was on the way, but the judge said I didn't have to sign them. The jailer said, "What, he doesn't have to sign." The Sheriff replied, "I guess not. That's it, I guess."

Earlier this summer, I worked very hard on study, especially on the word "renounce." There are two ways to abate something, or renounce something. One is in writing, but if that fails or is ignored, you will be tested because you will then have to declare the Word in Scripture, by and through your mouth. I have learned through the above experience to be ready at all times, and always have a closing statement in case you have the opportunity to use it.

I still have many questions on how I did, and what the outcome will be.

There were some things that were asked at some point in the proceedings, and I probably would have best been silent on these. I was asked what school I had attended. I told them I was "home-schooled." Other questions that I should have stayed silent on were: the judge asked why I failed to appear. I said that I did "appear" by Non-Statutory Abatement.

After my closing statement quoting Second Corinthians four, one through four, I told the judge that, "I claim the land which I possess and occupy in the Name of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, that I am a husbandman practising husbandry, and that I only harvested standing dead trees to cook with and give heat to my five wonderful children and my Christian wife, and if that be a crime, then so be it."

When I came home, I went to pick to pick up my mail matter in a little town that is nearer to us than where I was picking up general delivery at that time, thinking that they would hold the mail matter for at least thirty days. When I went there, the postal lady had sent it back. Her and her husband, the Postmaster, and I had quite a discourse, but she just kept saying, "Why can't you be just like everybody else?" "You use to have an address." "Why can't you be just like everybody else?"

My answer will always be "I am not like everybody else!!" Do they presume evil? Yes!, because they are evil men, and soil is rocky up here. You know what happens to seed that falls upon rocky soil, don't you?

Thank you so much for the great fellowship on the phone, and God Bless!!

P.S.-- 'ship,' as a suffix, denotes state and condition (fellowship)--the state and condition of fellow brethren in Christ.

I know that you all must run into the same resistance concerning many of the things talked about, trying to tell the so-called Christians about these truths. I seem to find mostly tares, not wheat. All I can think about is Proverbs six, nine "How long wilt though sleep, O sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?"

The fellowship is thin up here. God Bless. Robert Eugene

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Abide

"The Greek word for abide is meno. The papyri as well as the New Testament usage is best seen by dividing it with reference to place, time, and condition. With reference to place, it means to tarry as a guest, to lodge, to sojourn, maintain unbroken fellowship. With reference to time, it means to continue to be, to endure, to survive. With reference to condition, it means to remain as one is.

In the Septuagint there are no less than sixteen Hebrew words used for the Greek meno. The principal ones are: (1) yasab, meaning to live in, to dwell, to sit down; (2) amad, meaning to stand; (3) qum, meaning to rise; and (4) lin, meaning to lodge, tarry, dwell, spend the night. A few Septuagint examples will suffice: "let the maiden remain with us" (Genesis 24:55); "behold, the plague remains [stands or is checked] before him" (Leviticus 13:5); "but the counsel of the Lord remains [stands or rises up] forever" (Proverbs 19:21). Other Old Testament usages are "to stand fast in battle" or "to abide by a conviction."

In the New Testament the verb is used both transitively and intransitively. The transitive usage means to await, be in store for, withstand or endure (cf. Jeremiah 10:10; Malachi 3:2; Acts 20:23; Hebrews 13:14). The intransitive sense is to continue in a place or state in which one now is, to reside, to last, especially in the face of trial (cf. Luke 8:27; Acts 27:31; John 15:5; 1 Corinthuians 3:14). The word is used in composition with at least nine prepositions in the New Testament.

Meno is used around 118 times, especially by the apostle John, where there are 40 occurrences in the Gospel and 26 occurrences in the Epistles. John 15 provides an excellent example of how John uses the word. On the way to Gethsemane, Christ taught the disciples the imperative need of remaining in Him by using the figure of the vine and branches. With the vine, the organic union with the trunk means life for the branches. This speaks of the essential union that must exist between Christ and believers. In 15:4 we have a divine imperative when Jesus said, "Abide in Me." Of course, there is a distinction between the natural order and the spiritual. The natural branch does not exercise its own will to choose whether or not to abide in the vine. It either remains in the vine or dies; but in the spiritual sense there is a definite act of the will on the disciple's part. The sense of urgency can be seen in the Savior's imperative statement meinate en emoi. This immediately shows any disciple that there is responsibility on his part. Jesus' simple statement is true that in Him there is fruitbearing but without Him there is barrenness (15:5). This sense of dependency is found throughout the New Testament. Christ had taught earlier of a mutual responsibility which describes a true and genuine relationship (6:56; 15:4). The Master not only sustains life so as to produce fruitful branches, but He is also the very source and origin of life (1:3).

In the First Epistle of John the author speaks of this vital union with Christ by the words "in Him remaining" (2:5). This expression is similar to Paul's thought en Christo einai. By the end of the first century, with the second coming so long delayed, this vital relationship of "abiding in Christ" needed to be interpreted in terms of long duration rather than tarrying for a short time. So today, this abiding is the pulse beat of the believer." Robert Unmack, Professor of New Testament, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Kansas.

Bibliography. A. Murray, Abide in Christ and Absolute Surrender; E. Best, One Body in Christ; F. Godet, Gospel of John, II; R. H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel ICC; J. H. Bernard, Gospel According to St. John, II; A. E. Brooke, Johannine Epistles.

Remembering the Old Ways

The Roman World, Yesterday and Today

The following is from The Early Church (pages 26-30), written by George Hodges in 1915.

The Roman religion pervaded all the affairs of business. Not only were the transactions of exchange and barter, the occupations of industry, and the administration of law, conducted in the language of religion, under the patronage of the gods, but it touched all manner of employment. With its shrines and temples and images and liturgies, it engaged the services of the mason, the carpenter, the blacksmith, the goldsmith, the weaver, the dyer, the embroiderer, the musician, the sculptor and the painter. The schoolmaster gave instruction in its sacred books. Sowing and reaping depended on it. War waited for it. In a time when fighting was considered a normal part of the life of man, and the army was the most important institution of the State, the site of every camp was marked by the shrines of the soldiers, and the captains consulted the will of heaven before going into battle. When they were victorious, they all joined in a public thanksgiving to the gods. Religion entered into every department of civil life. Nobody in the employ of the government could possibly evade it. Every office had its sacred image. Every oath was taken in the name of the gods. Every senator as he entered the Senate-house cast grains of incense into the fire which smouldered before the statue of Victory.

The ancient religion included in its province all kinds of social pleasure. Its well-filled calendar abounded in festivals, which called the people together for processions and sacred feasts, with lighting of lanterns and decoration of house-doors with wreaths. To it were consecrated the theatre and the amphitheater, and the plays and games were offered to the gods, like the sacrifices on the alters, as a vital part of religion; the idea being that the gods were as much interested in athletic sports as men.

To break with the Roman religion was thus to sever one's self from almost the entire round of social life. Even in the epistles of St. Paul we see what possible compromises might be involved in accepting an invitation to dinner, the meat of which might have been offered to an idol. What could a Christian do in those cities where there was an image of a god at every corner of the street, and where the entrance into every shop and market, into every employment, industrial, civil or military, and into every kind of amusement, was through some sort of pagan rite? The Christians stood apart from the common life. They were considered by their perplexed neighbors to be enemies of society.

And this religion was not only inclusive and pervasive, but it was of obligation. The emperor was the official head of it, and was himself divine among the gods. The political value of such a doctrine is evident enough, and it did not seriously offend men in those days when even the greatest of the gods were hardly more than human beings magnified, and when a god could be welcomed into Rome, or else expelled, by an act of the Senate. The emperor was the embodiment of the empire. The worship of the emperor, which consisted of burning incense before his statue, was a declaration of allegiance. Among the many and various religions, East and West, over all the local and provincial cults, this was the one universal creed. Otherwise, one might select and reject; Rome was tolerant of all religious differences; the only limit to religious liberty was the law which forbade men, in the zeal of there own creed, to deride or assault their differing neighbors. But the emperor must be worshipped by every man: that was imperative. To refuse this worship exposed the Christian to the charge of conspiracy or treachery against the State.

It was in the midst of such a world--political, social and religious--that Christianity appeared, a strange, unparalleled and menacing phenomenon. The world received it with instinctive enmity. The church was compelled to struggle for its life.

At home, among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, the Christians were met with immediate hostility. They were put out of the synagogues, and worse punishments were visited upon them.

In the Roman world, they were at first treated with contempt and aversion, and then persecuted. The persecution increased from attacks on individuals and groups to concerted municipal and even imperial action against the Christian society. Twice the government made an organized attempt to destroy the obnoxious Christians.

That Christianity should have been thus received in the Roman world is remarkable, because one of the most notable characteristics of the church was its benevolence, and one of the most marked characteristics of the empire was its tolerance.

The church remembered the social precepts and example of Jesus Christ. His constant emphasis on the supreme value of brotherly love--extended not only to the least of human creatures, but even to the most hostile--set the note of the ideal life.

Bits and Pieces

Enumeration

Robert Mallett, Deputy Secretary of The Department of Commerce, and a lawyer of course, recently stated in an interview on C-Span, that the "year 2000" census will cost taxpayers approximately 5 billion dollars, being about $20 each to "enumerate" every man, woman and child in the U. S.

He said that the Federal Government is commanded to take the census by "that document that we all love," the Constitution. If that is the case, and they follow all of the commands of the Constitution, why is it that the States are not prohibited from accepting non-gold and silver coin as a tender in payment of debts (see Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1). Could it be that the Constitution has become arbitrary and capricious? Surprise!!!

Additionally, he stated that in the 1990 census, only 67% of the census-by-mail forms were responded to by the "persons" required to do so. Hallalujah!!!

When asked, he refused to explain why the Census Bureau is part of The Commerce Department, but did reveal that, "taking the census is an enterprise," and that all of the "enumerators" (those "persons" taking the census) are agents "in the field" (see the military implications of "in the field" in Issue the Sixteenth, page eleven).

Keep in mind that when you become part of the census, you are numbered for service in Caesar's military tabernacle, the service being whatever he decides.

For those that don't want to participate in his military operations of social engineering and the grid system, being in general delivery is where you want to be.

If you are confronted by one of his "enumerators," the simple reply is, "there are no persons that reside here." That is a truth for sojourning Christians.

Babylon Realized

The most revealing fact produced by "the Clinton impeachment" is how the reasoning of the Philosophes has developed into the normalization of depravity and confusion within America's Roman Imperial State. Those men and women of the modern Tower of Babel (The Capitol Dome) cannot see the forest, for the trees--cannot see their depravity and confusion, for the darkness of their vain imaginations, devices, and reasonable excuses:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:18-22

Corporation Soul-less

"'They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls.'--10 Rep. 32 b. [Recent cases have decided that an action will lie at the suit of or against a corporation for a libel]. Whitfield v. Southeastern Railway Company, 27 L.J.Q.B. 229. Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Company v. Hawkins, 28 L.J.Exch. 201." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 67

[By the Grace of God, we will do a study of the implications concerning the corporation having no soul, in a future Issue of The News].

Babylon's Lifegivers

Commerce. n. "A kind of transaction in which A plunders from B the goods of C, and for compensation B picks the pocket of D of money belonging to E."

Corporation. n. "An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."

Debt. n. "An ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slave-driver." The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, pp. 23, 25, and 28.

Caesar's Retinue

Patriot. n. "One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors."

Patriotism. n. "Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary, patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first." The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, page 98.

The L's of Modern Jurisprudence

Lawful. adj. "Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction."

Lawyer. n. "One skilled in circumvention of the law."

Litigant. n. "A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones."

Litigation. n. "A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage." The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, pp. 75 and 78.

Global Government

"The Global Forum on Reinventing Government" hosted by "The National Partnership for Reinventing Government" was held at the State Department in D. C. on 1/14/99. Attended by nations from all over the world, its slogan was:

"Partnership for Economic Success"

Its main speaker, Al Gore, first thanked The World Bank and The Brookings Institute for their contributions, and then went on to say:

"The Governments of the World are no longer on the Gold Standard; they are now on the Information Standard. We must do away with the old ways of governance and welcome the new era of customer service to the citizen in a way that will further develop Global Cooperation."

Jenny Shipley, Prime Minister of New Zealand noted that:

"Democracy is: A contract between our people the voters, and their Government."

Satan's Implements

Philosophy. n. "A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."

Religion. n. "A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."

Reason. v. "To weigh probabilities in the scales of desire."

Reasonable. adj. "Accessible to the infection of our own opinions. Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion and evasion." The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, pp. 99 and 107-109.

Issue the Thirty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Early church, Part One...

Non-Statutory Habeas Corpus...

The things of Caesar, Part Three...

The Mystery of 666, Part One...

Romans 13, Submitting to Authority...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Early church

Part One

by Daniel Wendell

We welcome for the first time the edifying work of our Brother Daniel Wendell. He is a current and founding member of The Christian Jural Society, Los Angeles county First House of Delegates.

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?... Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets... But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God... Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matthew xvi, 13b-17.

One of the most important questions in the early church was this one put to Peter by our Lord. Reading primary source documents from the first four centuries of the church will bear this out. Peter did not shy away from this question with false humility, answering "how could I presume to say whom thou art?" Instead his response was quick and certain. To reprove the opinions of those in darkness, the church boldly declared who Christ was, Is, and ever shall be. (Hebrews xiii, 8).

In a study of the early church, I found that I preferred reading the words of her contemporaries (who may have opposed, merely described, or ostensibly sided with the church, or who were themselves Christians) above reading an historian's characterization of them. I would like to present excerpts from many of these documents so that the reader might gain a historical context, as well as insight into the devotion, beliefs, customs and integrity of the early church, as expressed in her own words and the words of others, be they Emperors, historians or bureaucrats. In examining the doctrine of the groups whom attacked the church, and more often our Lord, we see the patent vanity of assenting to Christ in any way short of acknowledging His Deity and Lordship. In examining the reproof, by the church, of the ubiquitous "profane and vain babblings" (1 Timothy vi, 20) we see sublime wisdom from the Spirit of the Lord. With this context we're more able to avoid a pragmatic interpretation of Scripture arising from the tendency to project our contemporary culture's views and prejudices onto the word of God.

We cannot look at these early times romantically, though, thinking all was well with the church, freshly taught by our Lord and His apostles, not yet having lost her first love, correct in practice, a perfect model, or template, to which we must mold our lives and fellowship exactly. The problems found in the early church are problems in the soul of man; therefore they're found in the church in every age. Yet this early church, with tares sewn in its midst, was guided through formidable attacks, physical and polemical, by the stern rebuke and comforting hand of her gracious Saviour; "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee . . ." (Revelation ii, 4) and through the guidance of the Comforter; "He shall teach you all things" (John xiv, 26).

When the church brings forth God's wisdom, in any century, she sheds light upon the land, and darkness eventually dissolves. In this process, though, many great sacrifices are made. An examination of the writings from ancient times brings forth in vivid detail how the bold declaration of the deity of our Lord brought about persecution and philosophers. These were, and are, essential tools of the enemy whose main ambition was, and is, to bring confusion in the matter of the all important question, "Whom say ye that I am?" And in this battle we see the lamp of truth and love carried forth by the church to cultures drowning in superstition and fear.

It goes without saying that, first of all, a grounding in Scripture itself gives one the standard by which all truth or falsity is measured in reading these non-canonical documents. My examination of the first four centuries will follow a thread (i.e., the question "But whom say ye that I am?") woven into the tapestry of His church's early history. A thread which becomes a threefold cord not quickly broken (Ecclesiates iv, 12). I will sidetrack to other subjects which demand attention, though, (e.g., the early church's condemnation of abortion). But before the attack of the philosophers, let's read the words of those, the likes of whom our Lord encountered in Herod, branding him a crafty and cruel enemy of God's innocent servants by naming him a "fox" (Luke xiii, 32). In their words we see that Rome is still the same today, as are her bureaucrats.

Although Christianity is a bane to superstition, the ironical fact is that Rome considered the early church a "foreign superstition." (Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 32). They accused early Christians of being atheists because they wouldn't acknowledge the Roman gods. With blasphemous hatred, early anti-Christian graffiti depicted an ass nailed to a cross. "...Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome...." (c. A. D. 52), Zuetonius, Vita Claudii, xxv. 4, See also, Acts xviii, 2. (This is likely a reference to quarrels between Jew and Christian teachers concerning "Chrestus," i.e., "Christ").

Christians were so hated that they were blamed for the great fire of Rome in the summer of A.D. 64. Tacitus records: "But all the endeavors of men, all the emperor's largesse and the propitiations of the gods, did not suffice to allay the scandal or banish the belief that the fire had been ordered. And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians" ... (A second century Christian Athenagoras writes, "Three things are alleged against us; atheism, Thyestean feasts, Oedipodean intercourse." Athenagoras, Legatlo pro Christianis, iii). "...Christus, [Tacitus continues] from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judaea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome, that receptacle for everything that is sordid and degrading from every quarter of the globe, which there finds a following. Accordingly, arrest was first made of those who confessed (to being Christians); then, on their evidence, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as because of hatred of the human race. Besides being put to death they were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beasts and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even towards men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to gratify the cruelty of an individual." Annales, xv. 44.

Pliny the Younger (writer and bureaucrat) records his obsequious words concerning his dealings with Christians (circa A. D. 112) to the Emperor Trajan:

"Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death.... All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose together with the statues of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do... They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ. But they declared that the sum of their guilt or error had amounted only to this, that on an appointed day they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the commission of any crime but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, and breach of faith, and not to deny a deposit when it was claimed. After the conclusion of this ceremony it was their custom to depart and meet again to take food; but it was ordinary and harmless food, and they had ceased this practice after my edict in which, in accordance with your orders, I had forbidden secret societies. I thought it the more necessary, therefore, to find out what truth there was in this by applying torture to two maidservants, who were called deaconesses... Footnote: (A deaconess might be appointed as young as for years of age, so should not be confused with "widow presbyters," mentioned in I Tim. v, 9, who were to have attained the age of sixty years. Bettenson writing in A. D. 1947 footnotes Pliny as follows: "This is the last reference to 'deaconesses' until the fourth century, when they attained some importance in the East. They seem to have been unknown in the West until the recent establishment of the office in the Anglican Church.") ...But I found nothing but a depraved and extravagant superstition, and I therefore postponed my examination and had recourse to you for consultation.... The contagion of this superstition has spread not only in the cities, but in the villages and rural districts as well; yet it seems capable of being checked and set right. There is no shadow of doubt that the temples, which have been almost deserted, are beginning to be frequented once more, that the sacred rites which have been long neglected are being renewed, and that sacrificial victims are for sale everywhere, (the economy is good) whereas, till recently, a buyer was rarely to be found. From this it is easy to imagine what a host of men could be set right, were they given a chance of recantation." Epp. X (ad Traj.), xcvi.

I'm sure it's not lost upon the reader that besides being given a testimony to the commitment and sacrifice of these Christians, who gave their lives proving their authentic faith, incidentally, we're given a rare glimpse by eyewitnesses of an ancient Christian worship service in which the office of deaconess is extant, and entering into covenants is an important part.

Trajan's reply to Pliny was that he had taken the right line and that Christians are not to be sought out; "...if they are informed against, and the charge is proved, they are to be punished, with this reservation--that if anyone denies that he is a Christian, and actually proves it, that is by worshiping our gods, he shall be pardoned as a result of his recantation, however suspect he may have been with respect to the past. Pamphlets published anonymously should carry no weight in any charge whatsoever. They constitute a very bad precedent, and are also out of keeping with this age." Trajan to Pliny (Plin. Epp. X. xcvii). (The preceding quotes from Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, and Trajan were taken from: "Documents of the Christian Church." Bettenson, Oxford University Press, 1947.

What was this radical belief that turned the world upside down? The earliest statement of belief of the church was communicated discretely in the presence of this persecution. It found expression in a simply drawn symbol of the fish consisting of two intersecting curved lines. When two would meet one might draw half the symbol upon the ground with the foot. The other, to show like belief, would complete the drawing. The Greek acronym "IXThUS" (meaning 'fish') derives from the first letters of this early and succinct statement of belief: "Iesous Xristos Theos Uios Soter." "Jesus Christ God's Son Saviour."

Besides the physical attack upon believers there was also the constant attack upon their beliefs. One of the earliest heretical groups the church opposed were the Docetics. They taught that Christ was a mere phantasm who had not been born in the flesh (cf. John i, 14). They claimed that when he walked he left no footprints, and only appeared to suffer and die on the cross. The "profane and vain babblings" put forth by Hymeneus and Philetus, "those which say they are apostles," show that the beginnings of Gnosticism existed very early in Ephesus. Teaching that "...the resurrection is past already; and overthrow(ing) the faith of some." (2 Timothy ii, 16-18 & Revelation ii, 2).

It should be no surprise that the church in her infancy was attacked on all sides by the author of confusion. His great hope was to raise the head of Gnosticism as rival to God's church, i.e., God's "out called ones" (ecclesia). Paul Elmer More paints a vivid picture of the philosophical environment of the first century (cf. Col. ii, 8), giving us a glimpse of the beast arising fresh from the seeming victory of bruising the heel of the seed of the woman (Genesis iii, 15):

"The birth of what is properly called Gnosticism, if it had any single source, may with some plausibility be found in the imposition of the Zoroastrian religion of Ormazd and Ahriman on the astrological science of Babylon. Into this combination would then enter the Syrian belief in the Great Mother, fragments of the Jewish law and story of creation, confused memories of Platonism and Pythagoreanism, and other myths and mysteries from Egypt which were blowing over the Mediterranean world like chaff in a windstorm. Mingle these in varying proportions, and then add elements stolen from the Christian scheme of salvation and distorted so as to blend into the pagan background, and you have what is probably the most extraordinary example of religious syncretism in the whole range of history. Gnosticism was not a simple phenomenon, but resembled the polycephalic monster of Plato, with its ring of heads of all manner of beasts, tame and wild, which it was able to generate and metamorphose at will." Paul Elmer More.

In the next installment on this issue I will examine the incipient form of Gnosticism Paul dealt with at Ephesus. We will also look at the Docetic sect, which John warned against in II John vii, and the angel worship invading the church at Colossæ which Paul reproved by his astonishing Christology of Colossians i and ii.

Non-Statutory Habeas Corpus

presented by John Joseph

(Footnotes are located at the end of this article)

Below is a sample non-statutory habeas corpus solely for the use of Christ's church. Alter as needed to suit the particular parties, Brothers held in restraint of their Liberty in Christ, dates, times, etc. You, solely, are responsible for the use of this declaration and discussion. This must be altered to suit your particular circumstances. Do not use the footnotes. They are strictly for your edification and to show you the Scriptural references used to make this Non-Statutory habeas corpus possible. Do not use this particular action if you are unsure of the acts of the person for whom you will do this particular action. In other words, do not use this action if you know the person is guilty by the Judgment of God against the act(s) complained of. The Warrant in Law for doing this habeas corpus is the following:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.{1}

Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.{2}

But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.{3}

Direct your answer to:

<Your Christian Name>: Surname [optional], suae potestate esse,

suae potestate esse

et Uxor

[(or if Unmarried, in Coverture)<Your Father's Christian Name>: Surname [optional], suae potestate esse,

or<Your next of male kin's Christian Name>: Surname [optional], suae potestate esse,]

in general delivery

county court,

<Your Christian Name>, suae potestate esse,

Demandant,

against

<Agent's Name>

Defendant.

) Case Number:__________________

( Part One:

) Non-Statutory habeas corpus:

(

) Dated: The sixth day of the second

( month in the year of Our Sovereign

) Lord and Savior, Jesus, the Christ,

( Nineteen Hundred and ninety-nine:

By <Your Christian Name>, suae potestate esse:

Greetings and Salutations from our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ{4}, and my Self, His anointed Ministerial Officer, solely by the Grace of God from, in and through Jesus, the Christ, by His Direction, Will and commands, precepts{5}, judgments{6}, ordinances{7}, statutes{8}, and testimonies set forth in His Writ, and under Lawful Warrant of the same:

In the Matter of the forceful taking of our Brother sans Lawful Warrant in Law established by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.

Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom these Presents come and do Concern that:

Declaration:

At or around the twenty-second hour on or about the twenty-fifth day of the second month in the nineteen hundred ninety-ninth Year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, some men of the CITY OF POLICE DEPARTMENT forcefully took our Brother , one of several anointed ministers of our Sovereign Lord Christ Jesus, in the execution of our King's Law, sans Lawful Warrant in Law originating in and from our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, vesting or authorizing them with any such Authority to do the same. Said acts are against the Peace, Dignity and Majesty of our Great King and His church, and thereby jeopardize the longevity and life of this state, for the Law of God and the law of the land are one and both favour and preserve the common good of the land{9}, le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre so that those who do not preserve the law of the land then justly incur the ineffaceable brand of infamy{10}, legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt, for it is written, Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes{11}:

Discussion:

Firstly, it is written, The first and great commandment in the Law is Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment{12}; and, And the second is like this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself{13}: there is none other commandment greater than these and upon these two hang all the Law, so that these are the only duties of all men every where and at all times, all religions and traditions of men not with standing, for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God{14}; and again it is written, Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father{15}, so that whatever is not done in faithfulness to and Love of and for Christ Jesus is an offense against Him for it is written, for whatsoever is not of faith is sin{16}, and it is written, sin is the transgression of the Law{17}, and it is written, the wages of sin is death, codes, rules and regulations of STATE OF or CITY OF not with standing in Law, because it is written, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me{18}, and again it is written Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me{19} and there is no presumption in Law that any man is ever forgetful of his eternal welfare, and mere moral restraint is not sufficient in Law to arrest, detain, or keep a Brother of ours in custody; and,

Secondly, it is written, our brother{20} and our neighbor is he who does the will of God our Father{21}--not the will of a group of men in assembly creating a new god and form of worship of it--in fullness of faith to and through the saving Atonement of God's Judgment upon all men without the Body of Christ, by Christ Jesus for all Judgment hath been committed to the Son by the Father{22} philosophy, reason and traditions of men related thereto not with standing{23}; and all Power in Heaven and in Earth has been committed to the Son{24}, assumptions, presumptions, and usurpations of authority and power by men not with standing{25}, thereby leaving no Lawful Power to Judge or Dispense Law to any man or group of men in assembly not evidencing any Delegation of Authority originating in Him and whosoever does not love his neighbor and his brother offends our Sovereign King and His Law for love is the fulfilling of the Law{26}; and,

Thirdly, because Christ Jesus overcame the world and all things of the world{27}, and His church sanctified by and in Him{28}, abide{29}, live, move, have their being{30} in and sojourn with Him{31}, Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life{32}, all that is outside of Him is criminal in esse and are lies and death because it is written, Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him{33} and men are not to add codes, rules and regulations unto His words, lest He reprove them, and they be found a liar making lies{34} and casting stumblingblocks before the blind contrary to Law, for it is written, Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD{35}; so that where no man can do any act unless it be Lawful, and where there is no Lawful authority to create, there is no Lawful act that follows such creations and there is no Lawful command to obey them, for it is written, my son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not{36}; and, it is said elsewhere that mere statement and restatement of a doctrine--the mere repetition of the cantilena of the lawyers--cannot make it law, unless it can be traced to some competent authority, that said competent authority is solely in Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour for the precepts of our Saviour have a weight which gives them a decided superiority over every thing else, codes, rules and regulations of the STATE OF and CITY OF not with standing; and,

Fourthly, it is written, God, our Father, suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; saying Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm{37}, so that any person, or assembly of persons, who purports to act in Law shall lay, evidence, and prove lineage of their Office to the Tree of Life in and of Christ Jesus, for without such lineage there is no Warrant of Authority in Law, and the acts committed are un-Lawful{38}, codified religion or morality of men not with standing in Law, for it is written, And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it{39}; and,

Fifthly, there is no Law commanding the living to join themselves with and to the dead, for it is written, He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days; and, Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him{40} so that because the corporation known as THE STATE OF and THE CITY OF and their numerous facades, masquerades, and disguises, have no soul{41} they are dead in Law, for physical life is not related to a life in Law, for it is written, she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth{42}; our Brother having never joined himself to the dead, or those things dead, in Law, accusations, assumptions, conjectures, opinions, presumptions, speculations and suppositions of men not with standing; but, the men who have joined themselves to these dead in Law entities have made themselves unclean and dead having cast the Law of God behind them by hating His instruction, and having not been cleansed by the Cleansing and Living Waters of Separation flowing from and through Christ Jesus, and their purported witness of any alleged act is dead and nugatory for it is written, the dead know not any thing{43}, and it is written To the Law and the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them{44}, for Christ Jesus is the Light of the World{45} and is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth{46}, codes, rules and regulations not with standing; and they are insane{47}, loving death more than life, for it is written, they that hate me love death{48}; and they know not what is righteous and evil having rebelled against our Lawgiver, for it is written, unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee{49}; so that they are in a miserable condition, being given over to a reprobate mind for it is written, And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient{50}; heeding the lies of fables, philosophy, vain words, and commandments of men, for it is written, Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight; Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!{51} that turn from the Truth in Christ Jesus{52} for well did Christ Jesus prophesy to us, They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service{53} And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me{54}, because they are the children of disobedience{55}; and,

Sixthly, any men who purportedly make or work for such an entity dead in Law evidence the fact that they are like the thing they make or trust in for it is written, Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them{56} and so they are the natural man who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God{57}, who are under the Judgment of God{58} by Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord, being His enemy for it is written, whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God{59} and again it is written, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him{60}; and when the enemy of God in Christ Jesus, then he is the enemy of His church and state; and any one under a judgment lacks Lawful Authority to create any law that binds those living in Christ Jesus to them, for it is written, God is a God of the living, not of the dead{61}; and,

Seventhly, there is no separation of ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictions any where in this state, for it is written, And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites; for Christ's church is above all and is to direct all those who are of the seed of the bondwoman to Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, and the foundation of all Law is Christ Jesus for it is written, Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain{62} and For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ{63}, all codes, rules and regulations of the STATE OF and CITY OF not with standing in Law; and again it is written, Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit{64}, so that ignorance of the Law is no excuse for it is written, For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse{65} and again it is written, For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily{66} so that God's Law is general Law and not private statute made by the vain imaginations and babblings of men after the rudiments of the world{67} and that turn from the Truth in Christ Jesus{68}, so that the lex non scripta constituting the lex et consuetudo regni is the lex fori and governs all in this court because it is written, After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people{69} and, again it is written, The law of his God is in his heart{70} not in codes, rules, and regulations of the STATE OF or CITY OF ; and,

Eighthly, all things created by the natural man cannot be trespassed against because they have no soul, for it is written, God is a God of the living, not of the dead; and because they have no soul cannot be made in the Image and Likeness of God our Father; and they can possess no Right inherited through Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour; and cannot evidence any lineage traceable to the Tree of Life, for it is written, They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off{71}; so that it is safe not to obey him who has no right{72}, jus non habenti tute non paretur; and,

Ninthly, all men are counseled never to touch the unclean thing nor to serve other gods, i.e., STATE OF or CITY OF , for it is written, After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances{73}; and it is written, adjudged and decreed, If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage{74}, and again it is written, no man can serve two masters{75} so that Christ's church and our Brother remain in Truth sojourning in and with Him, for it is written, Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God{76}; and,

Wherefore all acts done by any man under the assumption, presumption, pretence, or usurpation of Authority in Christ's church by any man, or men in assembly, being dead in Law are without Authority in and of Law and our Brother , who is not in the custody of the reeve of this shire, must be discharged from the unlawful custody of the dead in Law COUNTY OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, for no process having Authority and Warrant in Law ever issued to Lawfully arrest, forcefully take into, or hold in, custody; or, take charge of or over him; and,

Therefore, we pray that our Brother be set at Liberty in Christ Jesus to sojourn among us; judgment in accordance with the Law of God in and of Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour; and all presumed violations of Law negated and abated.

By the Authority and Power conditionally vested in us solely the Grace of God by, in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with the mandates, precepts, judgments, statutes and ordinances of His Holy Writ, solely under His Direction and by His Will, do we make this declaration to this court for the our Brother to be set at Liberty in Christ to sojourn among us, for it is written, whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it Now we are the body of Christ, and members in particular.{77}

<*Finish up in the same manner as the Abatements>

<Once this has been moved upon, and the Brother returned to Liberty in Christ among the Brethren, he may then move against those who forcibly took him into their custody, with an action in Trespass. If you pollute this process with codes, rules and regulations, you waive, in Law, any action subsequent to this habeas corpus.>

Endnotes

{1}Ephesians 6:12.

{2}Exodus 23:24.

{3}Deuteronomy 7:5.

{4}Colossians 3:17.

{5}Psalm 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173; Daniel 9:5.

{6}Leviticus 18:4; Ps:149:9; 1 Kings 2:3.

{7}Leviticus 18:4, 30; Leviticus 22:9;

{8}Leviticus 18:5, 26; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 25:18; Deut:4:1, 5-6, 40; 6:17, 24; 7:11; 10:12-13; 11:1, 32; 12:1; 16:12; 17:19; 26:16-17; 27:10; Psalm 19:8; 105:45; 119:8, 12, 16, 23, 26, 33, 48; 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112, 117, 118.

{9} Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

{10}Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

{11}Psalm 119:155.

{12}Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30 quoting Deuteronomy 6:5.

{13}Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31 quoting Leviticus 19:18.

{14}Romans 14:11.

{15}Philippians 2:9-11.

{16}Romans 14:23.

{17}1 John 3:4.

{18}John 13:20.

{19}Matthew 25:40.

{20}Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35.

{21}Luke 10:33-37.

{22}John 5:22.

{23}Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6 & 7.

{24}Matthew 28:18.

{25}Genesis 3.

{26}Romans 13:10. See also 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15; 4:20.

{27}John 16:33.

{28}John 14:6 & 17:19.

{29}John 14:16 & 15:4-10.

{30}Acts 17:28.

{31}Leviticus 25:23.

{32}John 14:6.

{33}Proverbs 30:5.

{34}Proverbs 30:6.

{35}Leviticus 19:14.

{36}Proverbs 1:10.

{37}Psalm 105:14-15.

{38}Genesis 3:22-24.

{39}Colossians 2:13-15.

{40}Numbers 19:11-13.

{41}10 Rep. 32 b.

{42}1 Timothy 5:6.

{43}Ecclesiastes 9:5.

{44}Isaiah 8:20.

{45}John 9:5; 12:46.

{46}Romans 10:4.

{47}MORAL INSANITY. A term sometimes employed to denote such mental disease as destroys the ability to distinguish between right and wrong as to a particular act, and sometimes to denote a mere perversion of the moral sense. It is also used as synonymous with irresistible impulse.--Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 541.

MORAL INSANITY. In medical jurisprudence. A morbid perversion of the moral feelings, affections, inclinations, temper, habits, and moral disposition, without any notable lesion of the intellect or knowing and reasoning faculties and particularly without any maniacal hallucination. Prichard, art. Insanity, in Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine.

A disorder which affects the feelings and affections, or what are termed the moral powers in contradistinction to those of the understanding of the intellect. 3 Witth. & B. 269.

For a discussion on this subject and its legal relations, see INSANITY; MANIA.--Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2246.

MORAL INSANITY. Also moral imbecility n.: PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY.--Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), p. 1469.

PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY. 1. A disorder of behaviour toward other individuals or toward society in which reality is usu. clearly perceived except for an individual's social responsibilities or moral obligations, which is often manifested hedonistically (as by criminal acts, drug addiction, sexual perversion, or activity leading to immediate personal gratification esp. when it is believed that punishment can be avoided), by passive indifference (as by shiftlessness, untrustworthiness, or vagabondism), or in contrast by fanatical pseudosocial zealousness, and which is usu. a more or less permanent way of life refractory to treatment and hence often considered a constitutional disorder. 2. An individual having a psychopathic personality.--Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), p. 1833.

{48}Proverbs 8:36. Note also the punishment in Genesis concerning eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

{49}Psalm 50:16-17. See also Romans 2:17-25.

{50}Romans 1:28.

{51}Isaiah 5:20-23.

{52}Titus 1:14.

{53}They will think this is the case because they will have confused morality and morals with the Word of God. Note too, the definition of moral actions:

MORAL ACTIONS. Actions only in which men have knowledge to guide them and a will to choose for themselves. Ruth. Inst. Nat. L. lib. 1, c. 1.--Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2246. This is self-will, which is evil, guided by pure reason; and not the Knowledge of God. This is and was the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden..

{54}John 16:2-3.

{55}Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6.

{56}Psalm 115:2-8; Psalm 135:15-18.

{57}1 Corinthians 2:14.

{58}John 8:21-24.

{59}James 4:4.

{60}John 3:36.

{61}Jeremiah 10:10; Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38.

{62}Psalm 127:1.

{63}1 Corinthians 3:11.

{64}Ephesians 2:19-22.

{65}Romans 1:20.

{66}Colossians 2:9.

{67}Colossians 2:8.

{68}Titus 1:14.

{69}Jeremiah 31:33.

{70}Psalm 37:31.

{71}Hosea 8:4.

{72}Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2141.

{73}Leviticus 18:3.

{74}Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

{75}Matthew 6:24.

{76}Leviticus 18:30.

{77}1 Corinthians 12:26-27.

The things that are Caesar's

Part Three

by Randy Lee

"And He said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20-23

To become able to identify 'the things that are Caesar's,' and thereby avoid them, I will reiterate that Caesar has no-thing but an image, and it is that image that gives the 'power' unto him. That image, which is a mutant image, is only established and kept "alive" by those who "live, move and have their being" in the distorted image, not in Christ Jesus. In short, that which is outside of Christ are the things that belong to Caesar, and are, of course, the things of death.

In this section of "The things that are Caesar's" we will, in part, examine a recently acquired book, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, which is a typical humanist Sociology professor's perspective revealing how important that mutant image is for giving "life" unto the powers of darkness.

Following an extended dissertation on various "heroes" of history that the writer believes contributed to the development of modern society, he concludes the paragraph as follows:

"Lest we think that all are great, let us add Caesar and Constantine and Napoleon and Hitler. These are the "nucleators," the bearers of mutant images. These are the founders of nations, churches, societies, businesses, unions, and universities. These are the true entrepreneurs of society." The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), by Kenneth E. Boulding (Sociology Professor, University of Michigan), pp. 75-76. (University of Michigan Press).

From the above quote, we see that the things of the world--nations, churches, societies, businesses, unions, universities, etc.--are all outside Christ's church, and are nothing more than the creations of the heathen, designed for their own glory, honor and power, established only through created images impressed on the minds of the participants of "human" society. These "willing" participants of Caesar's world are the natural man of First Corinthians 2:14. In the 18th century, Thomas Boston cleared-up any misconceptions of what a natural man is:

"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he should mourn for, and mourns for what he should rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of His glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor."

Boulding further explains how the foundations of the image are developed through "science" and "philosophy," and other such vain imaginations that spring forth from the natural man's "temple of truth," human reason:

"In the theory which I have put forward in these pages, I have endeavored to steer clear of the great philosophical issue of epistemology, that is, of the theory of knowledge in philosophical terms. I have considered the dynamics of behavior in terms of what is essentially an abstraction: the image. I have not considered the question, whether the image is 'true,' or how, if it is true, we know that it is true. I have been able to avoid these great and rather unanswerable questions largely because what I have been developing is an abstraction. It is the fact that it is an abstraction which gives it some claim to be the foundation of a science rather than a philosophy [*Hegelian--in reality, they are the same]. Science might almost be defined as the process of substituting unimportant questions which can be answered for important questions which cannot. Up to the present period of intellectual history, the theory of knowledge has generally been regarded as a subject for philosophy rather than for science. What I am proposing in effect, is to make a science out of knowledge by the deft substitution of something that is not what the philosopher means by knowledge, namely the image, for the real thing. It is by these deft substitutions that science grows and philosophy is none the poorer for them. I maintain, therefore, that the theory of the image which I have put forward, or, which my critics may well observe, I have merely glimpsed from afar, is consistent with the great number of philosophical positions regarding the ultimate nature of truth and our perception of it. I do not regard myself as committed to any particular epistemology. I may be accused of stealing the image from the temple of truth, but my act in no way depends on the rite which the image is worshipped." The Image, pp. 164-165. [*Insertion added].

What is so ironic about the above convoluted diatribe concerning the natural man's concept of science, philosophy, and knowledge--and the relationship of them conjured up through the theories of the fallen mind--is the fact that he confirmed Ambrose Bierce's definition of philosophy ("A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing").

The following paragraph is a typical example of the problem the natural man has "to know what is true" when he refuses to acknowledge that there is only one place truth and knowledge are found--The Word of God. It clearly shows that the only "truth" for the natural man is found in "the image" created from his "natural reason," and in Truth, containing no truth:

"Up to now I have sidestepped and I will continue to sidestep the great philosophical arguments of epistemology. I have talked about the image. I have maintained that images can be public as well as private, but I have not discussed the question as to whether images are true and how we know whether they are true. Most epistemological systems seek some philosopher's stone by which statements may be tested in order to determine their "truth," that is, their correspondence to outside reality. I do not claim to have any such philosopher's stone, not even the touchstone of science. I have, of course, a great respect for science and scientific method--for careful observation, for planned experience, for the testing of hypotheses and for as much objectivity as semi-rational beings like ourselves can hope to achieve. In my theoretical system, however, the scientific method merely stands as one among many of the methods whereby images change and develop. The development of images is part of the culture or the subculture in which they are developed, and it depends upon all the elements of that culture or subculture. Science is a subculture among subcultures. It can claim to be useful. It may claim rather more dubiously to be good. It cannot claim to give validity." The Image, p. 16.

From the above, we see that the theory of knowledge developed through science, philosophy, and other products of "human reason" are the tools used by Caesar's agents of darkness to give power unto the image of the beast.

Boulding further explains the "reasonable" theory that commercial "knowledge is power," and goes on to show the finished commercial product of "organized society" under Caesar's Roman Imperial law:

"At the level of society, curiously enough, our theoretical structures seem to be somewhat better than they are at the intermediate levels. Economics, for instance, has a reasonably adequate theoretical system. We have a pretty fair idea of how the price system works, and we know pretty well what are the determinants of the general level of employment and output. Here again, knowledge is reflected in power. We know (I hope) today how to prevent severe depressions. We do not know how to prevent wars, how to eliminate crime, or how to make people happy. We do not even know how to diminish the total amount of mental illness." The Image, p. 31.

Boulding's last sentence here represents self-fulfillment and false consciousness, for it is he and others like him worshipping the image who are mentally ill; or to put in their "philosophical" terms, hallucinating:

"Hallucination. The occurrence of an experience in itself indistinguishable from a perception of something, but without an appropriate external cause. Hallucination is sometimes distinguished from pseudohallucination, in which the experience occurs but is not mistaken for the perception of an external object. Both are distinct from illusion, in which there is an external source, but its nature is mistaken. The possibility of hallucination is a frequent starting-point for the distinction between appearance and reality." The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 165.

In Chapter IX, Boulding describes the final results for "society' when it looks to the "wisdom" of the intellectual world and its images for any truth and knowledge:

"I began this section by attempting to describe, in very rough outline, the public image of the intellectual world. Like [Mark] Antony, I seem to have come to bury it rather than to praise it. Even on the vital matter of intellectual freedom, the image of the academic world is split and divided. We do not know from whence comes our peace or our prosperity. The universe of discourse is crumbling into a multiverse, and in one's more depressed moments one looks forward to a time when the progress of science will grind to a standstill in a morass of mutual incomprehensibility. Out of our intellectual pride, we may be building a new Tower of Babel." The Image, p. 139.

That "new" Tower (which is not really "new") has been under continual "human" construction and development by way of the image and those who look to the image.

In a short statement in the 1600's, William Gurnall clearly and concisely exposed the Tower of darkness, showing the futility and inability for "nature" and "free-will" to deliver anything to anybody:

"God will confound the language of those sons of pride who cry up the powers of nature; as if man with the slime of his own free-will, and the bricks of his own self-righteousness, was able to rear up a building whose top might reach to heaven itself."

Today, that building constructed of free-will and self-righteousness is defined by the natural man as idols of the mind:

"IDOLS OF THE MIND. The four idols distinguished by Francis Bacon are the idols of the tribe, den, market, and theatre. Idols in this sense are eidola, the transient, and therefore to Bacon erroneous images of things. (I) Idols of the tribe are general tendencies to be deceived, inherent in our nature as human beings. They include uncritical reliance on sense perception, and tendencies to over-generalize or jump to conclusions and ignore countervailing evidence against our views. (II) Idols of the den are distortions arising from our particular perspectives (the metaphor is that of Plato's myth of the cave); the corrective is to remember that whatever our mind 'seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion.' (III) Idols of the market-place are errors that come in the course of communication with others: misunderstanding arising through abuses of words. (IV) Idols of the theatre are the errors introduced by theories: the abstract schemata of Aristotelianism, and the introduction of theological notions into science. Bacon here compared philosophical and religious systems to theatrical, and therefore fantastical, representations of the world." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 186.

In the world of earthly "images," we see that the dependance upon philosophy and science for the construction of the Tower are inseparable:

"IDEOLOGY. Any wide-ranging system of beliefs, ways of thought, and categories that provide the foundation of programmes [*images] of political and social action: an ideology is a conceptual scheme [*image] with a practical application (pragmatism). Derogatorily, another person's ideology may be thought of as spectacles that distort and disguise the real status quo (see false consciousness). Promises that political philosophy and morality can be freed from ideology are apt to be vain, since allegedly cleansed and pure programmes depend, for instance, upon particular views of human nature [*see Etymologicum Anglicanum], what counts as human flourishing, and the conditions under which it is found." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 185.

The result of being "contented" with "the things that are Caesar's" is seen in the following definition, and again verifies that his things are the things of death:

"FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS. An inability to see things, especially in social relations and relations of exploitation, as they really are. The term occurs in a late work of Engels, although the phenomenon is implied in Feuerbach's account of the religious impulse. The state of false consciousness may be the inevitable result of a way of living, and characterizes the generic and chronic kind of servitude that cannot even perceive its own situation. It may therefore coexist with a kind of illusory contentment. The cure is 'consciousness-raising.' In the later writings of Marx the concept to some extent supersedes that of alienation." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 135.

We are warned of the end result of looking to mutant images and to ourselves for true knowledge and wisdom:

"I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:14-18

Caesar's Symbol of Power

In Roman Imperial terms, the pagano-Christian/heathen concept, or image, of 'the temple of truth" is found in fas:

Fas. Lat. "Right; justice; the divine law." 3 Bl. Comm. 2. Calvin.
"In primitive times fas was the will of the gods, embodied in rules regulating not only ceremonials, but the conduct of all men." Taylor, Science of Jurispr. 65.

The "gods" (or the creations of natural reason) spoken of above are, of course, Mercury and Mars (the Roman gods of Commerce and War). This "belief" of the heathen (that all "men" are subject to the same human law) becomes evident when we see the further development of the idea of fas into the created image of Roman Imperial law, found in the fasces:

"Fasces (fash'ez), n. (usu. with a sing. v.) "a bundle of rods containing an ax with the blade projecting, borne before Roman magistrates as an emblem of official power." Random House Dictionary (1992), page 484.
"Fasces. A punitive emblem of the State's power over the individual. For Mussolini, the fasces provided a suitable coercive symbol for the political aims of Fascism, in which the interests of the individual were subordinated to the direct action of a nationalist elite. In a show of communal idealism, Italian Fascism interpreted the bundled rods as different social classes, the axe as the supreme authority of the State." Jack Tresidder, Dictionary of Symbols.

For those who "believe" that such an image has no relevance in today's world, this image of heathen "power" is found today sculpted into the front of the armrests of Abe Lincolns "great white throne" upon which his "larger than life" likeness, or image, sits at the Lincoln Memorial (also called "The People's Temple") in Washington D. C. Additionally, a pair of fasces is displayed to the right and left behind the Speaker of the Senate in the same city.

From the image of the fasces, all of the modern "governments of the world" find their mode of operation, deceitfully called Democracy, but is in reality Fascism and Imperialism, also called Federalism:

"Fascism (fash'iz cm) n. A totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism. [1915-1920 < Italian fascismo = fas(io) bundle, political group (see FASCES) + -ismo -ism." Random House Dictionary (1992), page 484.
"Fascism. (Lat., from fasces, the bundle of rods and axe carried before the Roman consuls [commercial agents] as an insignia of authority). A love of political symbolism such as uniforms and other emblems of militarism. The whole cocktail is animated by a belief in regeneration through energy and struggle." Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 136.
"Fascism. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship...typically through the merging of State and business leadership." The American Heritage Dictionary.

The "dictators" in the definitions above are the "image-makers" continually creating and implanting images, or idols of the mind, that appeal to the flesh, for their profit-sake.

The sameness of Fascism, Imperialism and Federalism is seen in the following definition, and in a statement by a well- known Lincoln-lover:

Imperialism. n. "The policy, practice, or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion, or empire of a nation, as: By the acquirement of new territory or dependencies, esp. when lying outside the nation's natural boundaries, or by the extension of its rule over other races of mankind, as where commerce demands the protection of the flag." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), p.1079.
"It was clear enough by the time of the Treaty of Paris that the loose confederation was not working very well; it was equally clear that Americans were not yet prepared to embrace, as an alternative, the Old World model of centralized nation-states. Was there perhaps something in between-- something that could satisfy the interests and quiet the fear of particularism and fulfill the demands of nationalism without sacrificing those liberties for whose vindication the Americans had fought a war of independence? Could they solve that problem which had for centuries baffled and confounded statesmen of the Old World: the problem of imperial organization or-to put it in American terms-of federalism? They could and they did." Henry Steele Commager, The Empire of Reason (1978), p. 207.

We are told of the only defence against these forces of darkness:

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." Ephesians 6:11-16

Next month, we will further explore "the things which are Caesar's" and his "spiritual wickedness in high places."

Note: The book "The Image" is available in hardcopy and in computer form on The Liberty Library CD.

The Mystery of 666

Part One

by John Joseph

"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." Revelation 13:11-18.

Many of us have no doubt read the above passages of Scripture and have wondered what it was Brother John witnessed and wrote for our edification. On this subject we won't be dwelling on the prophecy of this most controversial book of God's Word, for there are already those out there who have created their own private "truths" and empires on those "truths." What I wish to focus on here is the last part of that prophecy.

What we wish to emphasize here is that there is a gross disparity between those who claim to be of Christ preaching His Word; and, those who are of Christ, living His Word. This is brought out by Brother Paul in Romans:

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:12-13.

Brother James exhorts us:

"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was." James 1:22-23. [Emphasis added.]

The difference arises not from any lack of knowledge on either side; but from the want and depravity of one to profit or steal from God and His Word--having made God's Word their merchandise by packaging it in philosophy and euphonious words to bring others into bondage and slavery to them (see 2 Peter 2:3, 14); while the other seeks to please Him Who has chosen them out of the world, sanctified them in His Word and sent them into the world to bear witness of Him and the Truth.

Now, of course, there will be those who will ask us to what seminary we went, what degrees (Masonic concept) we have, and the like. Our response to such fallacious inquiry is this: In John 7:14-16 the same question was asked among those to whom Christ Jesus was preaching, and in the account we read that He was not a man of letters, i.e., He did not attend any school of human understanding of the Word of God, and so they were offended in Him. Next, God has said, "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength..." (Psalm 8:2) and not "out of the mouths of men of letters thou hast ordained strength." It is babes innocent of the world, feeding on the milk of the living Word (see 1 Peter 2:1-3), whom God has appointed to rule over the affairs of men:

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:4.

So also Christ in Luke 10:21:

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent [*of the world], and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Brother Paul also writes that our "faith should not stand in the wisdom of men." 1 Corinthians 2:5. Proud men of letters are a detriment to Christ and His church; and not an aid to Him or His church. The man of letters will introduce leaven into His Word, so as to make it more palatable. So, if you are a proud man of letters, know that God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11), therefore your letters mean absolutely nothing to Him, and us His servants.

Now that we have set our foundation, let us move on to something of vital importance. And that is the phrase of "Six hundred, three score, and six." Why is this so important? Because we have been told that this is "the mark of the beast," "the mark of the anti-Christ," and other things in today's modern "Christian" preaching. We have also been led to believe, in some circles, that 90% of Revelation has been accomplished. In Truth, only God in His Word can make that statement--every- thing else is opinion and speculation, even if it is "right opinion"--orthodoxy.

The present inquiry was raised by our Brother who, being like the Bereans Brother Paul wrote of, showed us what we are to focus on in this small discourse; that is, that the number translated "666" in the Authorized Version is a misnomer. In the original Received Text it is actually three Greek letters, which have for their first letter the Greek letter, chi, that represents the Ministerial Office of Christ. This might seem to be a willful mistranslation, but we do not find it to be so. Rather, we have found that the men who translated the Textus Receptus into the English translation we now have did us a great service: numbers are fiction and numerals only representations of them. This means that the diligent must make an inquiry as to what is behind the number, therefore only the diligent will make this inquiry. Very few do, and we commend our dear Brother for studying the Word of God to show himself approved of Him, rightly dividing the word of Truth.

Because the first letter is, chi, we know this points to a system of religion, morals, and a government developed by a singular spirit over time more than to a singular man in history. This system of religion, law and government seems to exhibit the attributes of Christ Jesus, all image without Substance in Him because it appeals to those of the first Adam. This is plausible, for the first symbol, chi, is the symbol for the Office of Christ and Christ Jesus Himself noted in Matthew 24:23 that many false christs would arise and do many mighty wonders. Still in Matthew we are told that many will say here is Christ or there is Christ. This equates to more private truths (measured by the balance sheet) and doctrines of men found in denominations being taught, rather than the Truth in and of Christ--the same "bait and switch" scheme pulled by the Pharisees (see Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; and prophesied in Isaiah 29:13; Jeremiah 8:8). All those living, moving, and having their being in Christ by executing the Law in accordance with the ministerial Office of Christ are counseled to believe them not (Matthew 24:23 & 24). Note in Matthew that the whole purpose of these false prophets, ministers, and pastors is to deceive the very elect of God, thereby attempting to destroy His Ministry, His church and state (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23; Acts 20:29-30). Thus, leaving us with the conclusion that this is consistent with violating the first and greatest commandment in the Law quoted from Deuteronomy 6:5 by Christ Jesus, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."; and the counsel given in Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh [*local, or near] unto thee, or far off [*geographically] from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."

To fully understand this passage, we must look at the words that are used to describe the subject-matter judged: gods and people. The word for "gods" above is:

"430. 'ELOHIYM. plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

It cannot be that the above word for "gods" refers to God Himself in this context. So this must be referring to someone who, or some thing that, is not God, or of God; but must be referring to someone who claims to be God or act in His Name. In Law, all claims must be proved--mere opinion, conjecture, speculation or supposition being insufficient at best, and nothing at worst. All challenges to pretensions of authority must be done in Law--not in the arena of morals or morality. To do so gives the pretender the discretion of whether he or she has authority. How do you think they will "rule?"

Next, let us look at the word "people." This is specific, and not general:

"5971. `AM. from 6004; a people (as a congregated unit); specifically, a tribe (as those of Israel); hence (collectively) troops or attendants; figuratively, a flock:--folk, men, nation, people." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

This appears to be general. But on closer examination, we see it is a specific kind of people who have hidden themselves from God, turned their backs on Him, or forgotten Who He is:

"6004. `AMAM. a primitive root; to associate; by implication, to overshadow (by huddling together):--become dim, hide." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

To become dim is to lose Life in Him:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.

This is the central and core issue of the meaning behind this. We can see this when we look closer at Scripture concerned with the same subject-matter:

"Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath [*of life] in them. They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish." Jeremiah 10:14-15.

See also Jeremiah 51:17-18. This also squares with Psalm 115:2-8 and Psalm 135:15-18, for those who put their trust in such are like the things they accept as true or believe to be true--the state of complete phantasm and unbelief. The admonition in Deuteronomy about the gods nigh or far off is indicative of the hierarchical corporate (mountainous) structure of the modern Tower of Babel built by the codification of moral images manifested by corporate by-laws, charters, codes, rules, regulations, and constitutions:

"Even on the vital matter of intellectual freedom, the image of the academic world is split and divided. We do not know from whence comes our peace or our prosperity. The universe of discourse is crumbling into a multiverse, and in one's more depressed moments one looks forward to a time when the progress of science will grind to a standstill in a morass of mutual incomprehensibility. Out of our intellectual pride, we may be building a new Tower of Babel." Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), p. 138.

Note the United Nations charter, and the "United States" created by the purported executive of the imaginary United States of America, and covered by the lies in and of the Fourteenth Amendment, a codicil to one of the agreements made with death--the Constitution for the United States of America. What life did God breath into these pieces of paper? You see it is all philosophy after the rudiments of the world that built the house of paper, which gives the impression that it has a life of its own. If you doubt this, read on, for the natural man, who is without Christ, seeks to establish his own righteousness in such pieces of paper, the "moral law":

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3.
"MORAL LAW. A rule which lays down what conduct is morally right. The term is also used by Kant for his supreme rule of morality, 'the categorical imperative.'
"Note: A 'moral law' is not the same as a 'just law,' a morally acceptable legal rule." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1997), p. 367.

In this next quote, note the use of the word "morals." This has serious consequences for the unsuspecting Man of God:

"A third distinction between Old World and New Philosophes was in the realm of religion and morals. Of all the major American Philosophes, only Tom Paine--who was after all English--felt compelled to make an issue of his hostility to traditional Christianity, and that ruined him even with most of his fellow philosophers. Deists like Franklin and Jefferson had no trouble in reconciling their private skepticism with public orthodoxy, and a good many of them--Benjamin Rush and David Rittenhouse come to mind--were devout. Nor did the American Philosophe think himself exempted from the standards of conventional morality: How shocked John Adams was at the harmless flirtations of Dr. Franklin, and John Laurens at the immoralities of London. How shocked was even the sophisticated Jefferson at the wide-ranging amours of his French and English friends: That was the chief reason he advised against sending young men abroad for an education. The connection between Enlightenment and libertinage, so familiar in France was, if not wholly unknown, then unacknowledged in America." Commager, Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America realized the Enlightenment (1978), pp. 263-264.

Next month, we will continue to further explore the meaning of 666.

Romans 13

Submitting to authority

The following is a partial transcription of the "Pastor's Porch" session of The Old Paths Conference held at the church at Kaweah in 1996. It is a conversation between John Quade, Pastor John Weaver (Georgia), and Pastor Warren Lee Campbell (Kaweah), concerning the misconceptions of Romans, Chapter 13, verses 1-7.

A taped copy of the original conversation in its entirety is available on request by calling 818-347-7080.

1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." Romans 13:1-7

John Quade: What Romans 13 cannot mean, it cannot mean that we are to roll over and submit. Because if that's the case, then Jesus Christ violated Romans 13. For He did not do what the Jews wanted him to do. He continued to preach anyway, regardless of whether they liked it or not. And eventually it brought Him into trouble, and even though He challenged their jurisdiction time and again, they never responded because they didn't have standing to respond. They were a subjected people. And they crucified Him unlawfully, through an unlawful trial, without justification, and without the Law. And this was a case where Christ did the will of the Father, and that brought Him into conflict with the powers that be.

When it comes to Romans 13, we are clearly talking about a Christian government. It can't be a non-Christian government that Paul is talking about. Because in a non-Christian government, they are a terror to good works and they support evil, and do that which is wrong in the Lord's eyes. So, when I look at Romans 13, I look at it as a model for peaceful Christian government.

The point being that, Romans 13 does in no way imply that we are to submit to all the authorities, just because they happen to be in authority. It's true that Scripture says to resist evil and evil will flee from you.

The modern idea of "turning the other cheek," and Romans 13, are linked together indirectly. When you were struck on the cheek, in the first century, in Israel, you were only lawfully struck on the cheek by a superior. If any one else struck you on the cheek, you had a fight going. But if a superior struck you on the cheek, there were only two possible responses. One, you were to put your forehead in the dust and allow the superior to put his heel on the back of your neck, or Two, you were to bow the knee, usually the right knee, in the dirt. Christ didn't tell us to put our forehead in the dust or to bow the knee. He told us to resist, by turning the other cheek. "Resist evil and it will flee from you."

As far as I'm concerned, Romans 13 is talking about a Christian government and how Christians are supposes to act towards their Christian government. Again, it cannot mean that we are to bow the knee or to keep unlawful Law and edicts of unlawful governments. Because if that were the case, Christ would never have gone to the cross, and Christ cannot contradict Himself. It would mean that Christ contradicted Romans 13, or the Apostle Paul is wrong.

Pastor Weaver: Let me continue on what Brother John just got through saying. Because Romans 13 is indeed a model for the Christian government. You have in verse 1, very obviously, a statement of delegated authority, because the Bible says that there is no authority but of God. All authority outside of God is delegated, whether its the office of a husband, or father, or pastor, or magistrate, or whatever, because God alone has the only sovereign authority there is. Let me go a little bit further to demonstrate that this is what He said based upon the Greek words in Romans 13.

In verse 4, God says that the civil magistrate is to be the minister for God, for twice in verse 4 the civil magistrate is called the minister of God. Each time the word is diakonos. That is, in English, where we get our word deacon from, which literally means "the servant." Government has been ordained to be God's servant. Then when you look in verse 4, the civil magistrate is called a revenger, the Greek word being ekdikos. Ek- is a preposition meaning "righteousness." Actually, he's one who exacts God's righteousness. And when you come down to verse 6, once again the civil magistrate is called God's minister, but this time its a different word; it's the Greek word leitourgos. Its where we get our English word "liturgy," which means "a public form of worship."

You see, the heathen are willing to say that government is power, and that government has to do with authority, but how many are willing to go as far as God does, and say, "Yes, government is power, and government is authority, but I ordain that power and that authority to be My deacon, to be My exactor of righteousness, and to be My public worship." So, very obviously, government is indeed ordained of God. Here, He is dealing with the origin of it and He is dealing with the purpose of it.

But let me go a little further still. I like to ask people from time to time, "who wrote the book of Romans?" And the response that always comes back is "the Apostle Paul." And then I ask, "who wrote the book of Philemon, the book of Colossians, the book of Philippians?" And the answer is always, "the Apostle Paul wrote those books as well." Then I ask, "can you tell me another name for those books?" They will usually think a moment and say, "well, I think they're referred to as 'the Prison Epistles'." And I will usually say, "I wonder why they're called that." The answer is always, "oh, because Paul was in prison when he wrote them." And I say, "oh, why was he in prison?" The answer is, "for violating the law of the land." Very obviously, Paul did not mean in Romans 13, unlimited submission. There is no way in the world that you can get that from Romans 13. So he is not saying that we are to obey every law, every rule, every regulation, and everything that comes down the pike, out of Sacramento or out of Washington, D. C. Very obviously, that is not what the word of God is teaching. And not only does the New Testament tell us that is not what is being taught, the Old Testament as well tells us that is not what is being taught. Rahab disobeyed her ruler; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego disobeyed; Daniel disobeyed; numerous others disobeyed, and did so with the apparent blessing and approval of God upon them. So, very obviously, Romans 13 has been used unscripturally by a lot of people that say, "well, God expects you to obey all government in whatever aspect, whatever they say."

Let me show you how blashemous that position really is. When you look back at verse 1, where it says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God," and you say that "all of these powers are there in the place of God," and these powers are telling you to submit to Sodomites and to abortion, etc., and that if God were personally present, He would tell you to do the same thing. That's blashemy. That's blasphemy.

So, very obviously, Romans 13 does not teach unlimited submission to all civil magistrates. It does teach submission to God's magistrates.

And let me just say this. God's people are not anarchists. We believe in government. I get people telling me all of the time that "all you want to do is overthrow the government." That is not true. All I want to do is throw the wickedness out of the government. I do want to overthrow that which is ungodly and wicked, and establish in its place that which is Godly and Holy. Again, Romans 13 does not teach unlimited submission.

Pastor Campbell: Who put Jesus to death? Wasn't it the State. Who killed the Apostle Paul? The State. Who did in all of the Apostles? Now read Romans 13. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." Does that mean every soul that goes to church should be timid and submit to the Clinton's, the Rockefeller's, Janet Reno, etc. Is that what it means. Or is it saying let "every soul," including Clinton, Rockefeller, and Reno, submit to God--the Higher Power. After all, Who is the Higher Power.

Acts 20:29, Paul is making a final departing speech, and he says "you'll see my face no more." And he said "after my departing shall grievous wolves enter among you," talking about a certain class of teachers, and that they will come and penetrate the church. He says that these grievous wolves will come in "not sparing the flock," because of their ignorance along certain lines. Then he says, "of your own selves," from among your brethren here in this church, "shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Now, the Greek word for perverse there is diastrepho, dia- denoting a channel of action, and strepho (where we get the English word catastrophe from), meaning backwards--diastrepho literally meaning turned back and corrupted.

So at verse 30, he saying that among yourselves--within your own church, some will be preachers, some will come in from the outside--these will speak things and will take the Scriptures and twist them, corrupt them just enough to cause a catastrophe in our lives. And because back in the 1800's the pastors stepped back from the public arena and encouraged there congregation to avoid running for positions of power, therefore we have the mess we have right now. People like Barney Frank, pimps, homosexuals, drunks, liars, people of every sort that debase. "Mental and moral midgets whose mini miniscule mentality measures no more than that of a malnourished maggot." That is the kind of people we have in the public arena now, because the church let down. If there is any place that a minister should stand up, it is there.

We are told to keep the salt in the salt shaker. They say "we don't mind if you preach." It's just like in Babylon. Babylon had "freedom of religion." The Jews were allowed to worship in Babylon. They had all kinds of religions, but Nebuchadnezzar said that for thirty days we want to establish State authority in order to see what the religion of all religions is. So we're going to set up an idol, and everybody for thirty days is going to have to bow to that idol. And they all did, except for tree sore thumbs--Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They stood up for righteousness.

Let me ask you. Where were all of the other Jews that were in the kingdom of Babylon that professed faith in Jehovah God when that decree went forth? That's right, they bowed down. And today, it's amazing how many gutless wonders there are that call themselves Christians.

How many have you read the book "Why do nice guys like me keep getting thrown into jail." Read that book. At the heading of each chapter, he quotes Hitler and different men in the Nazi regime. You will see there what they were saying to the pastors, and it just so happens that the pastors were using Romans 13 to acquiesce to the Nazi regime. Where, if in the 1930's the pastors had stood up against Hitler, Hitler would never have been there. It's like the time of Ezekial and Jeremiah, where the congregations said "please prophesy unto us smooth things. We're little itsy-bitsy kitty cats and we love to have our fur stroked. Just pet us." And that's exactly what the church has been doing for too long now. If you want to get the cat aroused, just pet him contrary to the way he is used to, and find that he doesn't like it so much.

Paul did say, "there will come false teachers that will twist things," and too many teachers have taken Romans 13 and caused too many to submit to ungodly government in the United States. And the church in America is fulfilling exactly what the church did in Germany when it submitted to the Nazi regime, based upon a perversion of Romans 13.

Just remember that when it says, let "every soul" be subject to the higher powers, that means "every soul." Submit themselves to the authority of The Word, the authority of God Almighty, the authority of God's ministers--submit to them. And that also means the ungodly submitting to the Godly authorities. Amen.

Pastor Weaver: Very obviously, when it says "resisting His ordinances," there is a very big difference between resisting His ordinances and resisting tyranny. God never ordained tyranny to begin with. So to resist tyranny is not resisting God's ordinances.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

The Images of Human Nature and The Principle of Humanity

"HUMAN NATURE. A basic topic of ethics, different accounts of which underlie such different conceptions of human life as that of the classical Greeks and of Christianity. A pre-occupation of Enlightenment philosophy was to find a constant human nature beneath superficial differences due to culture and society. The common core would contain sufficient natural sympathy with others, benevolence, perception of self-interest, and capacity for acquiescing in just institutions, to provide a foundation for a purely secular ethics. This hope was dashed by the Hegelian perception of human beings as only possessing natures that are moulded by their historical and social circumstance. However, it then recurs at a higher level, with the thought that we have natures that make us capable of some political and social arrangements under which we flourish, and incapable of others. See ESSENTIALISM, SOCIOBIOLOGY." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 178.

"HUMANITY, PRINCIPLE OF. Principle doing the same work as the principle of charity, but suggesting that we regulate our procedures of interpretation by maximizing the extent to which we see the subject as humanly reasonable, rather than the extent to which we see it as right." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 178.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

The Prize Buyer

There lived in the writer's neighborhood, when a boy, a family which will be distinguished by the name of Stillman, consisting of a father, a mother, and an only son. Old Stillman was a farmer, and, as the phrase went, "well to do in the world." Isaac, his son, was, by the district schoolmasters, characterized as a boy of excellent natural parts; but of propensities so untutored, and luxuriantly wild, as to render his success as a scholar, entirely preblematical. The result proved the correctness of the teachers' estimate. Isaac grew uo into a tall, roystering farmer's boy, nearly destitute of the veriest rudiments of a common education, but with some tact, and much taste for bargaining and speculation. To the delight, but much oftener to the chagrin of the father, Isaac, who had the control of some four or five head of cattle and a horse, made sometimes good, oftentimes a bad hit, in trading stock with the neighboring youngsters. This trafficking, however, was on much too small a scale. There was too little left to luck, (the word luck was magical to young Stillman's ear) to suit the daring spirit of a reckless young speculator.

About this time it was, that one of the ever "lucky" schemes of the New York Literary Lottery, found its way to a store hard by the residence of Mr. Stillman. Young Stillman obtained possession of it, and as his eye ran over the list of spendid prizes for sale, his ambition was fired to take his chance with other happy adventures, (so he deemed them) for the highest. He bought a ticket and drew its value, minus fifteen per cent.; and, of course, added the fifteen per cent. lost, and tries his "luck" a second time; all gamblers, young or old, would have done the same. Again he drew his money, less the fifteen per cent., and again added the loss, and reinvested. He pursued this course unknown to his father, until he had spent the cash receipts of two fine three year old steers, which he had sold to pretty good advantage. An undrawn lottery ticket was all he had left, when the old gentleman found , on asking the loan of a few dollars from his son, that his money was all gone, and how.

The anger and sorrow of the practical hard-working father may be better imagined than described. He withdrew from his son the control of all the property he had given him, at once, and forbade his gambling in lotteries for ever after, on pain of his severest displeasure. But two days after this, news came that Isaac's ticket had absolutely drawn a prize of $20,00.

The incident wrought forthwith an entire revolution in the affairs; and, as an almost necessary consequence, in the views of the elder Stillman, on the subject of lotteries. Both he and his son now bought--not single tickets, but wholes packages in the current schemes. The whole neighborhood, in fact, excited by the brilliant success of the younger Stillman, invested sums in the purchase of tickets, which they could ill afford to spare. The Stillman's bought and lost, and lost and bought, till their prize, property, farm, all--was gone. The gray hairs of the old gentleman and lady went down in poverty and sorrow to the grave. Young Stillman still lives, drives a stage for fourteen dollars per month, and buys rum and tickets with his wages. He is a miserable lost man; and the locality where he once lived is probably poorer by $50,000, for his truly "lucky" ticket of $20,000. Three fine farms there are now burthened with heavy and hopeless mortgages, which but for Isaac Stillman's prize, would at this day have been unencumbered. The moral of this unvarnished sketch is left for the reader to draw.

Bits and Pieces

What Law?

"[...] American law is closer to the [Roaman] civil law than the English common law." Roscoe Pound, The Formative Era of American Law (Little, Brown and Co., 1938), p. 138.

For Better or for Worse

"NON-HUMAN ANIMAL. A term popularized by the animal rights movement to remind humans that they, too, are a species of animal, no better or worse than any other." Peter Singer, In Defense of Animals, New York: Harper Perennial, 1986, p. 210.

Effectual Calling

"There is much the same difference between election and effectual calling, as between a private manuscript and a printed book. In election God, as it were, wrote and entered us in His heavenly register: but it is still kept by Him, and none know the contents but Himself: whereas in effectual calling God, as it were, prints off a sheet of The Book of Life, and publishes it and makes it known to the soul." William Gurnall.

Acceptance

"It is a fallacy of Satan's, to argue, from the sinfulness of our duties, to the non-acceptance of them. "Will God," says he, "take such broken groats at thy hand? Is He not a holy God?" --Learn, here, to distinguish. There is a two-fold acceptance. 1. A thing may be accepted as a payment of debt; or, 2. As a proof of love. --God, Who will not accept of broken money in a way of payment, will nevertheless, kindly accept of it from His friends as a testimony of [their] gratitude.

It is true, O Christian, the debt thou owest to God must be paid in good and lawful money: but here, for thy comfort, Christ, and Christ alone, is thy pay-master. Send Satan to Him; bid him bring his charge against Christ, Who is ready at God's right hand to produce a clear account and shew His receipt in full for the whole debt. --As to thy performances and obedience, they fall under a quite contrary class; as mere tokens of thy love and thankfulness to God. And so gracious is thy heavenly Father, that He accepts thy bent sixpence, and will throw away thy crooked, broken mite. Love refuses nothing that love sends." William Gurnall.

Homo appetitus

"HUMANTARIAN (Not to be confused with humanitarian). A non-judgmental term for a cannibal." Janice Castro, "Word Watch," Time, April 20, 1992, p. 21, quoted in Beard and Cerf, The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook (1992), p. 34.

Praise be to the Potter

"We are, in God's hand, as clay in the hand of the potter. Did you ever know a potter to thank a vessel of his own making for its beauty or usefulness.? Surely the praise is due, not to the pot, but to the potter. In a still infinitely Higher degree is the whole praise due to God for the graces and the good works which He has given us." Mr. Hill, London, August 30, 1775.

Nature's Own

"HUMAN ANIMAL. Non-speciesist substitute for the anthropocentric human." Victoria Moran, "Listening to Nature," The Animals' Agenda, July/August 1991, p. 48.]

The Origins of Communism

".....communism is a faith and an image of society in history which has deep roots in eschatological Judaism." Kenneth E. Boulding (Sociology Professor, University of Michigan) The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), p. 147.

Income

"Income. (money earned, salary). In the thirteenth century, 'income' meant literally what it says, 'arrival', 'coming in'. The use is first recorded in the fourteenth century Curso Mundi:

"At the income of the firth monet [i.e. first month]."

Shakespeare uses the word in the same sense in The Rape of Lucrece (1593):

"Pain pays the income of each precious thing."

From the sixteenth century, 'income' came to mean 'fee paid on entering', 'admission fee'. The usage could be literal or figurative, as in the sermon by the Puritan preacher William Bridge written in 1646:

"There are In-com's, no Incoms to be paid at our coming to Jesus Christ."

The modern meaning developed from the seventeenth century, with 'income tax' first recorded in 1799." Adrian Room, National Textbook Company's Dictionary of Changes in Meaning: A Comprehensive Reference to the Major Changes in Meaning in English Words (NTC Publishing Group, 1996), page 148.

The Way of Fellowship

"In the covenant ceremony of Exodus 24:4-8 the ritual of the blood matches the two focal points of the passover: the people sheltering beneath the blood both enjoy peace with God and also are committed to pilgrimage. Thus it is that Moses first sprinkles the blood on the altar, a Godward movement reflecting the central passover theology of propitiation. But next, as soon as the people have committed themselves to the way of obedience, the rest of the blood is sprinkled over them; the blood covers the needs of the redeemed throughout their walk of pilgrim-obedience. J. A. MOTYER. Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

Issue the Thirty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Victims and Tragedy? Guilt and Grief?...

Making Merchandise of You...

Caesar's World, To Join or Not to Join a Matter of Law...

The Power of Words: Justification, Condemnation, and Confirmation...

The Mystery of 666, Part Two...

The History of the Law Merchant..

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Victims and Tragedy?

Guilt and Grief?

by Randy Lee and John Joseph

"This is My commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:12-14
"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." Revelation 14:13
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

Many have been told, and will continue to be told, that those shot at Columbine High School were victims, and that it was a great tragedy. For those who love the world more than they love God, it is true. But for the remnant of God--who live, move and have their being in His Son --victims and tragedies do not exist, at any time. The above verses from His Word are the evidence of that.

Firstly, the concept of "tragedy" is a heathen invention based on "unhappy fate or chance." Secondly, the heathen concept of a "victim" presupposes that someone was "cheated." Please note that Our Father rewards righteousness and punishes unrighteousness. In so doing, there are no "tragedies" or "victims." And certainly, in so doing, no one is "cheated." His rod of correction and His protective hand are in full control at all times, from the beginning and forever.

Throughout this whole incident, there has been much guilt, grief and blame expressed by those who look to their "feelings" for answers, and not to the Truth. According to the many heathen circles that make a commercial living from such "disasters," there has to be someone or something to blame other than themselves. For the sensationalists, psycho-analysts, political spin doctors and other ungodly media that feed on such things, these type of occurrences, which they help to promote, become the catalyst that drives their trade.

"For what is the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul?
Will God hear his cry when trouble cometh upon him?
Will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God?
I will teach you by the hand of God: that which is with the Almighty will I not conceal.
Behold, all ye yourselves have seen it; why then are ye thus altogether vain?
This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.
If his children be multiplied, it is for the sword: and his offspring shall not be satisfied with bread.
Those that remain of him shall be buried in death: and his widows shall not weep.
Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay;
He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.
He buildeth his house as a moth, and as a booth that the keeper maketh.
The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered: he openeth his eyes, and he is not.
Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the night.
The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place.
For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of his hand.
Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place." Job 27:8-23

This brief article is not concerned with the "tragedy," "the victims," guilt, grief, or blame. Those concerns are for the heathen of the world to ruminate on, for the heathen lives, moves, and bases their being in such ungodly things.

Looking to the only Truth, we will consider the duty and responsibility on the part of the church, His Body, to "come out of the world," and in so doing, to be a light unto that world.

"Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench: He shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till He have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for His law.
Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;" Isaiah 42:1-6

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;" 2 Corinthians 4:6-9

The vain imaginings of the heathen cannot heal any one of this "tragedy" or bring any of the "victim's" families relief from their feelings. Such is admitted by them as they drown in their moralisms:

MORALISM. An egotistic pose of concern for goodness adopted in general by nature's evil at heart." Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (1968), p. 270.

To them that look to morals and morality, it is written: "Let the dead bury their dead."

Making Merchandise of You

by Randy Lee

"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:2-3

On an evening towards the end of the second month of this year, John Joseph and I were exercising our Christian Liberty on the Common Ways in San Diego county shortly after having fellowship with the church at San Diego. A friend had given us use of his pick-up truck for the trip. With no markings or traffic to indicate that I was entering into a one-way street going the wrong way, I made a left turn, going approximately fifty feet to the "traffic light" to make a right turn. At that point, I could see a "DO NOT ENTER" sign across the main boulevard, with an ESCONDIDO POLICE car sitting next to it. I made the right turn, proceeded about a block and turned into a gasoline station. Behind was the twinkling of red and blue lights as I came to a stop.

As I was removing myself from the truck, the "officer" came up to me and requested the usual fictions, "your drivers license, proof of insurance, your name, your birthday, etc." Having only a Kaweah church I.D. card available for him, he proceeded to write a "citation," and when finding out from me that I could not sign it ("Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8"), he promptly hooked me up with his golden handcuffs and placed me in the back seat of his company car.

Then it was John Joseph's turn (see his account of this Blessed "traffic stop" on the following page). After about an hour of listening to and watching the "officers' go "round 'n round" with Brother John, one of the headscratchers came over to the window and asked me what his name was. Knowing that if we are to be as our Master, we are to speak the words of our Master. Therefore, my answer was, "If you knew his Father, you would know who he is." With that they let him go, and I was driven to the NORTH COUNTY CORRECT- IONAL FACILITY in Vista, California.

At this point, I need to point out to the reader that the only indicia that they had was my Christian Appellation (Randy Lee) and my general delivery location. No birth date, birthplace, social security number, signature, etc. The purpose of mentioning this is to let everyone know that in Caesar's Fourteenth Amendment system in which I was now up against, the name alone does not give it the ability to make merchandise of you.

I was told by the police chauffeur that "You better be more cooperative with the Sheriff's here, because they can be pretty rough." As the booking process proceeded, I found that when you stand on the Word of God and under His protection, they take a different attitude towards you.

They asked me several questions, which I did not have any worldly answers for. They asked me if I was going to give them any resistance if they took my fingerprints and photograph. My answer was, "They are not mine to give. That which I am and that which I have is a gift from my Father. Therefore, what you steal from me, you steal from Him." They stole them anyway, but the record in His Book was set.

They asked me to change into their jail clothes. I refused. I said, "What I have on is sufficient. If you need those on me, you will need to put them on me." They took my clothes off, and put theirs on me. Then they put me in the "drunk tank" for about ten hours; a cement floor to sleep on, drunks and drug addicts abounding, the Peace of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ my resting place.

At this time and under this situation, the Lord put it on my heart to go on a fast. For the next five days I drank only water. There was much concern from the "zoo keepers" as to my condition during the fast. I suppose the word got around that I wasn't eating anything.

On the sixth day of my stay in their gray-bar hotel, it was time for me to be brought before the magistrate. I was offered a "video appearance," which I refused to sign for. Therefore they had to bring me before the real thing. They offered me a "public defender." When he began to speak to me I said, "Before you say anything more, if you believe that you have been hired to represent me, you are now fired." He said "O. K. But you will have to sign a form to relieve the State of any responsibility for self-representation." I said, "Let me see it." His reply was, "I don't have one with me. You'll have to sign it in the courtroom."

I was then brought before a magistrate who was upset at a woman attorney who had been giving him a hard time while representing her client. He then called the name "LEE, RANDY," at which I remained silent. The public defender then stood up and said, "Your honor, he refuses to sign the Faretta Waver." At that announcement (which was a lie; I never refused), the judge got up and walked out in a huff, stating "This hearing will be held over until tomorrow." I can only assume that he did not want to face me after looking at the record in front of him of my fast, refusals to sign their papers, no birth date, birthplace, etc.

I was given the form. At the top of the paper, I crossed out the word "DEFENDANT" and wrote in "Accused." Then I signed it, for I knew from friends that if this form is not signed, they through you back in the cell until you do sign. It is not a form that gives them jurisdiction, but is designed only for their own relief.

The next day, I was brought before a different judge who I was at peace with. He read the charges; warned me that I was facing a possible six months in jail; that representing myself was not a "smart" thing to do; asked if I understood that, etc. I replied, "yes." Then he asked, "How do you plead?" Reply, "No contest." He then said, "O.K. You can go home today if you will pay a $400 fine and agree to six months probation." My reply was, "First, I don't have any money, therefore I can't pay a fine. Secondly, I can't agree to probation because I can't enter into any agreements with you." Without asking me why, he replied, "O.K. I hereby impose a sentence of 30 days running concurrently (the two charges were "no driver's license and no insurance").

That evening, in "the module", I received a paper from the court that stated that I would be released in four days, even though there was plenty of room to keep me.

What I learned from this Blessed ten days in the clutches of Caesar was --without all of the additional indicia (birth date, birthplace, signatures, etc.), the COUNTY is not able to bill the STATE for the cost of keeping you in their "facilities."

Stand fast with the Lord in all things, and allow them not to make merchandise of you.

Caesar's World:

To Join or Not to Join a Matter of Law:

written solely by the Grace of God in and through Christ Jesus

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour by John Joseph

Some who stay in contact with us by telephone and by letter may heard about the occasions with which our Lord has blessed us for bringing His Gospel to the world, especially the so-called "law" enforcement world. I wish to relate to you some of the blessings the Lord showered upon me through His Grace and Benevolence in a recent "traffic" stop we had down in San Diego. Our Blessed Lord filled my cup with His Wisdom and Grace, and I know it was He Who led me through the valley of the shadow of death, for without Him I can do nothing.

Randy Lee and I had gone down south to have some work done on our teeth (we both need the work done), and had finished communing with the Brethren in San Diego when it was time for us to come back north in our sojourn in and with Christ Jesus our Lord. We had taken a truck down to San Diego to ease the burden on the Brothers there in shuttling us around and while we continued our sojourn further south to get the work done on our teeth, we left the truck on land covered with asphalt. When we returned to leave later that evening our Lord presented His occasion to us.

As we left the asphalt "parking lot", we turned the wrong way on a one-way street in the CITY OF ESCONDIDO, being the only one-way street in that "town," and which leads to the law enforcement service (i.e. police) station three blocks away. We came to an intersection and across the intersection was a law enforcement service company car with the attractive light bar (red and blue federal jurisdiction) on top of the car and identified along the side of the car as the "Escondido Police." We made a right turn onto the street that intersected with the one-way street and immediately the law enforcement revenue service company car gave chase which lasted another block to a gasoline filling station. And here is where the Blessings of our Lord flowed abundantly, for in His Will and in His time were these things made manifest to me.

A young rookie and an older law enforcement service provider took care of Brother Randy. Brother Randy respectfully declined their services, for which they responded "I am not going to play this game with you. Get out of the truck." After they had taken good care of Brother Randy (they wrapped him in there swaddling clothes, better known as golden handcuffs-- made by Smith and Wesson), they decided to offer me their services:

"What is your name?" I was asked. "You presume I have a name," I said. I declined to be made merchandise, to which they responded, "Every body has a name." I responded, "Names are the notes, symbols or marks of things given by those in authority to those in subjection to that authority. I am made in the Image and Likeness of God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, and therefore am not a thing. I have a name that God has given me because I am subject to His Authority as you are; and, Caesar has not given me a name. I am to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Who do you minister for?" The response was, "I am not a minister. Now, what is your name?" I asked, in response, "I will re-phrase my question. In whose name and by whose authority do you do the things you do?" The response I received was, "The City of Escondido. Now what is your name?" I responded, "You have presumed you have Lawful authority to ask the question. Out of your mouth you have admitted you do not minister for God in Christ Jesus. I am to render to God the things that are God's and God has called me from time immemorial and He knew me before the foundation of the world. Therefore, the name I have He gave me and is not given me by Caesar. I have to render the name He gave me to Him alone. No man can serve two masters. You serve Caesar and not our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus." The law enforcement service provider barked back, "You are interfering with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties. I could bring you in for doing just that." I said, "I am not interfering with whatever your duties may be. You are not an officer. You have a contract of employment with the City of Escondido which makes you at most an agent, not an officer. Officers are in Law, not in contract. Agency is in contract, not in Law. An agent may act in the name of his principal, but he may not assume to be the principal, and when questioned about his agency he is bound to show it, which you have already done." Their response was, "Caesar has been dead for two thousand years. Now tell us who you are. You obviously are lying." I retorted, "I am who my Father says I am. How would you know the truth when you have cast the Law of God behind you and forsaken Him? You could not know the Truth, and if you could not know the Truth, you would never know a lie." The service provider replied, "Do you mind if I search you, then?" I replied, "You will do whatever you deem is necessary to accomplish your intended purpose." He replied, "You are entitled at least to an opinion." My reply was, "I have no entitlements from Caesar and opinions are not Law, and have no standing in Law." He asked, "Do you have any weapons?" I replied, "No, but I do carry a small pocket screwdriver." He then pat searched me, and pulled some objects out of my pockets, including the screwdriver. He rifled through some of them, and found a prescription written to "John." He showed it to me and said, "I found this prescription with 'John'. Are you John?" I replied, "You say I am." He said, "No. I am asking you if you are the person on this prescription." I said, "You say I am." He then screamed at me, "I need to know if this is you. Are you John?" I said, "You say I am." He screamed at me, "I did not make a statement. I asked an interrogatory. Do you know what an interrogatory is?" I replied, no change in voice, "You say I do."

By this time, another squad car had arrived, with a sergeant and another enforcement service provider. This provider then said, "An interrogatory is a question. I am going to ask you again. Are you John?" I shot back, "You are accusing me of being the person on that paper. Therefore, you say I am." He then asked, "Then, how do you introduce yourself to others?" I answered, "I don't. Did I run up to you and tell you any thing?" He answered, "No." Then I said, "There is your answer." He gave up in frustration at this time.

The sergeant asked me, "Have you ever been arrested?" I responded, "In whose name do you come?" He stopped for a second, and then went over to the provider who had been screaming at me and did some consultation with him. He then returned, and asked again, "Have you ever been arrested?" I replied, "I need to know in whose name you do the things you do before I answer that question, because you came to me, I did not come to you." He replied, "I am conducting an investigation and I need to know who you are to continue my investigation." I said, "Well, when you answer in whose name you do the things you do then you may proceed in your investigation. I am not impeding your investigation in any way." His reply, "I work for the City of Escondido. Now who are you?" I replied, "I have a name God has given me, and it is to Him I must give it. Out of your mouth you have testified that you do not minister for our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus. No man can serve two masters--you will serve either Christ or the City of Escondido." His reply was, "I am a Christian just as you are." I replied, "That is an opinion only, and there is no truth in opinions. To be true, they must have the corroboration of the Spirit of God, which is lacking in your testimony because what you wish to execute against me is outside Him. It is written, 'He that saith I love Him and keepeth not His commandments is a liar.' Whose law commands the living to join themselves to the dead?" There was no response at this time.

Then they decided to take a Polaroid photograph of me which I politely refused. I was directed to the back of the truck and to turn around and face the audience of law enforcement service providers, which I did not. I was asked, "You do not want to give us your picture?" I replied, "It is an image." The reply was, "Is it a graven image?" I said, "It is only an image." At this point, out of the corner of my right eye, a camera appeared and I turned my head just as the flash went off. I was then directed to sit back on the front of their company car that Brother Randy was sitting in, and on my way to it they came and snapped another photograph. After another few minutes they finally let me go, with this, their favorite lie, "Every one must have identification in the State of California." I replied, "That is more opinion, speculation, and belief. That is not law for there is no corrobation by the Spirit of God." I walked out, thanking our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus for being with me, and filling my cup with His Wisdom, for without it, I would never have been able to drink of the nourishment of Him and His Word. The myth that every one must have some identification on them was fully exposed this night by the Grace and Spirit of Almighty God by standing on the Holy Ground of His Word, once again showing that this is the only place where Truth and Peace are found--in Him.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."--Proverbs 26:4.

The Power of Words:

Justification, Condemnation, and Confirmation

written solely by the Grace of God in

Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour

by John Joseph, a mere bondservant in and of Christ Jesus

While reading Scripture during this past week it suddenly was laid upon my heart by our Lord that we have never really explained, in detail, the power of words during our sojourn in and with Christ Jesus. I was soon overwhelmed with the breadth and depth with which Scripture covers this most important subject. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus was more aware of the power of words than any one of His or our day, and we in and of His Body must be just as keen on our use of words as He is in Scripture, and in His sojourn in and with us.

We have been led to believe that words in our day and age have been re-defined, mutilated, and stripped of their original substance. But upon closer examination, we find the opposite is true. What has been done is that we have adopted the ways of the world, and have adopted its words to describe in a euphonious way the unclean things. A recent example is the word "party." It is a noun and not a verb. Today's younger generation uses the word as a verb. Instead of saying, "Let's have a party" they say "Let's party." Nouns have substance, verbs do not--they are action words. The same is true of the word "christian." It is not a noun, but an adjective, used derogatorily to describe someone in terms of the world. The substance is not in that word, but in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe and which it and its pagan user cannot see. Another is the word "nice." It is derived from the Latin nescire, to know not, or in current language, stupid and foolish. This is what makes etymology of words so important. Yet not one in ten would know this, or if they did, they know it as merely an idle curiosity, and do not discern the power of the word itself. Last, the words christian civil government. That is an oxymoron--civil government is never of Christ, but of men--they are His rod of correction to chastise us when we depart from Him, in thought, word, or deed, for Christ said;

"those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man." Matthew 15:18.

And it is written;

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4.
"Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backsliding shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou has forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts." Jeremiah 2:19.
"Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy." Isaiah 54:16.
"Our lusts are cords. Fiery trials are sent to burn and consume them." Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications), p. 584.

and Brother Paul warned us that:

"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." 1 Corinthians 15:13.

Therefore, words have a tremendous impact on us in doing the things we do and the way we perceive things around us. Because of this evolution in language, God has given us His Word which changes not in more than one form: In Christ, in His Spirit, in Scripture, and in His Creation. It is to these we look for witness of the things we do and say. These Witnesses never have and never will change their Testimony.

Other than grammatical classification, we have Law words, legal words, and terms of art. We will look at the last one first:

"TERM. A word or phrase; an expression; particularly one which possesses a fixed and known meaning in some science, art, or profession." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 &1968), p. 1639.

Note carefully the last part of the above definition. If you speak the terms known in some peculiar science, art or profession, then you are one in that profession, art, or science; and bear that profession's, art's, or science's mark, witnessed by diplomas, degrees, certificates, awards, adnauseam. Therefore, you must be regulated by such codes, rules, and regulations which constitute the morality or ethics of that art, profession, science because they are not in and of Christ Jesus. Note carefully one of the several Titles of Christ is Tree of Life (see Revelation 2:7)--not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, where you find ethics and morality. The mark or seal will be expounded upon later.

Let us now look at the first two. On first examination law and legal seem to be the same thing. But when examined more thoroughly, we find something else:

"LAWFUL. The principal distinction between the terms 'lawful' and 'legal' is that the former [*Lawful] contemplates the substance of law, the latter [*legal] the form of law. To say of an act that it is 'lawful' implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is 'legal' implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense 'illegal' approaches the meaning of 'invalid.' For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word 'lawful' more clearly implies an ethical content than does 'legal.' The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word 'legal' is used as the synonym of 'constructive,' which 'lawful' is not. Thus 'legal fraud' is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. 'Lawful fraud' would be a contradiction in terms. Again, 'legal' is used as the antithesis of 'equitable.' Thus, we speak of 'legal assets,' or 'legal estate,' etc., but not of 'lawful assets,' or 'lawful estate.' But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a 'lawful' writ, warrant, or process is the same as a 'legal' writ, warrant, or process." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1032.

What then would make a Law word and what a legal word? The Giver of the Law will determine this. If the Giver of the Law is God Himself, as in the cases of Moses, the Prophets, and the Christ then the words in and of that Law are Substance because they have their origin in Him Who spoke all Substance in to being and Who sustains and maintains that Substance. If the giver is man, and man really can never create law but only image of law, then the law has no substance but is an image or vapor of law. This is further distinguished in the difference between character and reputation:

"CHARACTER. Character consists of the qualities which constitute the individual, while reputation is the sum of opinions entertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow [*fiction]. Character is what a person is [*Who is the Author or author of the person]. Reputation is what people say of him. But not with standing this distinction which is every where agreed upon, the two words are sometimes used, even by judges, as synonymous." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 138.

This will become more apparent when we look at "the doctrine of the seal" later in this short explanation. To draw further distinctions, we will look at our example in and of Christ and the words He used and the manner in which He used them.

We will start with the characteristics of His words, compare them with the words of the world, and then see why this is so important to His church and state. In the Gospel recorded by Brother Mark, He says:

"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31.

He laid on the heart of Brother David the following:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160.

This is our first clue in regard to the power of His words. They have the same characteristic of God's Word: they are forever, and from everlasting. Nothing about them is for nought. All things we know by our senses and our spirit will pass away, but His Word never passes, for without His Word nothing is created or sustained:

"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3.
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8.
"Scire leges, non hoc est verba earum tenere, sed vim et potestatem --To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2162.
"Lex est ab aeterno --The law is from everlasting." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143.

When He speaks, His Word is power and accomplishes that which He sent it to do--His Word is not a failure, it is not empty, nor is it vain:

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.
"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." Isaiah 11:1 & 4.
"And they were astonished at his doctrine: for His word was with power." Luke 4:32.
"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matthew 7:28-29.
"The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled His word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries." Lamentations 2:17.

This leads us to the next characteristic: His Words are life both to the spirit in man He planted by His Power, and all things on the earth He sustains:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." John 6:63 & 68.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24.
"There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health." Proverbs 12:18.
"And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away." Matthew 21:19.

The mercenaries sent by the Pharisees testified that His Word is power:

"The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." John 7:46.

They therefore testified that Christ Jesus is Truly King of kings:

"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4. [Note also Christ's answer to the Pharisees recorded in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33.]

Only He knows what Life and Power are, not men proud of their own philosophy, diplomas, certificates, letters, awards, ad nauseam:

"In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:4, 8-9.
"The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly." Proverbs 20:27.

He testified to us that the word He spoke was the Word of God, our Father:

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." John 14:24.

...not the word of reason, speculation, or philosophy pleasing to men or himself:

"And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." John 8:50.
"He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." John 7:18.

...which the pharisees of His day did, and continue to do:

that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15.

The words He used were and are pure, without leaven of morality, morals, philosophy, speculation, opinion, or belief:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." Proverbs 30:5.24
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-27.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12:6.

Brother Spurgeon's comments on the Psalm are on point here for all of us:

"Verse 6. What a contrast between the vain words of man, and the pure words of Jehovah. Man's words are yea and nay, but the Lord's promises are yea and amen. For Truth, certainty, holiness, faithfulness, the words of the Lord are pure as well-refined silver. In the original there is an allusion to the most severely-putrefying process known to the ancients, through which silver was passed when the greatest possible purity was desired; the dross was all consumed, and only the bright and precious metal remained; so clear and free from all alloy of error or unfaithfulness is the book of the words of the Lord. The Bible has passed through the furnace of persecution, literary criticism, philosophical doubt, and scientific discovery, and has lost nothing but those human interpretations which clung to it as alloy to precious ore. The experience of saints has tried it in every conceivable manner, but not a single doctrine or promise has been consumed in the most excessive heat. What God's words are, the words of His children should be. If we would be Godlike in conversation, we must watch our language, and maintain the strictest purity of integrity and holiness in all our communications." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Treasury of David, vol. I, p. 143.

Thereby confirming,

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." John 3:34.
"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." John 20:21.

For us then, to be truly sent by God in Christ Jesus, we must speak His Word in fullness of faith in and to Him, and not the word of the world. He testified to us:

"If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you." Luke 17:6.

Without fulness of faith in and to Him it is not possible to do the work of Him Who called us out of the world, sanctified us in Truth, and sent us into the world to bear witness of Him. Again He says,

"And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matthew 17:20.

It is then incumbent upon us to know Who that Word is and the Power of and behind those words.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.

Christ then is the Word, and the Word is God, the words He spoke are the words of God our Father, "Who doeth the works"--Who is the Power in the word I, Christ Jesus, speak. We know His Testimony is True:

"the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works." John 14:10.
"And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man [*Satan--the ungodly State personified] armed keepeth his palace [*image of venue and jurisdiction], his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he [*in the Office of Christ] shall come upon him, and overcome him [*see John 16:33], he taketh from him all his armour [*purported law shielding a separate private jurisdiction] wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils [*ill gotten gain]." Luke 11:19-22. See also Proverbs 15:27.

Christ Jesus encouraged us to,

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48.

This is not just in deed, but in power and a part of both is speaking words of His Power, for,

"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5.

It is not possible to be grafted into the Living Tree of Life and the dead tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil--morality-- at the same time, and bring forth fruit meet for each:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matthew 7:17-18.
"Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." Matthew 12:33.

Let us not betray ourselves and our sojourn in and with Christ to the world, by taking on its words of death:

"The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath." Proverbs 15:24.
"And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:23.

Note carefully Christ is saying that the morality of men and their commerce are of death and from hell. For our Warrant is written thus,

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4.

How do we know who the fool is? It is written,

"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.

We should also note in what different modes Satan will attempt to entrap us, for they are the same modes he used to trap Christ in Matthew 4:

"There are three kinds of straits wherein Satan aims to entrap the believer: nice questions [*"What is your name?"], obscure Scriptures, and dark providences [*"If you don'tit'll be tougher on you."]." William Gurnall, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publs. 1987), p. 597. [*Insertions added]

Likewise, when we speak the words of God, and we are not heard, we know that the hearer of them has not the Truth in him, but another spirit, i.e. Satan, the Destroyer, Abaddon or Apollyon:

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47.
"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John 4:6.
"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16.
"If a skilful man hear a wise word, he will commend it, and add unto it: but as soon as one of no understanding heareth it, it displeaseth him, and he casteth it behind him." Ecclesiasticus 21:15. See also 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Therefore God declares against the wicked,

"But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief [*merchant, banker, mercenary, politician, etc.], then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers [*those who have mixed My Word with moral philosophy]. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit [*morality of codes, rules, and regulations]. Thou sittest [*in self-righteous judgment] and speakest against [*accuse] thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son [*for money]." Psalm 50:16-17.

The words we speak must have the corroboration of the Spirit of God or they are vain and empty because they are without His Power:

"The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh [*self-righteous moral philosophy]; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Matthew 8:13-18.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; " Romans 1:20.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake." John 14:10-11.

Do not ever make the foolish mistake that you can "christianize" any image, fiction, or lie for none of these are in or of Christ. Job made this observation:

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Job 14:4.

It is also written,

"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John 6:28-29.
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6.
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" Proverbs 20:9.
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." Proverbs 16:2.

Simply said--do not believe mere men or the images of men; do not try to conjure up your own images of "christianity," or what salvation in Christ should be; but believe Him and on Him Whom God has sent. This is because man is limited by the Word of God; God is not bound by man. This is why philosophy and its vain words are deceit, and those who use them are deceiving themselves and others, leading them to the same destruction that awaits those who join them:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise." 1 Corinthians 3:18.
"For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Galatians 6:3.

Never answer morality with morality, but with Law, because it is written,

"There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves." Job 34:22.
"He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart. Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation." Proverbs 26:24-26.
"For wisdom is a loving spirit; and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words: for God is witness of his reins, and a true beholder of his heart, and a hearer of his words." Wisdom of Solomon 1:6.

This tells you how to answer all law enforcement service providers. Answer all with the words of Christ, always and continually avoiding the general issue in Law:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew 7:15.
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16.
"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Ephesians 5:15-16.
"Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Colossians 4:5-6.
"Beware that thou be not deceived, and brought down in thy jollity. If thou be invited of a mighty man [*sheriff employee, policeman, agent, ad nauseam], withdraw thyself [*avoid], and so much the more will he invite thee. Press thou not upon him, lest thou be put back; stand not far off, lest thou be forgotten. Affect not to be made equal unto him in talk, and believe not his many words: for with much communication will he tempt thee, and smiling upon thee will get out thy secrets: But cruelly will he lay up thy words, and will not spare to to do thee hurt, and to put thee in prison. Observe, and take good heed, for thou walkest in peril of thy overthrowing: when thou hearest these things, awake in thy sleep. Love the Lord all thy life, and call upon Him for salvation." Ecclesiasticus 13:8-14.
"And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words." Mark 12:13.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7.
"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain." James 1:26.

For we are called to,

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2 Timothy 4:2.

And the words we use are evidence of whether we speak in and of Truth in Christ, or a lie in and of the Liar.

Without His Power, there can be no judgment executed, for:

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." Psalm 37:30.

To be continued next month.

The Mystery of 666

Part Two

by John Joseph

(continued from Issue the Thirty-eighth)

"LIBERTARIANISM. (metaphysical) A view that seeks to protect the reality of human free will by supposing that a free choice is not causally determined but not random either (see dilemma of determinism). What is needed is the conception of a rational, responsible, intervention in the ongoing course of events. In some developments a special category of agent-causation is posited, but its relationship with the neurophysiological workings of the brain and body, or indeed any moderately naturalistic view of ourselves, tends to bre very uneasy, and it is frequently derided as the desire to protect the fantasy of an agency situated outside the realm of nature altogether." Oxford's Dict. of Philosophy (1994), p. 218.

This is further evident in the fact that "police power" is one of those ruses of reason prevalent today which today's "courts" use to hold up these phony pieces of paper, by imposing morality on the "moral person" "subject to the jurisdiction thereof":

"'The law of necessity has been stated to be an exception to all human ordinances and constitutions [*but is not excepted from Law in and of Christ], yet has been frequently decided to be subject to the law of reason, and subject to the control of the courts.' [W. P. Prentice, The Police Power, p. 6.]" Wickersham, The Police Power, A Product of the Rule of Reason (1914), 27 Harv.L.R. 297.
"VALUES AND THE LAW. Roughly speaking, values are the moral rules that are something like the law of the land. Our written laws can be regarded as one subset of moral rules. Even though the laws and rules of different communities may be somewhat different from on another, every community needs moral rules in order to survive, and the rules need to be enforced. People, including counselors, need to know what the rules are and try to obey them. Complying is admittedly complicated, however, because we have a great many laws and moral rules, they are often inconsistent with on another, and they gradually change over time.
"In order to preserve society and to live effectively within it, individuals must learn to exercise rational choice. Insofar as an individual is rational and able to choose, he or she is capable of moral agency. And since individuals derive benefits from living within a society, each is morally obligated to live by its rules (Wilson, 1978). In deed, except for the legally incompetent, the role of social agent is unavoidable. Downie (1971) points out that even persons who decide they need not consider any moral claims on themselves, those who just do not bother to do so, and those who act immorally continue to be moral agents. One cannot by one's choice abdicate the role of moral agent, for the decision to abdicate is itself a moral position.
"MORAL JUDGMENT, VALUES, KNOWLEDGE, AND REASONING. Morality works by providing social direction and control to the members of a society in making practical judgments as to what they should and should not do, and it gives them practical reasons for doing what they should do (Baier, 1965). Moral judgments are arrived at by surveying the facts of the situation and applying to them 'rules of reason,' or the society's 'consideration-making beliefs.' Polanyi (1964) prefers the term 'maxim' to name the kinds of values or moral rules we are talking about here. One such rule might be that when evaluating means and ends, ends are to be given more value than means. Counselors often seem to be guilty of violating this rule when they avoid discussing short-term and long-term outcomes of their own and their clients' behaviors.
"People presumably use their moral rules to establish criteria for making comparisons and rankings among alternative actions, to guide them in considering consequences, and to determine, more or less consciously, which course of action a 'reasonable' individual would choose. The process of moral judgment requires knowledge of the common rules of behavior such as laws, conventions, and manners and also some ability to reason. Both the knowledge of rules and the reasoning skills must be acquired, and it is probably true that, in virtually all societies, the elders feel morally obligated to teach these to younger generations." Biggs and Blocher, Foundations of Ethical Counseling (1987), pp. 23-25.

But for the sojourner serving Christ, Christ is the end of the Law because by Him all things consist:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Romans 10:4.
"CAPUT, PRINCIPIUM, ET FINIS. The head, the beginning, and the end. The King [*Christ Jesus] was said to bear this relation toward the body politic [*His church] of the kingdom ." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dict., pp. 125-126.

Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper, we should never look to them for any authority for doing any thing.

We may examine this further in light of the following from Holy Scripture, regardless of the statements of the natural man who uses his purported office to promote his pleasure and love of death through his moral insanity:

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Proverbs 8:36.
"But she [*or he] that liveth in pleasure is dead while she [*or he] liveth." 1 Timothy 5:6.
"Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone [*Christ Jesus], a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation [*see also Psalm 127:1, 1 Corinthians 3:11, and Ephesians 2:19-22]: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies [*see judgment of Sodom and Gommorah], and the waters shall overflow the hiding place [*see judgment of the world by God in Noah's time]. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." Isaiah 28:14-18.

These are the Judgments of God, not men, and it is these Judgments Christ's church is to execute, in His Name and under Authority of His Warrant in Law, for it is written:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:28-32.
"Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints. Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King. Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp. For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD." Psalm 149.

Lord Willing, we will explore the meaning of the final two symbols, "66," in a future Issue of The News.

History of the Law Merchant

Written by Helen West Bradlee

Commentaries by John Joseph and Randy Lee

The following "History of the Law Merchant" was written in Boston in 1929 by Helen West Bradley who was a member of the SUFFOLK BAR. All comments by John Joseph and Randy Lee are in italics and designated as such. There are three footnotes at the end of the article.

THE LAW MERCHANT or

LEX MERCATORIA

Common Law

The expression "Common Law" has several meanings. First it is used to distinguish law as practiced in the common law courts from equity. Second, it is used to distinguish the so-called unwritten law, that is, traditional law, law which from custom has become the law of the land, from the statute law or law declared by parliament. Third, it is used to distinguish this law which is the law of England, from the civil law which is the law of those countries who have founded their system upon Roman Law.

There is also another distinction. In examining the reports o of the 17th century, hardly any commercial cases will be found. For example, under charter parties and bills of lading, there are very few cases concerning merchants and ships despite the fact that these matters have always been productive of litigation, the reason being that the common law did not govern these types of cases; they were left to be governed by the law merchant, a branch of the law of nations. Commercial matters were dealt with by special courts in and under a special law which was at that time a well established law and largely based on mercantile customs.

The Law Merchant

The history of the law merchant or Lex Mercatoria is therefore really the history of private international law which grew in great degree out of the transactions between different nations. And at one time, without doubt, it was the law of England simply because it was the law of other nations.

Its Origin

The exact place and time of its origin is uncertain. Many writers have stated that it began in Italy in the central part of the Middle Ages. But investigation of early documents show that it goes back much further. For instance, to the time when the Arabs{1} dominated the Mediterranean. But they invented little and many of the terms which they used came from the Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians, who for many hundreds of years monopolized the sea commerce.

Comments: The cities of Tyre and Sidon which figure prominently in Bible Prophecy were Phoenician cities. The latter, Tyre, was a large commercial seaport of Phoenicia.

Magnitude of Trade of Arabs

The magnitude of the trade of the Arabs between the time of Mohammed and the Crusades was great. They made voyages to China and to India where they established colonies. This trade was temporarily interrupted by the Chinese insurrection of 875 A.D., but the intermediate commerce was not disturbed and trade with Indo China, East Persia and India continued. By land there was a great deal of traffic with Persia, India, Bokhara and Samarkand. Until the 11th century both their caravans and vessels carried their merchandise along the North Coast of Africa while traders from Arabic Spain and Sicily trafficked to Egypt and the intervening ports.

At the time of the Crusades, the Arabs had an immensely heavy trade. This is attested by the fact that in 1191 during the Third Crusade, Richard, Coeur De Lion, captured one of Saladin's caravans, rashly traveling west of the Jordon and became possessed of "very rich spoil of spices, gold, silver, silks, robes, arms of every kind, together with 4700 camels, besides asses and mules without number." This reciprocal trade was almost entirely between those of the same religion. When the Arab fleets went elsewhere, they sailed not for trade, but for rapine and conquest. But the intercourse between the Christians and the Saracens of South Italy and Sicily was not always hostile. Frederic II was especially friendly to the latter, and there were many treaties of peace and commerce between Aragon and El Mogreb.

It was into this rich eastern trade that the Italians and others came to share; the first Genoese fleet bringing supplies arriving in 1198, followed by the Pisans and Venetians and the men of Amalfi. Each nation seemed to have had its viscount with consuls in several cities for the purpose of self government and protection, observing their own laws and customs. Whether before this time they had adopted the sea law of the East or not, it is clear that it soon became part of the law of the Western Mediterranean. Venice, as the chief distributing mart of the Middle Ages, became in the 14th century the southern terminus of a great land trade route.

First Treatise on Merchant Law

in England - 1622

The first work on merchant law in England was written by Gerard Malynes published in 1622, entitled Consultudo Vel Lex Mercatoria or The Ancient Law Merchant. In his preface to this work, he stated that he had entitled it Lex Mercatoria instead of Jus Mercatorum because it is customary law provided by the authority of all kingdoms and Commonweals, and not a law established by the sovereignty of any prince. Blackstone stated that the affairs of commerce were regulated by a law of their own called the Law Merchant or Lex Mercatoria "which all nations agree in and take notice of and it is particularly held to be part of the law of England which justifies the causes of merchants and the general rules which obtain in all commercial countries." Still later, Lord Mansfield stated that "Mercantile law is not the law of a particular country but the law of all nations".

On What Law Merchant is Based

The Lex Mercatoria would seem to be in part based on Roman law, in part maritime custom, in part the law of the Medieval European fairs, and to a great extent upon the last.

Comments: We see from the above, that Babylonian confusion reigns in the commercial world under the lex mercatoria. The merging of Roman law (the State is your god), maritime law (international trade is your saviour) and the pagan fair (the shopping mall is your playground).

Contents of the Lex Mercatoria

There is some obscurity as to what constituted the substance of the Lex Mercatoria, but it is definitely defined as the law administered as between merchants and the consular or commercial courts, some of it being substantive law and some rules of evidence and procedure.

Comments: Defined above are the activities of today's courts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Distinctive Elements in Law Merchant

In every land during the 12th and following centuries, the towns began to record their laws and customs, which everywhere contain legal rules for commerce that differ from the common law of the land. In most of the Italian cities, commercial law is to be found mainly in the Statutes of the Merchant Guilds. These once confirmed, tacitly or expressly, had all the authority of State law, binding on all who traded within the city. As heads of the Guild, the consules mercatorum administered the law, but the city magistrates were under a strict obligation to which they had to swear on entering upon their office, to aid if necessary, the Guild Consuls with all the powers of the State in securing the execution of their judicial sentences.

Comments: Again, the above defines today's courts, and the development of State jurisdiction, regulation, etc. In this "the law of the land" is what is defined and mandated by these merchant courts.

Effect of the Law Merchant on

Common & Statute Law

Many of the rules of the Law Merchant were directed to evade inconvenient rules of the common law. For example, one of the first rules of the common law is that a man cannot give what he himself has not. Hence, a man who has no title to goods cannot give title. Consequently, when you buy a thing, if you are to be sure that you have title to it, you must inquire into the title of that thing back to its remote possessors, to make sure that no one in the chain of title stole it or obtained it by fraud. Whereas, the merchant said that commercial business "cannot be carried on if we have to inquire into the title of everybody who comes to us with documents of title."

Lord Justice Bowen in Sanders v. McKlean, 11 Q.B.D., page 343, said, "The practice of merchants is not based on the supposition of possible fraud. The object of mercantile usage is to prevent the risk of insolvency, not of fraud; and anyone who attempts to follow and understand the Law Merchant will soon find himself lost, if he begins by assuming that merchants conduct their business on the basis of attempting to insure themselves against fraudulent dealing. The contra is the case. Credit, not distrust, is the basis of commercial dealings. Mercantile genius consists principally in knowing whom to trust and with whom to deal...".

The Law Merchant dealt with many choses in action, and it would have been very inconvenient, for example, when a man took a bill of exchange, if he were not able to sue on it in his own name or would have to inquire into the title of all previous endorsers.

Comments: Above and below clearly shows that a "title deed" is nothing more than a 'bill of exchange," representitive of, but never touching, the substance of the land.

Hence, the Law Merchant established certain documents or choses in action which were transferable by delivery and endorsement, or by delivery, so that the holder could sue in his own name and which passed good title to the transferee who took them in good faith, notwithstanding the transferor had no title. They could be sued on by the holder in his own name and were not affected by previous lack of title. This instrument was the original negotiable instrument. Hence, the law of negotiable instruments, with a few exceptions, is founded entirely upon the customs of merchants.

Comments: The law of negotiable instruments is today contained in the Uniform Commercial Code, the modern code of the modern merchant, which are not modern, because it is written, "There is nothing new under the sun."

The Fairs of the Middle Ages

A fair was an imposing assemblage occurring as rule once a year, attended by merchants who traveled from far distant countries, bringing wares from perhaps even more distant countries. It would be conducted for a consecutive period of several weeks, would cover a large space of ground on which would be erected temporary buildings and streets for the booths, etc., the sale of things in the different streets being carried on in the different booths and offered every conceivable commodity which could be made and sold. To regulate the currency and secure the country against the loss of specie, as well as to prevent importation of spurious or debased coin, the officer of the King's Exchange examined into the mercantile transactions of the foreign traders.

Consuls and Consulados

It is impossible to fix with certainty the origin of the institution of consuls, but it certainly goes back to the ancient Greeks, since the proxenia of ancient Greeks corresponds to the modern consular system. The proxenoi, like the consul, supplied information to the government that appointed them, and also furnished advice and assistance to the citizens who were subjects of that government while residing temporarily in the territory of another country. The more modern institution of consuls is probably more of Italian growth. The duties of these consuls at first was merely to attending the traveling merchants to the fairs, represent them generally in all matters connected with the fairs, with jurisdiction to settle all fair disputes which might arise between members of the same nationality.

Hanseatic League 1241 - 1269

This was a combination of merchants which provided rules and regulations for their conduct and which was to protect them when the law did not protect or recognize the rights of the traders. It was a merchant guild formed in Germany in 1241 to protect the merchants. It came to control all the trade of Northern Europe and included eighty-five leading cities, among which was London. At its height it had considerable power; it maintained an army and a navy, guarded roads from city to city, kept a fortress and a storehouse in each city, waged war, enforced the merchant's laws at the various fairs. Its last general assembly is said to have been held about 1669.

Comments: A very analogous situation exists in the way that the Constitution for the United States is employed to protect its "interests" here and abroad. Things on paper, "the United States," are dead, and the lie is that somehow a dead body can protect those underneath it from the Law that killed the body and declares it dead.

Fairs in England

It is probable the Romans that introduced fairs into England as they did into so many other places. Alfred directed alien merchants to come only to the four fairs of London, York, Bristol and Winchester and to their remaining at each fair not more than 40 days. Athelred II proclaimed peace for ships of merchants, even though they be enemies, coming with goods into any port. Henry II granted to the citizens of London freedom from lestage, a due for leave to sell at fairs and from other tolls.

Comments: During the Viet Nam war, U.S. pilots were routinely sent to attack inland targets at great personal risk to themselves, while at the same time being forbidden to attack the merchant ships of several nations that were offloading war materials in Hai Phong harbor.

Bills of Exchange

The earliest form of negotiable instrument was the Bill of Exchange. Blackstone (2 Com. 467) says in regard to their origin, "This method (bills of exchange) is said to have been brought into general use by the Jews and Lombards{2} when banished for their usury and their vices, in order to more easily draw their finances out of France and England into those countries in which they had chosen to reside." But the invention of it was earlier, for the Jews were banished from England in 1290, and in 1236 the use of paper credit was introduced into the Mogul Empire in China. Daniels, in his work on Negotiable Instruments states that, "There is reason to believe that bills of exchange were known in England as early as 1307 at least since in that year King Edward I ordered certain money collected in England for the Pope and it was to be remitted to him not by way of coin or bullion, but by way of exchange." The Jewish Encyclopedia suggests a much more probable origin of bills of exchange, viz: "The practice seems to have begun among the Arab traders of the Levant in the 8th century and from them passed to the Italian traders who followed the Crusades."

Obviously, it was impossible for caravan commerce to be carried on after the age of barter (sic) had passed, without some form of documentary credits, the distances to be traveled and the dangers traveled and the dangers of the routes making bills of some sort imperative. The relics which have come down to us, however, are few since every great commercial center of the east has been thoroughly destroyed more than once. But there are some instances of certain forms of bills of exchange at very early dates.

Five tablets{3} were some time ago dug up in one of the ancient Assyrian capitals, the first of which expresses a certain simple obligation by debtor to creditor, which was duly signed and witnessed and payable with interest; the second in which was an obligation payable at short maturity with a penalty clause; third was an obligation secured by a credit on a third person, who was to pay in case the debtor did not; fourth, reciting that signer had delegated to third person the right to recover the debt; and fifth, was a fully developed bill of exchange drawn up by one person at one place on another at another place and containing the name of the payee, date when payment was to be made, the bill being signed and witnessed. These clay documents were evidently issued before the use of coins. There are other examples extant of Babylonian letters of credit or bills of exchange in other tablets dating from 677 to 179 B.C.

Comments: Habakkuk 2:6, "Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, 'Woe to him that increases that which is not his! How long!' And to him that loads himself with thick clay!" The terms "thick clay" are the english rendering of a Hebrew word that refers to mortgage pledges. The "law" that appears to govern negotiable instruments is as malleable as fresh clay--an image shaped by its makers upon the dictates of the situation--desires fulfilled upon payment of bribe.

Second Instrument to be made Negotiable

The Promissory Note was the next document which obtained the feature of negotiability. The first case in which a promissory note was recognized by the courts of England as negotiable instruments was that of Sheldon v. Hently, 2 Showers 160, decided in 1680, in which case the court held a promissory note to be a negotiable instrument expressly stating "... it was the custom of merchants that made them good."

Comment: Faith in man, not God in Christ Jesus, is the gospel of misery in commerce.

Bank Notes become Negotiable

The next instruments to become negotiable were the promissory notes payable on demand issued by bankers, that is, bank notes. To this again, the custom of merchants very speedily gave negotiability, and in the leading case of Miller v. Race, Lord Mansfield decided that bank notes also were negotiable instruments, holding that it was necessary for the purposes of commerce that their currency be established and secured. Next, the banks besides issuing their promissory notes payable on demand, accepted and honored bills of exchange drawn on them by their customers payable on demand, that is, the check came into existence, and the practice of merchants made it negotiable.

Conclusion

The influence of the fairs on the public law and their influence on the relationship of international law was great. The term fair was practically equivalent to the term peace. The reaction against the principals of primitive hostility was working under the influence of commercial needs. Thanks to the progress of the peace of the fairs and their safe conducts, the communications of foreigner with foreigner became more certain; international relations multiplied; transactions were surrounded by guarantees, and the idea of good faith and of the loyalty which should preside over commerce were more and more developed. Means of transport were perfected. Men, hitherto thrown back upon themselves in a family group came into contact with each other; original mistrust was weakening. Little by little the last vestiges of primitive hostility disappeared. They are the first places where the exchanges for value were able to develop; the law of supply and demand, the law of the balance of trade, find there their first application. It was at the fairs and markets that money ceased to be mere objects of consumption, and became capital. Due to them, traffic was regularized and submitted to the great law of competition.

Comment: Building precept upon precept, line upon line, and moving inch by inch into the territory of God through ignorance shows that battle lines are drawn and moved as the battle rages. The place where God drew the line has never changed. The fools believe it does not exist because for them God is their solar plexus. But there is a great separation between the solar plexus and the Spirit of God. Such is evident from the accounts in Scripture. That line of separation is a great gulf which cannot be bridged, although man has been pressing to enter the Kingdom without permission in and of Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour. The battle external is also internal to every man in this temporal world. Whom will you serve?

End Notes

{1} Hebrew "arab' (aw-rab) a primitive root. to pledge. exchange. mortgage engage occupy. undertake for give pledges. Be/become surety. take on pledge give on pledge.

{2} Lombards - A name given to the merchants of Italy, numbers of whom during the 12th and 13th centuries were established as merchants and bankers in the principle cities of Europe. (Lombard Street, London). Black's Law Dictionary 5th edition.

{3} There are now thousands of such tablets in existence.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

Love (noun and verb)

A. Verbs.

1. agapao ^25^ and the corresponding noun agape (B, No. 1 below) present "the characteristic word of Christianity, and since the Spirit of revelation has used it to express ideas previously unknown, inquiry into its use, whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint, throws but little light upon its distinctive meaning in the NT. Cf, however, <Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5>.

Agape and agapao are used in the NT (a) to describe the attitude of God toward His Son, <John 17:26>; and to such as believe on the Lord Jesus Christ particularly <John 14:21>; (b) to convey His will to His children concerning their attitude one toward another, <John 13:34>, and toward all men, <1 Thes. 3:12; 1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Pet. 1:7>; (c) to express the essential nature of God, <1 John 4:8>.

Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God's love is seen in the gift of His Son, <1 John 4:9,10>. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, <Rom. 5:8>. It was an exercise of the divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, Cf. <Deut. 7:7,8>.

Love had its perfect expression among men in the Lord Jesus Christ, <2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 2:4; 3:19; 5:2>; Christian love is the fruit of His Spirit in the Christian, <Gal. 5:22>.

Christian love has God for its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to His commandments, <John 14:15, 21,23; 15:10; 1 John 2:5; 5:3; 2 John 6>. Selfwill, that is, self-pleasing, is the negation of love to God.

Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, <Rom. 15:2>, and works no ill to any, <13:8-10>; love seeks opportunity to do good to `all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith,' <Gal. 6:10>. See further <1 Cor. 13> and <Col. 3:12-14>."

In respect of agapao as used of God, it expresses the deep and constant "love" and interest of a perfect Being towards entirely unworthy objects, producing and fostering a reverential "love" in them towards the Giver, and a practical "love" towards those who are partakers of the same, and a desire to help others to seek the Giver.

2. phileo ^5368^ is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents "tender affection." The two words are used for the "love" of the Father for the Son, <John 3:35> (No. 1), and <5:20> (No. 2); for the believer, <14:21> (No. 1) and <16:27> (No. 2); both, of Christ's "love" for a certain disciple, <13:23> (No. 1), and <20:2> (No. 2). Yet the distinction between the two verbs remains, and they are never used indiscriminately in the same passage; if each is used with reference to the same objects, as just mentioned, each word retains its distinctive and essential character.

Phileo is never used in a command to men to "love" God; it is, however, used as a warning in <1 Cor. 16:22>; agapao is used instead, e. g., <Matt. 22:37; Luke 10:27; Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 8:3; 1 Pet. 1:8; 1 John 4:21>. The distinction between the two verbs finds a conspicuous instance in the narrative of <John 21:15-17>. The context itself indicates that agapao in the first two questions suggests the "love" that values and esteems (cf. <Rev. 12:11>). It is an unselfish "love," ready to serve. The use of phileo in Peter's answers and the Lord's third question, conveys the thought of cherishing the Object above all else, of manifesting an affection characterized by constancy, from the motive of the highest veneration. See also Trench, Syn., Sec. xii.

Again, to "love" (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord's reproof, <John 12:25>. On the contrary, to "love" life (agapao) as used in <1 Pet. 3:10>, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.

Note: In , KJV, thelo, "to wish," is translated "love" (RV, "desire").

B. Nouns. 1. agape ^26^, the significance of which has been pointed out in connection with A, No. 1, is always rendered "love" in the RV where the KJV has "charity," a rendering nowhere used in the RV; in <Rom. 14:15>, where the KJV has "charitably," the RV, adhering to the translation of the noun, has "in love."

Note: In the two statements in <1 John 4:8> and <16>, "God is love," both are used to enjoin the exercise of "love" on the part of believers. While the former introduces a declaration of the mode in which God's love has been manifested <vv. 9,10>, the second introduces a statement of the identification of believers with God in character, and the issue at the Judgment Seat hereafter <v. 17>, an identification represented ideally in the sentence "as He is, so are we in this world."

2. philanthropia ^5363^ denotes, lit., "love for man" (phileo and anthropos, "man"); hence, "kindness," <Acts 28:2>, in <Titus 3:4>, "(His) love toward man."# Cf. the adverb philanthropos, "humanely, kindly," <Acts 27:3>.

Remembering the Old Ways

"How was it with our first parents? If ever outward law, categorical and imperative, might have been dispensed with, it might in Adam's case. In all the compass of his nature, there was nothing adverse to the law of God. He was a law unto himself. He was the moral law unto himself; loving God with all his heart, and his neighbour as himself, in all things content, in nothing coveting. Was imperative, authoritative, sovereign commandment therefore utterly unnecessary? Did God see it to be needless to say to him, Thou shalt, or, Thou shalt not? It was the very thing that infinite wisdom saw he needed. And therefore did He give commandment - "Thou shalt not eat of it".

"How was it with the last Adam? All God's law was in His heart operating there, an inward principle of grace; He surely, if any, might have dispensed with strict, imperative, authoritative law and commandment. 'I delight to do Thy will, O God; Thy law also is within My heart". Was no commandment, therefore, laid upon - no obedience-statute ordained - unto Him? Or did He complain if there was? Nay; I hear Him specially rejoicing in it. Every word He uttered, every work He did, was by commandment: 'My Father which sent me, He gave Me commandment what I should say and what I should do; as He gave me commandment therefore, so I speak'.

"And shall His members, though the regenerating Spirit dwells in them, claim an exemption from what the Son was not exempt? Shall believers, because the Spirit puts the law into their hearts, claim a right to act merely at the dictate of inward gracious principle, untrammeled, uncontrolled by outward peremptory statute? I appeal to Paul in the seventh chapter of the Romans, where he says: "The law is holy', and adds, as if to show that it was no inward actuating law of the heart, but God's outward commanding law to the will: 'the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and just, and good'. And I appeal to the sweet singer of Israel, as I find him in the 119th Psalm, which is throughout the breathing of a heart in which the law of God is written, owning himself with joy as under peremptory external law: 'Thou hast commanded us to keep Thy precepts diligently'".

If ye fulfill the royal Law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well" (James 2:8). The immediate purpose of the apostle was to correct an evil - common in all climes and ages - of which his brethren were guilty. They had paid deference to the wealthy, and shown them greater respect than the poor who attended their assembly (see preceding verses). They had, in fact, "despised the poor" (v.6). The result was that the worthy name of Christ had been "blasphemed" (v.7). Now it is striking to observe the method followed and the ground of appeal made by the apostle James in correcting this evil.

First, he says, "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the Law as transgressors" (vv. 8,9). He shows that in despising the poor they had transgressed the Law, for the Law says, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". Here then, if proof positive that the Law was binding upon those to whom James wrote, for it is impossible for one who is in every sense "dead to the Law" to be a "transgressor" of it. And here, it is probable that some will raise the quibble that the Epistle of James is Jewish. True, the Epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Yet it cannot be gainsaid that the apostle was writing to men of faith (1:3); men who had been regenerated - "begotten" (1:18); men who were called by the worthy name of Christ (2:7), and therefore Christians. And it is to them the apostle here appeals to the Law! - another conclusive proof that the Law has not been abolished.

The apostle here terms the Law, "the royal Law". This was to empathize its authority, and to remind his regenerated brethren that the slightest deflection from it was rebellion. The royal Law also calls attention to the supreme dignity of its Author. This royal Law, we learn, is transcribed in the Scriptures - the reference here was, of course, to the Old Testament Scriptures.

Next, the apostle says, "For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou are become a transgressor of the Law" (vv. 10,11). His purpose is evident. He presses on those to whom he writes that, he who fails to love his neighbour is just as much and just as truly a transgressor of the Law as the man who is guilty of adultery or murder, for he has rebelled against the authority of the One who gave the whole Law. In this quotation of the 6th and 7th commandments all doubt is removed as to what "Law" is in view in this passage.

Finally, the apostle says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment" (vv. 12,13). This is solemn and urgently needs pressing upon the Lord's people today: Christians are going to be "judged by the Law"! The Law is God's unchanging standard of conduct for all; and all alike, saints and sinners, are going to be weighed in its balances; not of course, in order to determine their eternal destiny, but to settle the apportionment of reward and punishment. It should be obvious to all that the very word "reward" implies obedience to the Law! Let it be repeated, though, that this judgment for Christians has nothing whatever to do with their salvation. Instead, it is to determine the measure of reward which they shall enjoy in Heaven. Should any object against the idea of any future judgment (not punishment but judgment) for Christians, we would ask them to carefully ponder 1 Cor. 11:31, 32: 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 10:30 - in each case the Greek word is the same as here in James 2:12.

It should be noted that the apostle here terms the Law by which we shall be judged "the Law of liberty". It is, of course, the same as "the royal Law" in v. 8. But why term it the Law of liberty? Because such it is to the Christian. He obeys it (or should do) not from fear, but out of love. The only true "liberty" lies in complete subjection to God. There was, too, a peculiar propriety in the apostle James here styling the Law of God "the Law of liberty". His brethren had been guilty of "respecting persons", showing undue deference to the rich; and this was indeed servility of the worst kind. But to "love our neighbour" will free us from this." -- Arthur Pink

Bits and Pieces

Earth Worship

On the eighteenth day of last month, the Earth Fair was held at the Santa Monica Pier in Santa Monica, California to celebrate National Earth Day. The annual pagan festival's main slogan this year was, "We Can Heal Mother Earth." The opening festivities included a group of local public school students announcing in unison via a loudspeaker, "We love Mother Earth!"

Those who, believing that they can do all things within themselves and having chosen to worship and serve a lie, have been warned, and are therefore without excuse:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:18-25

Wicked Men the Rod of God

"O Assyrian, the Rod of mine anger," Isaiah 10:5.

"The ungodly, and bloody persecutors of the Lord's people, are called His hand, His Rod, and His Sword. "'Deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword; from men of the world, which are thy hand, O Lord,' Psalm 17:13-14.

"Parallels

"I. A man smites such as have offended him with his hand, and with a Rod or sword. So God makes use of the wicked, as an instrument to chastise His children, when they transgress His Law, and grievously sin against Him.

"II. As a hand or Rod lays on harder or softer blows, according to the pleasure of and purpose of Him that strikes it. So God lets the wicked out upon His own people, to oppress and afflict them as He sees good, either in a milder or more severe manner.

"III. When a father hath chastised his children sufficiently, and thoroughly humbled them, he sometimes casteth the Rod into the fire. So when God hath by the wicked, who are His Rod, thoroughly humbled His people, and taken away their sin, He will throw the wicked, their bloody persecutors, into the fire of His wrath. 'For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.' Isaiah 10:25." Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (1981, Kregel Publications), p. 796.

"The LORD hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4.

"Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backsliding shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou has forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts." Jeremiah 2:19.

The Disjointed Administration

"One would have thought it perfectly obvious that no one employed in an administrative capacity ought to be entrusted with judicial duties in matters connected with his administrative duties. The respective duties are incompatible. It is too much to expect in such circumstances that he should perform the judicial duties impartially. Even if he acts in good faith, and does his best to come to a right decision, he cannot help bringing what may be called an official or departmental mind, which is a very different thing from a judicial mind, as every body who has any dealings with public officials knows, to bear on the matter he has to decide. More than that, it is his duty, as an official, to obey any instructions [codes] given him by his superiors [the contractors of the debt], and, in the absence of special instructions, to further what he knows to be the policy of his Department [owned by the bondholder or other creditor]. His position makes it inevitable that he should be subject to political influences [of the bondholder or other creditor]." Lord Hewart of Bury, in The New Despotism (1929), p. 46. [Insertions and emphasis added.]

Pride

William Gurnall once said of pride:

"A proud heart and a lofty mountain are never fruitful."

The Crying Game

"Tears have always been considered legitimate arguments before a jury, and while the question has never arisen out of any such behavior in this Court, we know of no rule or jurisdiction in the Court below to check them. It would appear to be one of the natural rights of counsel, which no Court or constitution could take away. It is certainly, if no more, a matter of the highest personal privilege. Indeed, if counsel has them at command, it may be seriously questioned whether it is not his professional duty to shed them whenever proper occasion arises, and the trial judge would not feel constrained to interfere unless they were undulged in to such excess as to impede or delay the business of the Court." Wilkes, Ferguson v. Moore (1897), 98 Tenn. 342, 351.

Issue the Fortieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

In the Name of His church...

Letter of Appointment...

The Fasces...

In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord, or Fear & Adoration of the State, Part One...

The things which are Caesar's, Part Four -- Morals and Morality...

The Power of Words: Justification, Condemnation, and Confirmation, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

In the Name of His church

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

"And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." Eph 1:19-23

In the continuing effort to bring The Word to bear on those who seek to make merchandise of the members of our Lord's Body, to come under, and remain under His covering, it has been revealed to us that His Body must bring it to bear "one with another."

Therefore, all Lawful process must be brought by the "whole" Body in Lawful Assembly, not on an "individual" basis.

Wherefore, all process is to be brought in the Name of His church "at," i. e., "the church at San Diego," "the church at Kaweah," "the church at Denver," etc. In other words, the process is brought by His Body in a "general" area for the protection of the "individual" member (Brother), thereby protecting His Body as a whole.

By the Grace of God and according to His Will, we will further explain the details in next month's issue of The News.

To further eliminate the continuing problem of being denied general delivery on an "individual" basis, general delivery is to be maintained in the same manner. All First-class matter would be sent to "the church at __________," with a line for the purpose of directing it to the Brother for whom it is intended, i. e.:

the church at Philadelphia,
for Brother James Matthew,
general delivery
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

A "Letter of Appointment" and "Acceptance" similar to those below would then be issued to the appointed member of the church. The Appointment and Acceptance must be made in Lawful Assembly.

(Letter of Appointment)

church Seal:

By the church at <*location> in Lawful assembly, know all to whom these presents come, that:

On this <*day> day of the <*month> month in the Year of the Blessed Reign of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus, His church, in Lawful assembly, at <*your place> in His Blessed Name, by His Authority, and under Lawful Warrant of the same, calls, appoints, directs, and did call, appoint, and direct our Brothers in possession of this appointment, having shown to us to be of one Mind, Body, and Spirit with us in Christ, to: One, call forth our First-Class mail Matter from the general post-office located at <*city> and return the same to us and each of us; and Two, to exercise due diligence and sound Wisdom and Judgment in carrying out the duties appertaining to this appointment; and to continue exercising the duties in and of this appointment until: One, his recall by and return to our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; or Two, this appointment is withdrawn by Us in Lawful assembly for Lawful cause.

On the part of the appointed Brother there should be evidence of his acceptance of the duties. So, in line with this, the following example is offered:

church Seal:

Before this Lawful assembly, by our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, by and before Whom this holy thing is holy, I will, by the Grace of God our Father, in and through Christ Jesus, our Lord, be faithful and true to Him and His church, loving all that He loves, and avoiding all that He has condemned by His Judgment of the world; and never by my own will or by my own force, directly or indirectly, intimately or remotely, in word or deed, will I do any thing hateful or hurtful, in any way, to Him or His Body at <*location of His church>; and I will, by God's Loving Grace, in accordance with this appointment, exercise due diligence and sound Wisdom and Judgment to call forth their First-Class mail matter from the general post-office, and return the same to them and each of them; and, perform such other duties appertaining to this Honourable and Blessed appointment on condition that they will hold me sojourning with Christ and them in the unity of His Spirit, Body and Mind.

Seal of Brother:

-------------------------

From this point on, the Brother appointed will carry out his duties appertaining to his appointment. There are no fictions attached, no Church name (the church at ........... is a general term), no personae, no legal entity and no legal personality. These are to be avoided at all costs -- remain clean and undefiled from the world. Everything done is a matter of Truth and substance in Christ. The church truly is sojourning with its Sovereign -- "everywhere in general, nowhere specific." This is important! Source, cause, and origin is important in making these appointments.

If you are tainted with commerce, then you will have problems -- the appointment will have the same commercial characteristic. Note carefully the story of Jonah. There is no other way for this to work in Christ Jesus, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14. (see also Proverbs 12:28).

The originals of these Appointments and Acceptances should be enrolled in, held by, and remain in, the possession of the Lawful Assembly, only.

Ladies, if you think that the men have all the power in this matter, you are grossly mistaken. Men have all the duties, but not the power. It is far better that you seek the covering of a Brother who will see to his duties as Christ sees to His Duties in regard to faithfully Covering and Protecting His church. Men are to carry out these duties in Scripture:

Honour widows that are widows indeed.If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed. 1 Timothy 5:3, 16.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27.

The Fasces

by Randy Lee

The article "The things which are Caesar's" in Issue the Thirty-eighth contained a section on "the fasces," which has sparked an interest by readers of The News for more information on the use of Roman symbolism in today's society. Following that article, by the Grace of God, we also received several letters and telephone calls from Patrons with additional information on the Roman fasces. We were informed that the base of the statue atop the Capitol Dome is laced with six sets of fasces. Additionally, I was informed of my misprint which stated that there are two sets of fasces behind the Speaker of the "Senate." That should have read "Speaker of the House."

Brother John Trevor in Washington state sent us the two tributes to Lincoln with fasces below. Beneath each is a summary of the information about them.

Brother John Nelson in Indiana sent us the following definition of fasces from the 11th Edition (1914) of The Encyclopedia Britannica, page 191:

FASCES, in Roman antiquities, bundles of elm or birch rods from which the head of an axe projected, fastened together by a red strap. As the emblem of official authority, they were carried by the lictors, in the left hand and on the left shoulder, before the higher Roman magistrates; at the funeral of a deceased magistrate they were carried behind the bier. The lictors and the fasces were so inseparably connected that they became to be used as synonymous terms. The fasces originally represented the power over life and limb possessed by the kings, and after the abolition of the monarchy, the consuls, like the kings, were preceded by twelve fasces. Within the precincts of the city the axe was removed, in recognition of the right of appeal (provocatio) to the people in a matter of life and death; outside Rome, however, each consul retained the axe, and was preceded by his own lictors, not merely by a single accensus (supernumerary), as was originally the case within the city when he was not officiating. Later, the lictors preceded the officiating consul, and walked behind the other. Valerius Publicola, the champion of popular rights, further established the custom that the fasces should be lowered before the people, as the real representatives of sovereignty (Livy ii. 7; Florus i. 9; Plutarch, Publicola, 10); lowering the fasces was also the manner in which an inferior saluted a superior magistrate. A dictator, as taking the place of the two consuls, had 24 fasces (including the axe even within the city); most of the other magistrate had fasces varying in number, with exception of the censors, who, as possessing no executive authority, had none. Fasces were given the Flamen Dialis and (after 42 b.c.) even the Vestals. During the times of the republic, a victorious general, who had been saluted by the title of imperator by his soldiers, had his fasces crowned with laurel (Cicero, Pro Ligario, 3). Later, under the empire, when the emperor received the title for life on his accession, it became restricted to him, and the laurel was regarded as distinctive of the imperial fasces (see Mommsen, Romisches Staatsecht, i., 1887, p. 373.)

In the Nurture and Admonition of Our Lord

Under the Fear and Adoration of the State

written solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour by

John Joseph, His mere bondservant

In the past, we had often discussed writing a series of articles on the sad state of schools in general and public schools in particular; but nothing was forthcoming until now. Recent events both in Littleton, Colorado and Conyers, Georgia have prompted the writing of this first of several articles. This article is not the first to be written on the subject, and it won't be the last. But what it has to offer is the way to relieve you and yours of the burdens imposed upon you by the "benevolent moral teachers" and "virtue gurus" who plague us with their "answers" to the questions of the day, i.e. solving the "gun problem" in schools. First, there is no gun problem in schools; Second, there never was a "gun problem" in schools; and Third, there never will be a "gun problem" in schools. The problem is and always will be the heart of man at any age, either sex, of any race or color. Scripture bears this out time and time again; and we will point out some of them in this instant article.

The Apocrypha is quoted in this article, not for authority, but for historical fact. The Apocrypha was printed in the original Authorized King James Bible, and was removed during the 1820's. If you doubt this then get a copy from Thomas Nelson Publishers, number 301.

All interpolations in brackets designated with [*] are our additions.

If you are a school-teacher or other administrative employee you may not agree with any thing said here, but the record speaks otherwise. Will you try then to impeach a record of evil to cover unrighteousness, and thereby become evil yourself? Think about this before you act, for it is written:

"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalm 10:3.
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:19-21.

All problems begin in the hearts of men and are manifested after the thoughts have been meditated upon by the perpetrators of the acts:

"O how love I Thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Psalm 119:97.

If we take the above passage of Scripture and put in the place of "thy law" the name of the heinous act about to be committed, what will be result?

"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:" Proverbs 23:7.
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:21-23.

Thus, there is and never has been any "gun problem" in schools. The problem is elsewhere, and we will see it pointed out in this instant article to arrive at our solution.

We must then arrive at a solution to the above problem, using nothing of the world, but their own admissions and confessions of their ineptitude and falsehoods. The only solution in Truth is the Word of God in Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour. Thus, we must distinguish between the ways of the world and the Word of God to arrive at the solution. To help us do this we must also distinguish the serving sojourner in Christ from the human being because we must look to those things that distinguish them not only spiritually, but also temporally. A good example of the difference is our current subject, schools:

"And he [*Brother Paul] went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus." Acts 19:8-9.

The above is the only passage of Scripture that uses the word "school." Note who is the head--TYRANNUS. From the Latin this is a despot or tyrant purporting to be sovereign:

"TYRANNUS. I, m.= turannosz. I. Gen. A monarch, ruler, sovereign. king: Virg.; Hor. II. Esp. A cruel or severe ruler; a despot, tyrant: Cic. Hence, Fr. tyran." White, Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 625.

Notice too, that Brother Paul separated those who believed from those whose hearts were hardened against Christ. This latter point is covered as we progress through this article.The former is confessed and admitted from the mouth of those who run these secular religious institutions--the false prophet of Revelation:

"The American public school is a secular school, and not merely a non-sectarian school--even if a distinction could be drawn between the two. The Catholic Church, and probably most of the Protestant churches as well, undoubtedly do not approve of its secularity. Yet secular it is, in curriculum, method, and spirit. There are exceptions, of course. In many rural schools in the deep South or 'Bible belt' some sessions are indistinguishable from those in Baptist Sunday schools. These are not merely not secular--they are obviously sectarian. In the North vestigial remains such as a lifeless reading of a few verses from the Bible--can be found. But basically the American public school is a secular school." Pfeffer, Church State and Freedom (1953), p. 288. [Editor's Note: Pfeffer was one of several lead attorneys to argue for the removal of the Bible from public schools in the Abingdon School District v. Schempp case (available from the Christian Liberty Library).]

But the removal of the Bible from something condemned in Scripture we have seen and shall see, is not the problem. Later, we shall see that even the so-called "christian schools" are secular. Confirmation of the reign of TYRANNUS today in schools is seen from the following:

"Public schools are synonymous with taxation; they represent taxation, and the sooner the 'common people' understand this democratic-republican doctrine [*false religion] the better for the State, the better for property, the better for mankind, the better for the nation." John Swett, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, in The California Teacher, 1866.

In the above quotation note carefully the words "common people," "doctrine," "State," "property," "mankind," and "nation"in the above statement. The first term is used derogatorily, and is exposed by Scripture:

"Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day." 1 Corinthians 4:13.

The second word tells you that the whole of the statement is a religious and military statement:

"DOCTRINE. Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their [*moral] actions [*education of future human resources] in support of national [*commercial] objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. See also COMBINED DOCTRINE, JOINT DOCTRINE, MULTI-SERVICE DOCTRINE." Dictionary of Military Terms (DoD pub. 1-02, Greenhill Publishing, 1995), p. 126. [*Exposes nationalism, one of the central tenets of FASCISM.
"MORAL ACTIONS. Actions only in which men have knowledge to guide them and a will to choose for themselves. Ruth. Inst. Nat. L. lib. 1, c. 1." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2246.

Moral actions then are self-willed or willful actions, that are in their nature un-Lawful, perverse, and evil:

"WILLFUL. Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary [*which implies discretion.] Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 160 Ky. 50, 169 S.W. 611, 513.
"Intractable; having a headstrong disposition to act by the rule of contradiction [*against Law]. Bersch v. Morris & Co., 106 Kan. 800, 189 P. 934, 935, 9 A.L.R. 1374. Obstinate; perverse. Lynch v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 762, 109 S.E. 427, 428; Jones v. State, 7 Ala.App. 180, 62 So. 306, 307.
"Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional; not accidental or involuntary. Garrett v. Commonwealth, 215 Ky. 484, 285 S.W. 203, 204; State v. Muzzy, 87 Vt. 267, 88 A. 895, 896; Rosevill Trust Co. v. American Surety Co. of New York, 91 N.J.Law 588, 102 A. 182; State v. Lehman, 131 Minn. 427, 155 N.W. 399, Ann.Cas.1917D, 615.
-------------------------
"A 'willful' act may be described as one done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. Lobdell Car Wheel Co. v. Subielski, 125 A. 462, 464, 2 W.W.Harr.(Del.) 462.
"A willful differs from a negligent act. The one is positive and the other negative. Sturm v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 38 N.Y.Super.Ct. 317; Thayer v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 21 N.M. 330, 154 P. 691, 694. Simple negligence arises merely from heedlessness, and consists simply of facts of nonfeasance, and is therefore incompatible with willfulness, which comprises acts of aggressive wrong. Stauffer v. Schlegel, 74 Ind.App. 431, 129 N.E. 44, 46; and presuppposes a conscious purpoe to injure; In re Cunningham, D.C.N.Y., 253 F. 663, 665; Ft. Wayne & Wabash Valley Traction Co. v. Justus, 180 Ind. 464, 115 N.E. 585, 587; Brittain v. Southern Ry. Co., 167 N.C. 642, 83 S.E. 702, 703.
"'Willfulness' implies an act intentionally and designedly; 'wantonness' implies action without regard to the rights of others, a conscious failure to observe care, a conscious invasion of the rights of others, a willful, unrestrained action; and 'recklessness' a disregard of consequences, an indifference whether a wrong or injury is done or not, and an indifference to natural and probable consequences. Jensen v. Denver & R. G. Co., 44 Utah 100, 138 P. 1185, 1188. Se, also, Evans v. Illinois Central R. Co., 289 Mo. 493, 233 S.W. 397, 399; Cover v. Hershey Transit Co., 290 Pa. 551, 139 A. 266, 268; Feore v. Trammel, 212 Ala. 325, 102 So. 529, 533; Crosman v. Southern Pac. Co., 44 Nev. 286, 194 P. 839, 843.
"Conscious; knowing; done with stubborn purpose, but not with malice. Bundy v. State, 206 N.W. 21, 22, 114 Neb. 121; American Surety Co. of New York v. Sullivan, C.C.A.N.Y., 7 F.2d 605, [*1774] 606; Helme v. Great Western Milling Co., 43 Cal.App. 416, 185 P. 510, 512; Gray v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 216 Ala. 416, 113 So. 35, 39.
"Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful; without legal justification. State v. Vanderveer, 115 Wash. 184, 196 P. 650; State v. Johnson, 194 N.C. 378, 139 S.E. 697, 698; Boyce v. Greeley Square Hotel Co., 228 N.Y. 106, 126 N.E. 647, 649; State v. Palmer, 94 Vt. 278, 110 A. 436, 437." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), pp. 1773-1774.

Let us look closer at this and see how far this "knowledge" extends into our present subject:

"As a legal norm, compulsory schooling carried the State into the control of individual lives. Henry Bolander, a San Francisco educator who became the new State Superintendent the year compulsory attendance law was passed (1874), explained its rationale: if one admits that 'education forms the only secure foundation and bulwark of a republican form of government,' that 'universality of education becomes thus of vital importance to the State,' and that the State must 'provide all the facilities necessary to enable every child to acquire at least a common school education,' then 'we re forced to the conclusion that it is not only a privilege, but the duty of the State, to compel every parent to bestow upon his children at least the education which the State places within his reach.' Under this reasoning the State must not only provide the means of education but also force parents to send their children to school." Tyack, James, Benavot, Law and the Shaping of Public Education 1785-1954 (1987), p. 96.

Therefore, compelling those possessing legal personality to come hear perversity, evil and lawlessness preached is what the State does to keep itself "alive" in the hearts of men. This will be amplified as we continue.

Referring back to John Swett's statement, we see what the heathen calls "taxes" is their religious worship of the dead thing that has no breath of Life in it from God--the State, its districts, and its derivative nation, "established" by constitutions; and "improved" upon shortly before, during, and after Lincoln v. All States, of which the result is the purported "law"--the lie of the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 and 1863--shrouded and bound together by the Fourteenth Amendment, the FASCES (See Randy Lee's article on page three). Through these artifices, men dead to Christ and void of the Truth, wisdom and understanding of God seek to be worshiped as God in the hearts of men. This is the abomination that makes desolate written about in Daniel:

"And arms [*2428--temporal power to compel] shall stand on his part [*side], and they shall pollute the sanctuary [*4720] of strength [*the hearts of men where God alone rules--see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16], and shall take away the daily sacrifice [*8548--the daily sojourn in Christ--see Luke 9:23 & Matthew 16:24], and they shall place the abomination [*8251--morality or moralism of the State--Genesis 2:9 & 17] that maketh desolate [*8374--waste and eventually brings death]." Daniel 11:31.
2428. CHAYIL. From 2342; probably a force, whether of men, means or other resources; an army, wealth, virtue, valor, strength: -able, activity, (+) army, band of men (soldiers), company, (great) forces, goods, host, might, power, riches, strength, strong, substance, train, (+)valiant(-ly), valour, virtuous(-ly), war, worthy(-ily)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.
"4720. MIQDASH. Or miqqdash (Exod. 15:17) {mik-ked-awsh'}; from 6942; a consecrated thing or place, especially, a palace, sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols) or asylum:--chapel, hallowed part, holy place, sanctuary." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.
"8548. TAMIYD. From an unused root meaning to stretch; properly, continuance (as indefinite extension); but used only (attributively as adjective) constant (or adverbially, constantly); ellipt. the regular (daily) sacrifice:--alway(-s), continual (employ- ment, -ly), daily, ([n-]) ever(-more), perpetual." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.
"8251. SHIQQUWTS. Or shiqquts {shik-koots'}; from 8262; disgusting, i.e. filthy; especially idolatrous or (concretely) an idol:--abominable filth (idol, -ation), detestable (thing)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.
"8374. TA'AB. A primitive root [probably identical with 8373 through the idea of puffing disdainfully at; compare 340]; to loathe (morally):--abhor." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

Christ then refers to this when he says:

"He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth [*makes desolate, or wastes]." Luke 11:23.
"4650. SKORPIZO. Apparently from the same as 4651 (through the idea of penetrating); to dissipate, i.e. (figuratively) put to flight, waste, be liberal:--disperse abroad, scatter (abroad)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

And condemns their doctrine when He said:

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15.
"MORALITY. 1. Knowledge of moral science. Late M.E. only. 2. pl. Moral qualities or endowments. Late M.E. 3. Moral discourse or [*1281] instruction; a moral exhortation. Now chiefly in disparaging sense, moralizing. Late M.E. b. Moral sense or interpretation (see MORAL a.); also, the moral (of a fable, etc.) -1623. 4. A literary or artistic production inculcating a moral lesson; a moralizing commentary; a moral allegory -1649. b. Hist. Name for the species of drama (popular in the 16th c.) In which some moral or spiritual lesson was inculcated, and in which the chief characters were personifications of abstract qualities 1765. 5. Moral science 1449. b. pl. Points of ethics, moral principles or rules 1605. c. A particular system of morals 1680. d. Ethical aspect (of a question) 1869. 6. The quality or fact of being moral 1592. 7. Moral conduct usu. good moral conduct 1609. b. A mock title ro one who assumes airs of virtue 1672." Oxford's Universal Dictionary (1955), pp. 1280-1281.

We know this is true, for it is written:

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men.The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:4 & 7-9.
"The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly." Proverbs 20:27.
"MORALISM. An egotistic [*self-righteous] pose of concern [*deceit] for goodness adopted in general by natures evil at heart." Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (1968), p. 270.
"MORAL ACTIONS. Actions only in which men have knowledge to guide them and a will to choose for themselves [*self-will]. Ruth. Inst. Nat. L. lib. 1, c. 1." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2246.

See also Genesis 2:7; Job 32:8; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 4:2-6; Romans 1:19-21; Luke 17:21. So that because they do not speak according to His Law and Testimony, there is no light in them, for they are like the thing they worship and trust in:

"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.
"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 115:1-8. See also Psalm 135:14-18.
"For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." Psalm 10:3.

And, in their schools, they teach others to be like them--dead to Christ:

"For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Proverbs 8:35-36.

This is the school of TYRANNUS --imposed religious military doctrine of evil in its morals to promote the image of and give life to the beast in the hearts of men, and the heathen confesses and admits this. Swett goes on to say:

"Where would the nation have been today but for public schools? Who fought in our battles in the last war [*Lincoln's War], but the men who were drilled into patriots [*pagans] in public schools supported by taxation?The public schools are the educators of the working men and women of the nation [*promotion of commerce and communism], and they are the producers of all of the wealth which is protected by [*moral] law. The schools mold the characters of the men [*mars the Seal of the Holy Spirit] whose will, expressed through the ballot box, makes and unmakes constitutions, and breathes life into the laws [*the image of the beast]." John Swett, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, in The California Teacher, 1866.

See also Torcaso v. Watkins and Abingdon School District v. Schempp. This is nothing new. The same was done in Babylon:

"Nebuchadnezzar had established a college in the city for the training of both native princes and those whom he might capture in war. This college was one of the best and highest in the land. Its curriculum was 'right up-to-date,' and just a few jumps ahead of the other average institutions of the empire. The curriculum specialized in some things, among which was training for the interpretation of dreams and visions.
"In 1931 Dr. Langdon laid bare this college, its library, its curriculum, and all its details. These details are so minute as to give us a description of the kind of uniform each young man must wear, for among the books of the library of the college there was found the 'Rules and Regulations' of the institution. As in the modern military schools, a copy of the 'Rules and Regulations' was placed in the hands of each prince, and he had to commit the regulations to memory." Kinnaman, Diggers for Facts (19__), pp. 134-139.

It is this darkness, a putting out of the candle of the Lord, they pass on to the succeeding generations, which over time, like an infection, festers until it explodes. Who is the murderer now? It is written:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44.

They therefore seek to destroy His Kingdom; and set up the kingdom of their father the devil, in the hearts of men, thereby stealing God's Inheritance from Him, the most heinous crime of crimen laese majestitis:

"behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21.
"So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me. And He said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom [*see Psalm 4:2], nor by the carcases [*things that have no souls or breath of Life from God and therefore are dead in Law--persons and corporations] of their kings in their high places [*places of reverence and esteem in the hearts of men--see Luke 16:15]. In their setting of their threshold [*boundary of jurisdiction and venue] by my thresholds [*usurpation of jurisdictional limits], and their post [*statutes, codes, rules, and regulations] by my posts [*presuming them to be of equal weight and value with My Word--Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7, 9-13 ], and the wall [*of separation--see Isaiah 55:8-9; John 8:23; Psalm 4:3; Proverbs 15:24; 2 Timothy 2:9; 2 Peter 2:9-10; Nahum 1:7] between Me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations [*incorporated or State licensed public worship under them] that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger. Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcases of their kings, far from Me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever." Ezekiel 43:5-9.
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered [*by your morality]." Luke 11:52.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell [*Gehenna] than yourselves." Matthew 23:15.
"And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart [*I know them not--see also Hosea 8:4], and uncircumcised in flesh [*you know them not], to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary [*the heart of My people] for yourselves [*make profit from my tithes and offerings]. Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary [*the hearts of the people in whom I dwell--Christ's church--see 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16], of any stranger that is among the children of Israel." Ezekiel 44:5-9.

To be continued next month.

The things which are Caesar's

Part Four:

Morals and Morality

by Randy Lee

"What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. But the LORD is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him." Habakkuk 2:18-20

With a simple study of any Bible concordance, we find that the words 'morals' and 'morality' do not exist in The Word of God.

In the following study, we must keep in mind that "moralism" is defined to be:

MORALISM. An egotistic pose of concern for goodness adopted in general by nature's evil at heart." Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (1968), p. 270.

With further study, we find that the "science" known as "morals" is an invention of the Greek philosophers, and was further "perfected" by the Roman senator Cicero. Based on "probability," 'self-will," and "natural reason," morality was "designed" for the shifting of duty from the One True God, to The State. The State becomes the dictator of what is right or wrong, good or evil. In short, the State becomes the new god for those who "live, move and have their being" in accord with morality or immorality. Moldable according to the whims of Caesar, morals and morality are one more of those molten images with no breathe of life in it.

To show that the above definition of "moralism" is spot on, we will examine a few statements by John Dewey, an admitted spiritless Marxist and professor of philosophy at Columbia University from 1904-1930, known by his followers as "the father of progressive education." He wrote a book in 1908 entitled, "THEORY OF THE MORAL LIFE." On page 70, a short example of the above:

"From the standpoint of history, it is worth noting that while the Greeks developed the idea of the Good and of moral insight, it was the Romans, with their strong legal and administrative talents, who made central the idea of authorization by law. The three maxims in which Roman moralists and jurists summed up the moral code all take the form of duties. Render to every other man that which is his due. So use what is your own as not to injure others. Vivere honestum: that is, live so as to deserve good repute from others. These maxims were said to be the essentials of the "law of nature," from accord with which the rightfulness of human institutions and laws is derived."

In the concluding paragraph of the introduction to the book, he defines the true purpose of morality, social engineering through socialism:

"The progress to more rational and more social conduct is the indispensable condition of the moral, but not the whole story. What is needed is that the more rational and social conduct should itself be valued as good, and so be chosen and sought; or in terms of control, that the law which society or reason prescribes should be consciously thought of as right, used as a standard, and respected as binding. This gives the contrast between the higher and the lower, as a conscious aim, not merely as a matter of taste. It raises the collision between self and others to the plane of personal rights and justice, of deliberate selfishness or benevolence. Finally it gives the basis for such organization of the social and rational choices that the progress already gained may be permanently secured in terms of acquired habit and character, while the attention, the struggle between duty and inclination, the conscious choice, move forward to a new issue."

The Marxist concepts expressed in the above quote don't stop there. On page 127, this spiritless NEA lifetime member and father of the modern public school system exposes why the Bible has been removed from those schools, and why the shifting of duty from Christ Jesus to the "enlightened" State, through moralism, is so very important for the survival of Caesar's world, better known as "society":

"There is no necessary connection between a conviction of right and good in general and what is right and good in particular. A man may have a strong conviction of duty without enlightenment as to just where his duty lies. When he assumes that because he is actuated by consciousness of duty in general, he can trust without reflective inquiry to his immediate ideas of the particular thing which is his duty, he is likely to become socially dangerous. If he is a person of strong will, he will attempt to impose his judgments and standards upon others in a ruthless way, convinced that he is supported by the authority of Right and the Will of God."

When we see the depraved "philosophical" teaching of the above example by a man that had more influence on the modern educational system than anyone else, it is no wonder why Caesar's world, through the bureaucrats who are "educated" in that system, has become more and more oppressive towards those who seek to do the will of The Father through Christ Jesus.

On page 87, he further exposes the results of a "society" that is founded on the molten image of morals and morality, and that searching for ways to re-fashion the moldable image will ultimately conjure up greater loyalty to the State:

"There is perhaps always a tendency to overestimate the amount of strict adherence to moral standards in the past and to exaggerate the extent of contemporary laxity. Nevertheless, changes in domestic, economic, and political relations have brought about a serious loosening of the social ties which hold people together in definite and readily recognizable relations. The machine, for example, has come between the worker and the employer; distant markets intervene between producer and consumer; mobility and migration have invaded and often broken up local community bonds; industries once carried on in the home and serving as a focus for union in the household have gone to the factory with its impersonal methods, and the mother as well as the father has followed them; the share of the family in the education of the young has become less; the motor car, the telephone, and new modes of amusement have placed the center of gravity in social matters in contacts that are shifting and superficial. In countless ways the customary loyalties that once held men together and made them aware of their reciprocal obligations, have been sapped. Since the change is due to alteration of conditions, the new forms of lawlessness and the light and loose way in which duties are held cannot be met by direct and general appeal to a sense of duty or to the restraint of an inner law. The problem is to develop new stable relationships in society out of which duties and loyalties will naturally grow."

With the "ideas" of morals and morality coming from the heart of the natural man and from his 'natural reason," we know that they have not the breathe of life in them from God, and that looking to the inventions of men are but death:

"I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright. But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise My statutes, or if your soul abhor My judgments, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but that ye break My covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." Leviticus 26:13-16

Take not the yoke of bondage from the State through their "moral" institutions, but take on that yoke of perfection:

"All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Matthew 11:27-30

Caesar will continue to lay his yoke of bondage upon the backs of his willing subjects through morality and all of the other inventions designed by those who minister for him. But those who honor The Father know that Caesar's world ultimately leads to death and destruction. It is that death and destruction that awaits the moralist:

"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in My land, and upon My mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" Isaiah 14:24-27

The folly of a continual search for answers by those who have turned their back on the Truth from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is reflected in the following from page 20-21, showing the road of destruction and death that morality and its 'theories" lead to:

"We have already noted in passing that the present time is one which is in peculiar need of reflective morals and a working theory of morals. The scientific outlook on the world and on life has undergone and is still undergoing radical change. Methods of industry, of the production, and distribution of goods have been completely transformed. The basic conditions on which men meet and associate, in work and amusement, have been altered. There has been a vast dislocation of older habits and traditions. Travel and migration are as common as they were once unusual. The masses are educated enough to read and a prolific press exists which supplies cheap reading matter. Schooling has ceased to be the privilege of the few and has become the right and even the enforced duty of the many. The stratification of society into classes each fairly homogenous in itself has been broken into. The area of contacts with persons and populations alien to our bringing up and traditions has enormously extended. A ward of a large city in the United States may have persons of from a score to fifty racial origins. The walls and barriers that once separated nations have become less important because of the railway, steamship, telegraph, telephone, and radio.
Only a few of the more obvious changes in social conditions and interests have been mentioned. Each one of them has created new problems and issues that contain moral values which are uncertain and disputed. Nationalism and internationalism, capital and labor, war and peace, science and religious tradition, competition and cooperation, laissez faire and State planning in industry, democracy and dictatorship in government, rural and city life, personal work and control verses investment and vicarious riches through stocks and bonds, native born and alien, contact of Jew and Gentile, of white and colored, of Catholic and Protestant, and those of new religions; a multitude of such relationships have brought to the fore new moral problems with which neither old customs nor beliefs are competent to cope. In addition, the rapidity with which social changes occur brings moral unsettlement and tends to destroy many ties which were the chief safeguards of the morals of custom. There was never a time in the history of the world when human relationships and their accompanying rights and duties, opportunities and demands, needed the remitting and systematic attention of intelligent thought as they do at present."

To be continued in the next Issue of The News.

The Power of Words:

Justification, Condemnation, and Confirmation

Part Two

(continued from Issue the Thirty-nineth)

written solely by the Grace of God in

Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour

by John Joseph, a mere bondservant in and of Christ Jesus

The words we use are evidence of whether we speak in and of Truth in Christ, or a lie in and of the Liar.

Without His Power, there can be no judgment executed, for:

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." Psalm 37:30.

Brother Spurgeon remarks,

"Verse 30. 'The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom'-- Where the whole Psalm is dedicated to a description of the different fates of the just and the wicked, it was meet to give a test by which they could be known. A man's tongue is no ill index of his character. The mouth betrays the heart. Good men, as a rule, speak that which is to the edifying, sound speech, religious conversation, consistent with the divine illumination which they have received. Righteousness is wisdom in action, hence all men are practically wise men, and well may the speech be wise. 'His tongue talketh of judgment.' His advocates justice, gives an honest verdict on things and men, and he foretells that God's Judgments will come upon the wicked, as in the former days. His talk is neither foolish nor ribald, neither vapid nor profane. Our conversation is of far more consequence than some men imagine." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Treasury of David, vol. I, p. 177.

Without speaking the words of His Power, we are not separate from the world, but evidence and confirm that we are one of the many ignorant and condemned fools of the world. The seal, mark or character on our hearts is of the world. It is not possible for two conflicting seals to be true on one document:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. See also Luke 16:13.
"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" 2 Corinthians 6:15.

The seal we bear is either of Christ and we speak the words of that Seal, which is of Life and Power in, of and from Him:

"Now He which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Corinthians 1:21-22.
"That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ. In Whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory." Ephesians 1:12-14.
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (*that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (*that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Romans 10:6-10.

....or, we will bear the seal of the world and we will speak the words of that seal, which is of morality, death, lies, &c:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44.
"Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly. A wicked messenger falleth into mischief: but a faithful ambassador is health. Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured." Proverbs 13:16-18.
"A prudent man concealeth knowledge [*speaks in parables, metaphors, analogies]: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness." Proverbs 12:23.
"The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious: but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous and madness. A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?" Ecclesiastes 10:12-14.
"He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 13:3.
"In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them." Proverbs 14:3.

For which all ashamed of Christ and His Words shall He be ashamed and shall condemn them:

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:38.
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of Me and of My words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He shall come in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26.
"But He shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity." Luke 13:27.

The words we use evidence to the world with whom we abide, live, move and have our being, and Whose Law we execute, in Whose Name and by Whose Authority:

"ABIDE. To abide means to obey; to comply with; to perform; to execute; to conform to; as to abide the judgment or order of the court. See Jackson v. State of Kansas, 30 Kan. 88, 1 Pac.Rep. 317." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Dictionary (1948), p. 3.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16 & 20.
"Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." Proverbs 20:11.
"IDENTIFY. To ascertain or prove to be the same, agnoscere (to perceive an object to be the same as one we have been acquainted with before): suum esse declarare, dicere, or confirmare (to say that it is one's own property; as in 'to identify stolen goods'). To make or consider the same, aliquid alicui rei in aequo ponere or par facere: exaequare (to equalize; absolutely, or aliquid cum aliqua re): discrimen tollere or removere (to remove all distinction, with genitive, rerum, &c.): negare quidquam interesse (aliquid ab aliqua re)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 388.

Note also John 15:7. The giving of a "name," "birth date," and "address," are all identifiers of crafty men that confirm one to be the property of the Babylonian system which created and uses those identifiers to mark its property. There are other words that should be avoided, but these are the major ones. Reading the four accounts of the trial of the Christ are important for any one sojourning in the Office of Christ.

They must be known and understood in Law, not in philosophy or the pathetic wisdom of the world.

This is why in the patridiot or "law" reform movements (How do you reform a system that has no Law, i.e. anomian--lawless? or, if it has Law, How is it possible to reform that Law which is perfect in Christ?), with their multitude of words, huge briefs, long and loud speeches, etc., you will find they are vain and for nought:

"The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious: but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous and madness. A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?" Ecclesiastes 10:12-14.
"For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words." Ecclesiastes 5:3.
"He that useth many words shall be abhorred; and he that taketh to himself authority therein shall be hated." Ecclesiasticus 20:8.

Even though they seem to be the right things to do or to say:

"There is a way which seemeth [*image] right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25. [*Insertion added].

Obviously, the doctrine of the seal is an important doctrine in Law, and we will expound on it here at this time, for the Seal or mark determines the Law that is spoken. For this we will go to two sources: a dictionary of etymology and a short dissertation by our Brother Benjamin Keach.

First from the dictionary of etymology:

"CHARACTER, distinctive mark xiv; graphic symbol xv; sum of mental and moral qualities xvii; personage, personality xviii. ME. caracter--(O)F. caractere--(mostly late) L. character--Gr. kharakter instrument for marking, impress, distinctive nature, f. khardssein(:-kharakj-) sharpen, furrow, scratch, engrave, prob. F. base meaning 'scratch.' So cha:racteri-stic xvii. --F. caracteristique --late Gr. kharakteristikos; characterical and -istical were earlier. char-acterize. xvi. --F. Or medL. --late Gr." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 163.

Note the words "mark," "impress," "distinctive nature," "engrave." Note too that God made man in His Image and Likeness:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26.

....and Adam begat a son in his image and likeness:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:" Genesis 5:3.

One is Spirit and the other flesh. Because of the differences between the two, there remains this distinction throughout the rest of Scripture:

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24.
"For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:8.

Speaking the words of the first Adam, i.e. philosophy, opinion, belief, etc., is not worshiping God in Truth and in Spirit; but is sowing to the flesh, for which the punishment is death. Speaking the words of Christ Jesus, the last Adam, is worshipping God in Truth and in Spirit, because,

"And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth." Ecclesiasticus 33:10.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." 1 Corinthians 15:45.

And the words Christ speak through all of us cannot be judged by those of the flesh because they are corrupt,

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;" Ephesians 4:22.
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians 2:15.

and,

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.

....but stands vindicated and justified by the Judgment of Christ upon all flesh.

Therefore,

"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD." Isaiah 54:17

Now to our Brother Benjamin Keach, who made the following observations which are extremely important for all to understand why we must speak those words bearing the Seal of Christ:

The Holy Spirit Compared

to a Seal and Sealer

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the Word of Truth, the Gospel of your Salvation; in whom also after that ye believed, ye were Sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Eph 1:13.
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are Sealed unto the day of Redemption." Eph 4:30.

" A seal is an instrument fitted to make an impression or mark, by which a man knows the thing done, whatsoever it be, to be his own and not another's act; as also to ratify and make authentic bonds, covenants, &c. And to open this metaphor of believers being sealed by the Holy Spirit, these things are meet to be noted.

1. The letter written, or the vessel filled with treasure, every true Christian.

2. The wax appointed to the Seal, and that is the heart, the relenting and pliable heart of a sinner, Heb 10:6.

3. The Sealer, that is, as some conceive, the Father, or the Lord Jesus Christ; others more immediately the Holy Spirit, or third Person of the Trinity.

4. The Seal, as some understand, is the Word of God, others the Spirit; we include both jointly considered.

5. The Sealing or active impression, is the act of applying the Word in the ministry of the Gospel, by the help of the Spirit, to the soul.

6. The print or passive impression, or image of the Seal left in wax, is called the image of God, or knowledge, faith, love, truth, holiness, &c., which are originally in God, and communicated to us by the Word and Spirit from him.

7. The end of Sealing, which is secrecy, property, and security, which things will appear more fully in the Metaphor.

Metaphor

I. A Seal (especially if it be the king's seal) is highly prized, and very carefully kept.

II. A Seal makes a impression in the wax like itself, or leaves a resemblance of it.

III. Before the Seal can make an impression, the wax must be melted, or made pliable, soft, and fit to take it.

IV. The Seal alters the form of the clay it is set or stamped upon. A piece of clay is a rude lump, without form or figure, saith Mr. Caryl, but if you take a Seal and stamp upon it, that clay receives any figure, or coat of arms, that is engraven upon it, Job 38:14.

V. A Seal is to confirm and make sure bonds, contracts, or covenants that are made between man and man. If an honest man make a promise of such and such things to his friend, he thinks he hath ground to hope those good things, so promised him, are his own, but if he give it under his hand writing, he concludes he is more sure; but if the writing, covenant, or promise be sealed, it is as firm and as sure as he can desire to have it.

VI. A Seal is used to distinguish or differ things one from another, whereby property is known and secured; a merchant knows his goods from other men's by the Seal or mark he sets upon them.

VII. A Seal is used to confirm and make laws authentic; till they have the king's Seal stamped upon them, they oblige not the subject to obedience.

VIII. A Seal is used to secure, preserve or keep safe several things, which otherwise might be spoiled, run out, and become good for nothing. Things that we would not have any to touch, nor meddle with, we set a Seal upon.

IX. A Seal may times is counterfeited by ill men, they endeavour to imitate it as nigh as they can, to cheat poor ignorant people thereby.

X. A Seal is used to hide or keep back others from the knowledge of things; if a man have any thing to write unto his friend that he would not have others to know, he seals up his letter, upon the account of secrecy, though it is likely afterwards, in convenient time, those things so concealed are discovered.

Parallel

I. The Holy Spirit is the King's Seal, the glorious King of heaven and earth, and therefore is highly valued and prized by every true Christian.

II. The Holy Spirit makes an impression on the heart, there is in a believer a similitude, a likeness or resemblance of God; every saint hath the image of the Spirit upon him, he is holy, harmless, heavenly, &c.

III. Before the Holy Spirit Seals any person to the day of redemption, the heart is broken, softened, and made pliable by the word, and powerful operations of grace, and so made fit to take that heavenly impression. And thus you have David speaking, 'I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax, it is melted in the midst of my bowels.'

IV. The Spirit makes a change upon the soul of a man or woman that receives the impression of it, it alters every faculty, and puts a new form or figure, as it were, upon it. Man naturally is a rude lump, a gross and confused piece, by reason of sin, till the Spirit stamp upon him, or infuse into him new habits.

V. The Holy Spirit confirms and makes sure covenant and promises of God to believers, Psal. 22:24. God hath not only made gracious promises to them, of pardon, peace, and eternal life, &c. But he hath left these promises written in the Holy Scriptures; and not only so, but such is his great love and kindness to them, he hath given them his Seal, they have his promise, his word, and his Spirit also, that they might not doubt of the truth and stability of his covenant, 2 Cor 1:22. 'We are his witnesses the Holy Spirit, of these things, and so is also whom God hath given to them who obey him.' Eph 1:13, Acts 5:32.

VI. The Holy Spirit distinguishes or differs one man from another; God hath set his Seal or mark upon all his people. 'The Foundation of God remaineth sure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,' 2 Tim 2:19. 'If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,' Rom 8:9.

VII. The Holy Spirit is the broad Seal of heaven, by which all the laws and institutions of the Gospel were ratified and confirmed, with signs and wonders in the primitive times; by which means they come to be authentic, and everlasting laws, obliging all men to obedience; and all laws of spiritual worship, traditions, and institutions, enjoyed by any potentate, assembly, or council whatsoever, that were not thus Sealed or witnessed to, are utterly to be rejected, Mark 16:20, Heb 2:3, 4.

VIII. The Spirit secures, preserves, and keeps safe all true believers, from the danger they continually are exposed to, from sin, Satan, and the ensnarements and mischiefs of this evil world. Satan, nor wicked men, must not, cannot destroy the servants of God, because of the mark or Seal he hath set upon them. 'Set a mark upon the men that mourn,' &c. 'Saying, hurt not the earth, &c., till we have Sealed the servants of our God in the forehead,' &c. 'And it was commanded them, that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree, but only those men, which have not the Seal of God upon their forehead,' Ezek 9:4, Rev 7:3, and 9:4.

IX. The Spirit is oftentimes counterfeited by Satan, who transforms himself into an angel of light, as do his ministers, as if they were the ministers of righteousness; hence they pretend to light, spirit, and holiness, and beguile the ignorant and unwary souls to their eternal ruin.

X. The Holy Spirit hath hid or Sealed up some things from men; 'Bind up my testimony, Seal the law amongst my disciples,' Isa 8:16. Many thing are hid from saints themselves, in dark and mysterious prophecies in the holy scripture. 'Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered,' &c. Yet in due time those things shall be revealed, and not only so, but the saints of God themselves, by the Spirit are such a sealed and hidden people, that but a very few can read and understand them, though legible to be read of all the chosen and elect seed, and heirs of promise, and in that great day they shall be known to the world.

Metaphor

I. A Seal among men, after a bond or covenant is sealed therewith, may be defaced or broken, and thereby the said bond or covenant may lose its virtue, efficacy, and not be deemed good and authentic in law.

II. A Seal among men can make no impression without a hand, or one to seal therewith.

III. A Seal is an instrument made by the hand of some artificer of earthly matter or substance, and makes only a human or external impression.

IV. A Seal may be lost, or grow old and defective, and so make no perfect and clear impression.

Disparity

I. The Holy Spirit having once made a gracious and glorious impression in the soul of a man, neither devil, nor any other enemy can ever, by all their strength and skill utterly deface, tear or break it, so as to make the covenant of grace to lose its virtue and become of none effect to the soul; hence believers are said, 'To be sealed to the day of redemption.' Eph. 4:30.

II. The Spirit is not only the Seal, but the Sealer, he makes the impression, needing no other, and also is the Seal by which the impression is made.

III. The Spirit is an uncreated being, or an immortal substance, and makes a divine and heavenly impression in the mind or soul of a man or a woman, which by the operation of God's grace is made pliable and meet to receive it.

IV. The Spirit can never be lost, grow old, be wore out, or become defective; so that the impression it now makes, is the same in every respect with that it made five thousand years ago.

Inferences

I. From hence we may perceive by whom the change and difference is made, which is in any person. Man is born in sin, and rather resembles Satan, and bears his image, than the character and likeness of God, until the Holy Spirit stamp a new and heavenly character upon him, or infuse a spiritual habit into him. 'Who makes thee to differ from another, or what hast thou, which thou has not received?' &.

II. It many serve to stir every one up, to examine their hearts, whether they have received the impression of this spiritual Seal; as is the Seal, such is the impression it makes. 'They that are after the Spirit, mind the things of the Spirit,' Rom 8:5. 'But we all with open face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.' 2 Cor 3:18.

III. For further trial take these few brief notes following.

1. Were your hearts ever humbled in the sense of sin, broken in pieces, melted, made soft, and pliable to receive the Seal? The heart of man naturally is hard and obdurate, and will not take the spiritual impression.

2. Did the Spirit ever set home, and seal any promise in particular, or promises in general upon your hearts, so that you can say with the prophet David, 'Lord remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope?' Ps 119:49. The Ephesians are said 'To be sealed with the Spirit of promise,' Eph 1:13.

3. Are you formed into the likeness and image of the Spirit? There is in that soul that his sealed by the Spirit, a certain impression of divine light; former darkness flies away, and the eyes of the understanding are enlightened, the soul sees an excellency in God, and in Jesus Christ, a transcendent beauty in divine objects, and values the knowledge of Jesus Christ and him crucified, above all the things in this world. Phil 3:9-12.

4. Are you holy, heavenly, spiritual? Are there principles of true piety and godliness wrought in you? Do you love God because he is holy, and love his word because of the purity of it? Do you breathe and pant after a further conformity and likeness to him?

5. Is thy heart washed from its filthiness? If thou art not cleansed from thy former wickedness, and swinish nature, thou mayest assure thyself thou hast not the Spirit of God in thee, thou art far from being sealed therewith. It is by the virtue of those promises that are imprinted upon the soul by the Holy Ghost, that a man comes to 'Cleanse himself from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, and to perfect holiness in the fear of God.' 2 Cor 7:1.

Doth not thy heart condemn thee, for allowing thyself in any known sin, or for living in the continual neglect of any one known duty? 'The Spirit witnesseth with our spirits, that we are the children of God.' Where it is a sealing Spirit, it is a witnessing Spirit. It compares the heart and life of man with the rule of the word: and if the bent and stream of the soul be heaven-ward, and his sincere design is after God, and to live to him in this world, as well as to live with him in the world to come; to be holy here, as well as to be happy hereafter; then the Spirit witnesses for him: but if otherwise, it witnesses against him, and his own spirit condemns him.

IV. Moreover, this may inform sincere Christians to their unspeakable joy, how firm and sure the covenant of grace is to them. 'They are sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption'; they are marked for heaven, and cannot lose their title to the eternal inheritance, because they cannot lose the Seal of it: as they have received the earnest of it, so they have the witness and seal of it, that it might be every way firm and sure to them.

V. Let all who possess the Gospel, and pretend to the Spirit, strive to get this Seal. It is not enough to read of the covenant of God, and to have some external knowledge of it, and dispute about it; but labour to get it Sealed to by the Holy Spirit.

VI. If the Spirit be the earnest and Seal of this blessed inheritance, do not grieve it; this is the counsel of the apostle gave to the Ephesians. Do not quench the motions of it, nor turn a deaf ear to the tender and gracious reproofs it daily gives you. Do not give way to sin or Satan; neglect not your duties; pray often, and hear the word, and be found in your places where the word and Spirit hath directed you: live in love, and 'Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, and evil-speaking be put away from you, with all malice: and be kind one to another, and tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you': And hereby you will not grieve the Holy Spirit, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Lastly, Take heed Satan does not deceive thee with a counterfeit Seal. Many are confident they have the Spirit light and power, when it is all mere delusion. The Spirit always leads and directs according to the written word: 'He shall bring my word,' saith Christ, 'to your remembrance.' Some men boast of the Spirit, and conclude they have the Spirit, and none but they, and yet at the same time cry down and vilify his blessed ordinances and institutions, which he hath left in his word, carefully to be observed and kept, till he come the second time without sin unto salvation." Benjamin Keach, Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible (17__), pp. 508-510.

Christ therefore left us with this very important statement that we should all take to heart:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.

The day of judgment is every day, not some specific day far distant in the future, for we set a Record of our walk here in the Court of God and it is that Record that must be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. God does not take long journeys, does not sleep, and is not to be compared to man or the gods of men. If our Record is not there, then we were not in Him and never can partake of His Blessings at His Table in the Life to come. See 1 Kings 18.

And it is written,

"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with [*or by] the words of thy mouth." Proverbs 6:2.
"A man shall eat good by the fruit of his mouth: but the soul of the transgressors shall eat violence. He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 13:2-3.

So that when you learn of Him and wait on Him, "instant in season and out of season," you will inherit all things through Him, for you will seek first His Righteousness:

"The meek will He guide in judgment: and the meek will He teach His way." Psalm 25:9.

For those who seek further information on "The Power of Words," The Christian Jural Society Press now have a 33 page pamphlet with 2 - 90 minute audio tapes available on request by calling 818-347-7080.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

From Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary, pp. 983-984

Scholasticism

"A form of Christian philosophy and theology developed by scholars who came to be called schoolmen. It flourished during the medieval period of European history. The heart of scholasticism insisted upon a system that was clear and definitional in tone. The system attempted to synthesize ideas expressed in classical Roman and Greek writings and in Christian Scripture, the writings of the patristic fathers, and other Christian writings preceding the medieval period. Aristotle's views helped give scholasticism a systematic structure, but Platonism also played a large part in the enterprise.

Some persons consider scholasticism to have been a boring, dry system emphasizing sheer memorization. However, in many respects it was dynamic, truly seeking to settle questions concerning reality. The Disputed Questions of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his Summa, point out the vibrancy of the system. The philosophical aspects of scholasticism were not dicated strictly by a set of theological dogmas but rather worked with both faith and reason in an attempt to understand reality from the viewpoint of a human being.

The method of scholasticism sought to understand the fundamental aspects of theology, philosophy, and law. Apparently contradictory viewpoints were offered in order to show how they possibly could be synthesized through reasonable interpretation. A problem would first be "exposed," and then it would be "disputed" in order to cause a new "discovery" in the mind of the person who was seeking new personal knowledge. Each text investigated had a commentary. The master helped the student to read the text in such a way that he could really understand what it was saying. This experience was to be much more than just memorative. There were yes-and-no positions to various texts, which sought to keep the student from merely memorizing the text. Abelard developed the yes-and-no method with great precision. The two most exciting types of disputations were the quaestio disputata, which was a disputed question, and the quodlibet, which was a very subtle form of disputed question that could be publicly disputed only by a truly great master, whereas the disputed questions could be talked about by lesser minds still growing in knowledge.

Anselm of Canterbury is the first great developer of scholasticism. His Monologion investigates problems surrounding God from a reasonable and yet prayerful viewpoint. He developed the famous principle "faith seeking to know."

Peter Abelard sought to show various ways in which contradictory texts could be synthesized. He became involved in the disputed question concerning whether "universals" were really things or merely names.

Gilbert de la Porree continued to develop various views in a scholastic manner. Hugh of St. Victor sought to give scholasticism more of a mystical flare; he was criticized by many because of his lack of reasonableness. He was deeply indebted to Augustine for his views. Bernard of Clairvaux developed a psychological view in scholasticism which, although wedded to a form of mysticism, sought to be more reasonable than mystical.

Peter Lombard developed a series of "sentences" that were to be taught to seminarians studying for the priesthood in the twelfth century. These scholastic sentences were usually simple and also capable of being memorized by the students. It is this form of scholasticism that has caused many persons to discredit it as an uncreative experience.

Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus) was not much of an improvement over Peter Lombard, but he deeply influenced Thomas Aquinas, who was the apogee of scholastic thought. Thomism has many forms, but they are all trying to interpret the system of thought developed by Thomas Aquinas. His great effort was to combine what could be called non-Christian philosophy with both Christian philosophy and theology. Christian Scripture could be combined with elements of ideas discovered by natural thought unaided by the grace of Scripture. Thomas Aquinas was heavily influenced by not only Aristotelianism but also Platonism. He also attempted to combine the thought of Averroes into his system. Some of his contemporaries considered some of his ideas to be heretical. Cardinal Tempier of Paris was especially disturbed by his view concerning the resurrection of the body as it was presented in his Disputed Questions.

Bonaventure was another great schoolman, but his style of presentation is turgid and pales somewhat in relation to the presentations of Aquinas. Bonaventure was quite polemical in his attacks against Aristotelianism, which undermined his attempt to be reasonable.

In the fourteenth century Giles of Rome presented some brilliance within the scholastic tradition, but he was not very consequential in relation to Aquinas. The great scholastic thinker of the fourteenth century was John Duns Scotus. He had an extremely subtle understanding of the use of words. He was chiefly interested in the problem of epistemology. His school of thought, Scotism, influenced many people in later ages, including Martin Heidegger and Ludwig Wittgenstein. William of Ockham rounds out the glorious age of scholasticism. He was called a nominalist because he wondered if exterior reality to the human mind was given a series of words which remained primarily in the mind. For William of Ockham it was unclear that the human mind could actually know exterior reality.

Scholasticism went into desuetude in the fifteenth century, but it was revived in the sixteenth century. The twentieth century has experienced a renewed attempt to make the Thomistic form of scholasticism credible as a system of thought. This movement within Roman Catholic circles has been partially successful."

Remembering the Old Ways

Feoffment

[*Insertions added]

"At early common law, the most important method of conveying possessory estates of freehold was by feoffment. This was accomplished by livery of seisin. The one conveying the land is the feoffor. The one to whom the conveyance is made is called the feoffee. The ceremony is called a feoffment.

"In modern law, conveyance by a written instrument called a deed has supplanted the common law method of feoffment.

"At early common law, the usual method by which the owner of land conveyed a possessory estate therein was by making a symbolic delivery of the land to the new owner. The parties would go upon the land itself [*together] and the owner would hand a twig or clod of earth to the new owner and that completed the ceremony [*although the old owner might stress some sort of communal relation to the new owner] and that completed the conveyance. [*Notice no exchange of consideration, such as money to complete the transaction. This is because of Psalm 24:1.] This method of conveying the land [*not the interest in the land] is called a feoffment. The one making the transfer is called the feoffor and the one to whom the conveyance is made is called the feoffee. This ceremony is called 'livery of seisin.' The word seisin means possession plus claim of ownership of a freehold estate [*under God]. Thus, if A is in possession of land claiming a freehold estate therein, A is seised of the land. It is the transfer of this possession and the claim of ownership that constitutes livery of seisin.

"It is important to bear in mind that at an early date a feoffment was a rather notorious affair and was usually attended by neighbors and friends. They acted as witnesses to the conveyance and there was no difficulty in proving who was the owner of land located in the community.

"It was not until after the passage of the Statute of Uses in 1536 that it became possible for an owner of land to convey a possessory estate of freehold by a written instrument called a deed." Burby on Business Law (1949), pp. 620-621.

[*Thus conveyance by deed does not exceed the legal memory of man and the old methods are just as useful and recognized at law.]

"Title is when a man hath lawful cause of entry into lands, whereof another is seised; and it signifies also the means whereby a man comes to lands or tenements, as by feoffment, last will and testament, etc. The word 'title' includes a right, but is the more general word. Every right is a title, though every title is not a right for which an action will lie. Jacob.

"The investigation of titles is one of the principle branches of conveyancing and in that practice the word 'title' has thus the sense of 'history,' rather than of 'right.' Thus we speak of an abstract of title, and of investigating a title, and describe a document as forming part of the title to property." Sweet.

Bits and Pieces

Was that hope, or dope?

"You all know I am a walking apostle of hope." Words spoken by William Jefferson Clinton at The White House Millenium Evening, January 25, 1999, as reported by the AP Wire Service on January 26, 1999.

The Fraternity

"Freemasons, n. An order with secret rites, grotesque ceremonies and fantastic costumes, which, originating in the reign of Charles II, among working artisans of London, has been joined successively by the dead of past centuries in unbroken retrogression until now it embraces all the generations of man on the hither side of Adam and is drumming up distinguished recruits among the pre-Creational inhabitants of Chaos and the Formless Void. The order was founded at different times by Charlemagne, Julius Caesar, Cyrus, Solomon, Zoroaster, Confucius, Thothmes, and Buddha. Its emblems and symbols have been found in the Catacombs of Paris and Rome, on the stones of the Parthenon and the Chinese Great Wall, among the temples of Karnak and Palmyra and in the Egyptian Pyramids--always by a Freemason." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 39.

Demonstration

"Apodeixis, lit. a pointing out (apo, forth, deiknumi, to show), a showing or demonstrating by argument, is found in 1 Corinthians 2;4, where the Apostle speaks of a proof, a showing forth or display, by the operation of the Spirit of God in him, as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers, in contrast to attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts and philosophic arguments." Vine's Expository Diction- ary, page 292.

The Rest of who's Story?

"History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 51.

The Animal

"Man as a social being. Man is a social animal because he has to associate with others of his own kind in order to live, but society is not a thing in itself apart from man. It is a mistake to think of society as a structure consisting of human beings added together [*corporation], or as an abstract entity consisting of the blended psychologies of many human beings. Society consists of the relationships between man and man. [*Christian societies consist of a Christian's relationship to a brother in Christ.] These relationships always take the form of behavior or action [*character or being]. A good example of what we mean is a football team. A football team is commonly said to consist of eleven men, but that is not an accurate statement of fact. Eleven football players at the dinner table are not a team; nor are they a team under any circumstances except when actually playing football [*arguing being is dictated by temporal surroundings, when in reality it is a legal fiction which is dictated by temporal surroundings]. Even on the playing field, they are not a team until the game begins; and, of course, there would be no game if there were no opponents. It really takes the relationship of twenty-two men actually playing football to make a football team. Eleven players, each assigned to a special position, line up at one end of the field to defend their goal; eleven others, similarly drilled, line up to defend the opposite goal; the referee's whistle blows, and the ball is put into play. Each player immediately attempts to do something in association with his fellows and against the opposite side. On offense and on defense, each has a certain action to carry out--each, in other words, must continuously act in certain relationships to the men of his own side and those of the other r side. It is what they actually do in these relationships, how they actually behave, that makes them a football team, and not just number of young fellows playing around with a football. Moreover, it is what they actually do in their relationships on the football field that makes them a good football team or one not so good." Chester C. Maxey, The American Problem of Government (1949), pp. 1-4.

Scriptural Inheritance

"Jesus Christ. Our Lord was named Jesus in accordance with the directions of the angel to Joseph (Mt 1:21) and Mary (Lk 1:31). When given to ordinary children, the name expressed, if any thing, the parent's faith in God as the savior of his people. When given to Mary's child, it was designed to express the special office he would fulfill: 'Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins; (Mt 1:21). Christ is from Gr. Christos (anointed), a translation of Aram. Meshiha, Heb. Mashiah (anointed, Messiah). Jesus, therefore was our Lord's personal name and Christ was his title (the Christ); though the latter was early used also as a proper name, as it is by us, either alone or with Jesus." Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944, Westminster Press), p. 301. [Emphasis added.]

1166. BAAL. to be master; to rule, possess, marry, to be married, to be taken as a wife. god is the husband (baal) of Israel (Is 54:5ff.; Jer 3:14; 31:32; Mal 2:11). The land is 'married' (baal) to Jehovah in the Book of Isaiah. This is similar to the relationship between Christ as 'husband' of His people and the ekklesia ([1577, NT], Eph 5:21ff.). There is a covenantal tie of love and loyalty between God and His people. He has dominion over us." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study of the Old Testament (King James Version) (1994), p. 2306.

Blessings from the Clergy

"Clergyman, n. A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a methos of bettering his temporal ones." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 17.

"MAMMON. A common Aramaic word for riches, akin to a Hebrew word signifying to be firm, stedfast (whence Amen), hence, that which is to be trusted; Gesenius regards it as derived from a Heb. word signifying 'treasure' (Gen 43:23; it is personified in Mt 6:24; Lk 16:9, 11, 13." Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, vol. III, p. 32.

Issue the Forty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Fruits of the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord...

No New Thing Under the Sun...

In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord or Fear & Adoration of the State, Part Two...

In the Name of His church, Part Two...

The Urim and Thummim...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Fruits of the

Nurture and Admonition of the Lord

by John Joseph and Kyle Jon

Many of you know of the conference our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus led us to do in Pinedale this past month. At the end of the conference, our Lord brought us together to learn of Him and His Word at Brother Glen Steven's dwelling-house. This was truly a blessing for all of us. At the end of our edification, Brother Kyle Jon had been led by the Spirit of our Lord to leave us temporarily and meditate on His Word that we had been reading and from which we drew our learning.

After we had concluded we went inside the dwelling-house for some refreshments and further edification among ourselves. During this time, the COUNTY OF NAVAJO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT employee drove up the path to the dwelling-house with Brother Kyle at her side. She knocked at the door and I answered the door. Now I know that we constantly tell you never to answer the door; but, in this case a Brother needed assistance with whatever had taken place between himself and the employee.

The exchange between myself and this employee was brief, terse, and to the point.

The following is Brother Kyle Jon's account of what transpired between him and the county employee previous to her coming to the door, followed by my exchange with her:

Kyle Jon:

The day after the meeting in Arizona we had a bible study in which afterwards I went for a walk and was sitting on the corner up the hill from Glen's dwelling-house where I was staying at the time.

While I was sitting on the corner a sheriff and another lady in a black truck pulled up and walked up to me and asked "are you okay"

I answered "yes, I'm fine."

Then she asked "what is your name?

I answered "a name is a note, sign, or mark given by those in authority to those subject to that authority and I am to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Caesar hasn't given me a name.

She asked "what's your birth date?"

I answered "I have no personal knowledge."

Then she asked "how old are you?"

I answered "I have no personal knowledge."

She asked "where is your home?"

I answered "I don't have a home; a home is a place of business. I stay at the bottom of this hill."

Her next question was "where do you live?"

I said "right now I live here where I am standing. Where I am is where I live."

Then she asked "where is your family?"

I said "My mother, and brother, and sister is whosoever shall do the will of God; who do you minister for?"

She said "the Navajo County sheriffs department."

Then I said "You've just told me you do not minister for our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus and no man can serve two masters."

Then she said "so you think you would be serving me?"

I said "yes."

She said "since you won't give me any information I'm gonna have to follow you."

I said "you can do that. Your going to do what your going to do. I'll go now and you can follow me."

Then she said "I can't let you go until I have your name."

I said "if I give you my name I would be subjecting myself to you. You don't have authority until I give it to you."

In many words she agreed with me.

She asked "do you know where Pinedale is?"

I answered "no."

She said "it's a little green building and I have no problem taking you there and making you sit there until you give me the information I need."

She made another threat saying, "how would you like to spend the rest of your life in jail?"

She was trying to get my name and one of the tricks was "We [there was actually two different ladies there; the sheriff and a building inspector] just want to know your name so if we see you again we don't want to say 'hey you.' We want to call you by your name."

I said "I am to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods."

She said "I don't want to play this game with you."

I said "I'm not playing a game, you're playing the game."

One of the confessions she tried to get me to make was through the question, "do you pledge allegiance to the flag?"

I answered "that's idolatry."

Finally she said "I'm gonna to have to pad you down so give me your stuff [I had a bible and a folder] [pause], get up to the truck[pause] put your arms up.

She checked me and all I had was a hand written piece of paper in my pocket with my name and the train number I would be going on. All she asked about it was "so your taking a train, are you running away from home?"

My answer was "I don't have a home, and no I'm not running away, I stay at the bottom of this hill."

Then she said [mocking] "get in the truck you servant of God."

On the way down the hill she asked me "is this the residence where you live?"

I answered "this is not a residence and I live right here where I'm sitting. That is the dwelling house where I'm staying."

At this time she was swearing and she drove slightly past the driveway and said "you know nobody is here don't you?"

I answered with "I never said that."

Then she backed up and drove in the driveway. She stopped and let me out and went up to the door and John Joseph answered.

John Joseph:

As I opened the door she asked, "May I ask you some questions concerning this young man here?"

I answered, "Sure."

She then began the short barrage, "Is there any reason he cannot tell me his name?"

I answered, "Caesar has not given a name, nor called him at any time. He renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. How can he render to Caesar any thing that Caesar has not given him?"

She moved on to the next question. She asked, "He told me has no knowledge of his birthday. Is that true?"

"Yes, that is true. It has never been revealed to him," I answered.

"Is he an adult, or a juvenile?" she asked.

I paused for what seemed like an eternity here. Never answer a question out of hand, but continually seek the guidance and direction of the Spirit of God. I have never handled a question like this before, and so I prayed that Christ Jesus would burn the answer on my lips. He did. I said, "Neither."

She then asked, "Does he belong here?"

"Yes, he does," I answered. With that I invited Brother Kyle Jon into the house, shook the hand of the employee and shut the door.

By the way, it is purported that Kyle Jon is 16 years of age.

No New Thing Under the Sun

by Daniel Wendell

With a mad rush to add a few more unlawful gun control statutes to the seventeen or so broken in connection with the shootings at Columbine High School . . . with the endless trotting out of modern "experts" . . . with opinion after opinion being expressed analyzed and sent through the ether (mostly by those who look not to God's Word for answers but to opportunistic political agendas) . . . I became so frustrated by the endless chatter I sought for and was given an explanation of the root problem in this matter, ". . . Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

". . . there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." It's an old story, it's bound up within the heart of unregenerate man.

It's been reported that the crime of Clarence Darrow's two client's Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, in many ways mirror's the "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold Story." Two young men, children of affluence, considered intelligent, involving themselves in the abomination of homosexuality, who meticulously plotted their murderous event ahead of time, and Leopold's preoccupation with Friedrich Nietzche's concept of the "übermensch" (whose intelligence places him beyond moral considerations) can easily be seen to have grown ripe on the vine in the lyrical content of the German "Techno-Metal," ostensible music, which Harris and Klebold consumed with passion.

But there's another story circulating which should be committed to our memory. The story of Cassie Bernall. Cassie Bernall is the girl who was asked, by one of the killers, if she believed in God. Upon answering in the affirmative she was rhetorically asked, "Why?" then immediately shot in the face and killed. At least this is how it is reported. Students who have been interviewed said she was specifically asked, not whether she believed in God, but did she believe in Jesus.

Apparently it's safer for the media to use the word "god" in a generic sense. Their customers probably don't want to be troubled hearing about Jesus; nor would a reporter desire to refer to Him on the air. The news media has felt it good business to leave Jesus out of their reporting altogether.

This, of course, speaks volumes to us as to what the world thinks of Christ, and the decision every man must make concerning our Savior. Cassie Bernall, by the Spirit of God, made this decision facing down the barrel of a gun.

I don't want to sound cynical but I wonder why the Columbine story was carried for weeks by the media. There were two more school shootings during the press coverage of this event. If camera crews were sent into those communities there would be interviews of the grieving, a visit from the First Lady, memorial services, and many of the stories which Littleton yielded. But these stories weren't given anywhere near the attention. Was there something in the stories of faith and hope in Littleton? Was there something in the vivid detail of the various deaths of students at Columbine that fascinated the media and their customers? It's not so strange an irony that in this culture of death any truthful discussion of death is forbidden; thus making the subject taboo, and all the more alluring.

This was not always the case, though. In early Puritan school primers the mortality of man was taught hand in hand with the hope of salvation. The letters of the alphabet were memorized in short rhymes.

For example: C: "The Cat doth play, And after slay," G: "As runs the Glass, Our Life doth pass," or Y: "While Youth do chear, (sic) Death may be near." "How traumatizing to young children, they should be protected from such a preoccupation with death!" I hear the cry of the psychologists already.

The subject of death, though, is not completely ignored in public schools, it's made sterile and "positive" for the children. Tara Becker, a student at Columbine High fifteen years ago, stated that Death Education was ubiquitous at her school. To paraphrase Tara; "Students were instructed that life is difficult; whereas death is an escape. Upon death we return to a better life form, eventually making our way to the 'oversoul' where we become one with God." Suicide was taught in a non-judgmental manner.

Can anyone be surprised that teen suicide is commonplace when death is portrayed as a happy affair? This sort of Death Education is not peculiar to Columbine either. The idea that there is a God who is judge of the quick and the dead has been completely eradicated from public schools everywhere. (A far cry from the intent of the first congress which appropriated 15,000 dollars lawful money to print King James Bibles for use as school text books).

Today's professors are hopeless, i.e., their intellectual de-fanging of death is truly vacant and offers no comfort or real hope. Consequently they will never teach "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Furthermore any teaching that the second death is real i.e., hell (mentioned by our Lord more than he mentioned heaven) must be strictly forbidden.

We're in the "teddy bears and hugs" generation. It's reported that a young child, wearing a cartoon character backpack, attending the casket signing (i.e., memorial service) for those who were killed at Columbine, saw the balloons at the funeral and ask his Father "Are we going to a party?"

With the words of Jonathan Edwards (considered one of the greatest minds in American history) ringing in the ears of early America, there was not much worry that children would go about shooting each other and themselves just to watch the blood splatter. ". . . you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdrew his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it . . . if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly decend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock."

But "progressives" must progress; even if they take a horribly wrong turn somewhere. Children shall continue to be taught that abiogenesis took place through stochastic chemical processes; then through "evolutive speciation" our fair species of "thinking" animal stumbled into its present state . . . well, let's teach this, but with not with such big words.

"This is a blunder so enormous . . ." (to quote Christopher Dawson) " . . . that no advance in scientific method nor educational technique is sufficient to compensate for it." Yet these are the avenues pursued; along with the media's cries for answers to the priests of the brave new world, the psychologists.

I heard one of these "priests" today telling us that "boys" do all the shooting in these school "tragedies" and that there is something wrong in the brains of these aggressive male criminals. The natural aggression of boys shows itself on the playground; "where . . ." he explained, "girls gather in small groups to express themselves verbally, and boys play 'rough and tumble' games with structure and rules over large areas." He'll probably be granted much money to figure out if these games are the cause of male violence. Couple this report with the recent report that women may not need men to bear offspring and we see that perhaps there is hope for the secular world after all; one day football and men will be outlawed altogether, along with the "evil patriarchy" and God the Father.

So where is the 501(c)(3) tax exempt non-profit corporate church? Wasn't there a time when the news reporters would ask pastors and church leaders for answers at a time like this? When I turn on the radio and hear "Christian psychologists" advising their callers that they might need "meds" to help them over their problems . . . wait . . . "meds?" Now isn't that a euphonious euphemism! Isn't the word for "sorcery" in the book of Revelation the Greek word "pharmakia?"

It was these "enlightened priests" of the new age, the psychologists, who in 1973 gave their imprimatur to the doctrine that homosexuality is simply an alternative "lifestyle." Without a doubt this led to the acceptability of N.A.M.B.L.A. pederasts marching world wide in "gay pride parades." And now similar overtures are being made by the same school of thought concerning pedophilia.

A former friend of mine, whom I had to abandon because she is unrepentant, told her "Christian counselor" that she "self medicates" by smoking marijuana. The counselor told her, in a non-judgmental manner, this is something we can deal with later. (Perhaps after they find just the right legal drug for her). My former friend liked the pro-psychologist Christians because they were less judgmental than any other "church group" she had found, and she looked far and wide. The last time I spoke with her she was doing "ecstasy" (a popular designer drug among the secular youth, although she's fifty years old). She claims that because of her uncaring, liberal Massachusetts, brahman W.A.S.P. upbringing, the only time she can feel close to God is when she's "stoned." She's rationalized all this, telling me the Bible teaches we should give "strong drink" to the sick and dying and to those who are suffering. I wonder whether the church she attends is sick and dying. They certainly aren't in need of any money.

The basis of all sin is found in the statement of the prophet Isaiah, "All we like sheep have gone astray; and we have turned every one to his own way." It's not enough for us to go our own way, but going that way we want to make believe it's God's way. It's for the world to dampen the flames of their conscience with pharmaceuticals, it's for us to be anointed with oil and to have the elders lay hands upon us.

Eric Harris (one of the shooters at Columbine) was being "counseled." After breaking into a car he and Dylan were sent to an "anger management class," he was on a psychotropic pill or two, and apparently was spoon fed all the politically correct verbiage, which he spiced up with his own violent emphasis. He is quoted as having said that anyone who is a racist should have their legs cut off. This was not widely reported because his crime was portrayed as a racist "hate crime." It's also made manifest that, without the Spirit of God to free men from enslavement to their fallen will, all the Godless words of all the Godless men everywhere will do nothing but come back void.

Chuck Colson reported that eleven of the students killed were Christians. A female newsman in an exclusive television interview "Live From Littleton, Colorado" (with freshly made "Tragedy in Littleton" on screen graphics) was "caringly" holding the hand and seated to the left of the father of the "African American" boy who was shot and killed. A student who had been in the library the day of the shooting and witnessed the killing of this man's son, was seated at the grieving father's right hand. As this student spoke it became clear that he was a Christian, and when he spoke of his faith, the father, recognizing a fellow Christian, took his left hand out of the hand of the reporter and put both his hands into the hands of the student. The reporter, being left out in the cold and wanting to diminish, or perhaps not seeing, the power of the true council of our Lord; continued in her professional "caring" manner, asking the father whether he would seek "counseling," (which left the impression that this "faith stuff" is "nice" but will only go so far). The father answered "no," explaining that he's a Christian and he'll get through this.

The Federal government was spending good taxpayer money sending specially trained grief counseling and conflict resolution teams to help the people of Littleton, and this poor man wasn't going to avail himself to their warm Freudian mental hugs?

It's reported that Cassie Bernall's mother was comforted by the Lord as well. A few days after her daughter's death while in the shower she received the message; "It was for this reason Cassie was born." Also, the day after the shooting, her brother found a poem Cassie had written which suggested she was already aware of God's plan for her life, or as Cassie put it: "to find out what it really means to suffer and die with Him."

Before her conversion Cassie was involved in drugs, bad friends, and witchcraft. Her parents were advised to take her out of school and away from her friends and allow her only to attend church. (Had there been no shooting this would have been a great "hit piece" about close-minded Christian parents). This is exactly what they did as they prayed for a miracle. Vali Wilson, a church volunteer, held little hope for Cassie, "nothing was going to penetrate that shell."

The miracle took place, and somehow I don't think God was trembling with hat in hand hoping she would "come around" in time. Cassie became deeply devoted to her Bible study which she attended regularly, she began working with inner city gangs, openly wearing clothing which declared her faith in Jesus Christ, and expressed a desire to have her long blond hair cut to be donated to a charity which made wigs for children undergoing cancer treatment.

Cassie's mother and brother were comforted; and the father, whose son was killed, stated that he sees the hand of God in this and someday he'll come to understand God's will in this matter. I'm certain he will, I could see by the faith he expressed in his interview that his hope is not in this world.

We should always remember the example Cassie Bernall set. How many of us have placed ourselves in that Library over the past weeks, asking ourselves what we would have done in her place?

We read of instances in the early church where Christians were challenged to deny their Lord. Often these inquisitions were every bit as dramatic as Cassie's. In some cases a pig's blood might be shed to run in a gutter. The Christian was then asked to spit into the blood and say it had no more power to cleanse sin than the blood of Christ. The denials of Christians since the inception of this country have not been so dramatic. The enemy has learned that ostensible Christians are more easily tempted with riches and earthly goods. The enemy has been successful with this approach. This is why Cassie Bernall's story is all the more powerful. She declared her faith in Jesus while facing down the barrel of a gun. She stood firm in the presence of the enemy. She went to be with the Lord where He will brush away all tears. Of this present era, in this country, she is clearly one of the first Christian martyrs.

*A currently "in vogue" phrase which will become an insult in a decade or two.

In the Nurture and Admonition of Our Lord

Under the Fear and Adoration of the State

Part Two

written solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our Sovereign

Lord and Saviour, by John Joseph, His mere bondservant

We will here continue from last month and take a closer look at today's "schools of TYRANNUS":

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Matthew 23:2-3.
"HYPOCRITES. (uJpokritai). From uJpokrinw, to separate gradually; so of separating the truth from a mass of falsehood, and thence to subject to inquiry, and, as a result of this, to expound or interpret what is elicited. Then, to reply to inquiry, and so to answer on the state, to speak in dialogue, to act. From this the transition is easy to assuming, feigning, playing a part. The hypocrite is, therefore, etymologically, an actor." Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1891), vol. I, p. 150.
"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30. See also Luke 11:23.
"BAALAH. (Heb.)--lady; mistress; possessor; guardian; sorceress; citizenship; a citizen.
"A border town of Judah. Kiriath-jearim is another name for this city (Josh. 15:9).
"Meta. An innate consciousness of authority and ownership in man, a consciousness that pertains to the feminine or affectional nature, the soul (mistress, possessor), and is expressed in the psychic and material to the point of idolatry." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

"BAALATH. (Heb.)--citizens; subjects; possessions; belonging to Baal; mistresses.
"a. A town of the tribe of Dan (Josh. 19:44). b. A town that Solomon rebuilt after he married the daughter of the king of Egypt (I Kings 9:18). This latter was perhaps the same place as the previously named town of the tribe of Dan.
"Meta. Baal means lord, master, possessor, and pertains to the attributing of power and authority to the outer world of phenomena instead of recognizing Spirit as the one true source of all existence and of all prosperity and supply. Baalath represents the belief of the spiritually awakened soul in man that his possessions, his privileges, and the good that he enjoys have their source in the outer, the material." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), pp. 87-88.

Again this is confessed and admitted by the heathen, who teach their own precepts of morality and justice in these abominations euphoniously called schools:

"There is no doubt that the Humanists as a body were profoundly convinced of the practical character of Classical studies. It was said of Vittorino [By Ticozzi: cf. his Storia dei Letterati, etc. p. 19: "Soleva dire, non tutti I suoi discepoli aver gisogno per vivere onoratamente, di professare filosofia, legge, medicinane tutti esere ugualmente da natura favoriti; essere bensi tutti a vivere in societa destinati ed a professare la virtu."] that his aim was the development of the complete citizen. Vergerius [De Ingenuis Moribus, p. 479: "Namqui totus speculationi et literarum illecebris deditus est, is est forsitan sibi ipsi carus, ac parum certe utilis urbi aut princeps est aut privatus."], at the outset of our period, is anxious to set forth the ideal of Education as the perfection of the man as Citizen, which he found in Aristotle. The choice of studies and the temper in which they are to be pursued should be determined by this general aim. Learning is not to be regarded as an excuse for withdrawal from active life and concern for the common good. Vittorino writes to Ambrogio, quoting Cicero with approval: virtutis laus omnis in actione consistit. That was his own ideal, and it was notorious that a full training for practical life was the leading purpose of the Mantuan school. This indeed, is one of the characteristic marks of the lay spirit of Humanism, coinciding, as it did, with the objective temper of Italian intelligence.Practical judgment in affairs is one main result of humanist teaching. [Vergerius] lays down that 'sound judgment, wisdom of speech [*euphonious words], and integrity of conduct [*morals and ethics]' are the qualities cultivated by liberal learning.[*184] Citizenship then being the highest end of education, we are prepared to find that the conviction of the Ancients, that the training of the young is a matter of State concern, is not lost sight of by the theorists. Vergerius definitely affirms [*185] this position, although it is in relation to character that he regards the action of the State as necessary. The Community is directly interested in the virtuous up-bringing of its future members, since good citizenship redounds to the profit of the State not less than to the advantage of the individual." Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre and other Humanist Educators (1963), pp. 183-185.
"PAGAN. heathen. XIV--L. paganus rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pagus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, [*641] f. *pag-, p g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of paganus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christians calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of his militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen--OF. paien (mod. paien)=Pr. paien, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), pp. 640-641.
"CIVILIAN. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy, or (in England) the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 & 1968), p. 313.
"CITIZEN. Citizens are members of community inspired to a common goal, who, in asociated relations, submit themselves [*sans Power and Authority from Christ] to rules of conduct [*morality] for the promotion of general welfare and conservation of individual as well as collective rights. In re McIntosh, D.C. Wash., 12 F.Supp. 177." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 & 1968), p. 310.
"Idolatry is one form of religion." Parker, quoted in Weiss, Life of Parker, vol. ii., p. 56.

One of the dangers of the above will be seen when we look close at the theories upon which the "State" derives its existence--evolution:

"Being a naturalist Darwin was sparing of philosophical speculation and devoted himself primarily to working out a theory of evolution based on the available empirical evidence. He did indeed interpret morality as evolving out of the purposiveness of animal instinct and as developing through changes in social standards which confer survival value on societies." Copleston, A History of Philosophy (1965), p. 123.

Which of necessity and by implication requires something that mimics Law, but is not Law. This is the counterpart or likeness that a moral is, which is the basis of the law of nature and the State:

"MORAL. Likeness; counterpart. Rare except in the very moral of: low coll.: 1757, Smollett; G. Parker, Smedley, 'Rolf Boldrewood'. Slightly ob. Perhaps ex the S.E. sense, a symbological figure, but prob. By a sol. for a model.--2. A 'moral certainty', which it shortens: orig. and still mainly racing; 1861, Whyte-Melville; 1869, J. Greenwood, 'Everything that is highly promising becomes, in the slang of the advertising tipster, a moral.' (O.E.D.)." Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 532. [Likeness or counterpart is deceitful being only a reflection of the substance.]
"PRECEPTS OF JUSTICE. The three traditional precepts of justice (praecepta iuris) are: honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum cuique tribuere, that is: live in a morally upright manner, do harm to nobody, render to each what is his own (or: what is due to him).
"These three precepts have a long history. They occur in Ulpian (d. 228), one of the leading authorities in Roman law, and were included at the beginning of Emperor Justinian's Institutions, first published in 533. This was a textbook of jurisprudence prepared by a committee of Roman lawyers and scholars under the auspices of the Emperor. It has been in constant use since the Middle Ages." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1996), p. 442.
"MORAL LAW. A rule which lays down what conduct is morally right. The term is also used by Kant for his supreme rule of morality, 'the categorical imperative.'
"Note: A 'moral law' is not the same as a 'just law,' a morally acceptable legal rule." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1997), p. 367.
"MORAL PERSON. 1. A person whose character and conduct conform to moral standards. 2. Any individual being or composite being (e.g. a society) capable of having rights." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1997), p. 367.
"MORAL ENTITIES. (Lat. ens morale, (pl.) entia moralia) the name given by Pufendorf (The Law of Nature and Nations 1672, Book I, chapter 1) to qualities, relations, etc. which depend for their existence on 'imposition', i.e. on a decision or enactment, human or divine. They are contrasted with physical entities, which can exist independently of any volition. According to this theory, being [*366] red-haired is a physical quality, being a servant is a moral quality. Rights and obligations are moral entities. The obligation to keep a promise, for instance, arises from an act of will, known as promising." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1997), pp. 365-366.
"4. Authority and social order maintenance orientation. Values at this stage emphasize authority, fixed rules and the maintenance of the social order.
"At the post-conventional or principled level, the individual has defined moral values and principles that have validity apart from the authority of any specific groups holding to them or apart from an individual's identification with these groups. At this level thre are the following two stages:
"5. The social contract legalistic orientation. Right actions are defined in terms of general individual rights and in terms of standards that have been critically examined and agreed to by the whole society. Aside from what is constitutionally and democratically agreed on, right is a matter of personal values and opinions [*not Law].
"6. The universal ethical principle orientation. Right actions are defined by a decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen ethical principles that are logically comprehensive, universal, and consistent. These are universal principles of justice, the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and respect for the dignity of human beings as individuals." Biggs and Blocher, Foundations of Ethical Counseling (1987), pp. 50-51.
"VALUES AND THE LAW. Roughly speaking, values are the moral rules that are something like the law of the land. Our written laws can be regarded as one subset of moral rules. Even though the laws and rules of different communities may be somewhat different from on another, every community needs moral rules in order to survive, and the rules need to be enforced. People, including counselors, need to know what the rules are and try to obey them. Complying is admittedly complicated [*Babylonian confusion], however, because we have a great many laws and moral rules, they are often inconsistent with one another [*no Truth], and they gradually change over time [*note carefully Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8]
"In order to preserve society and to live effectively within it, individuals must learn to exercise rational choice. Insofar as an individual is rational and able to choose, he or she is capable of moral agency. And since individuals derive benefits from living within a society, each is morally obligated to live by its rules (Wilson, 1978). In deed, except for the legally incompetent, the role of social agent is unavoidable.
"MORAL JUDGMENT, VALUES, KNOWLEDGE, AND REASONING. Morality works by providing social direction and control to the members of a society in making practical judgments as to what they should and should not do, and it gives them practical reasons for doing what they should do (Baier, 1965). Moral judgments are arrived at by surveying the facts of the situation and applying to them 'rules of reason,' or the society's 'consideration-making beliefs.' Polanyi (1964) prefers the term 'maxim' to name the kinds of values or moral rules we are talking about here. One such rule might be that when evaluating means and ends, ends are to be given more value than means." Ibid., Biggs and Blocher, p. 24.
"Moral life does not necessarily need to involve the following of fixed rules or the pursuit of fixed goals. Instead, the moral person can detect ills that need to remedied in specific cases and then formulate plans and methods for dealing with the ills. The problem of evil involves the practical problems of reducing, alleviating, and removing the 'evils of life.' Moral goods and ends exist only in a person's actions." Ibid., Biggs and Blocher, p. 39.
"Downie (1971) and Warnock (1971) have listed a number of observations about people and their environment that provide a basis for thinking about the evolution of moral systems: human beings become 'human' only in societies [*not Christ's church-- different Source, Cause, and Origin]. They lack individual self-sufficiency [*they are sustained in and by Christ], having needs that cannot be met by each alone [*they are met by Christ]. Because of their limitations in intelligence, knowledge, skills, and understanding, their achievements--and survival--often depend on cooperation. Cooperation is uncertain, for people also have 'limited benevolence and confined generosity' (Downie, 1971). Experience plays an important role in determining the social organization that people will accept. In some cultures, scarcity has given rise to the concept of personal property and to an entire network of generally accepted rules about its acquisition and exchange. Although mutually dependent, people are still motivated by self-interest and, given the many environmental as well as individual limitations, often are pitted against one another in situations where interests [*24] conflict. As Baier (1965) argues, the concept of morality exists because people live in societies, have continuing interactions [*commerce] with one another, and cannot avoid having conflicts from time to time (see Rest in Chapter 4, this volume)." Ibid., Biggs and Blocher, pp. 23-24.
"HUMAN BEING. See MONSTER." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 389.
"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), p. 584.
"NON-HUMAN ANIMAL. A term popularized by the animal rights movement to remind humans that they, too, are a species of animal, no better or worse than any other. [Singer, Peter, In Defense of Animals, New York: Harper Perennial, 1986, p. 210.] Also NON-HUMAN BEING." Beard and Cerf, The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook (1992), p. 48.
"LAWLIKE. See laws of nature." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 214.

Thus, all schools, of whatever type, kind, character, or description are pagan for pagans, a.k.a. the sons of Adam--not those who sojourn in Christ by doing His commandments in fulness of faith to Him Who blesses them from and through His Creation:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments: His praise endureth for ever." Psalm 111:10.

Note it is implied here that if you do not do His commandments, you have no understanding of Him and His commandments. If you live under grace and not under Law by serving on Him, can you, in Truth, say you know and love Him? See John 14:21 & 24; 1 John 2:4.

All schools are collective; and because of this nature, have no responsibility to God in and through Christ Jesus:

"Man has been created [*by] in and for the Word of God, and this makes him the being who is responsible. This fact unmistakably determines man as an individual. Responsibility is that which sets the individual as individual apart and makes him independent [of other individuals]. Masses, collectives, species have no responsibility; they are not capable of assuming responsibility [*because they have no souls]." Brunner, Man in Revolt (The Westminster Press, 1947), p. 279.

Further, all schools are laying the groundwork for another scenario already played out in the past:

"Under Frederick William I, passionate soldier and fanatical militarist, yet in international politics the most peaceable of the Hohenzollerns of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, military power gained priority over everything else in the social order and became an object of irrational idolatry. Stiffly martial concepts of authority and of military virtues were established as the models for peacetime civil government and for civil life in general. Closely tied to peasant bondage and to harsh local Junker rule, the Prussian military images exerted a harmful influence upon social ideas and political attitudes. They fostered a hideous spirit of fearful obedience to authority which, under the conditions of the nineteenth century, made for a deplorable lack of Zivilcourage and, in the Second Reich, for the inner surrender of most civilians to military fetishism. Prussian Germany evolved into the most militaristic country of modern times because of forces that originated in the regimes of Frederick William I and Frederick II." Rosenberg, Bureaucracy, Aristocracy, and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience 1660-1815 (1958), p. 41.

Some of these religious ideals were transplanted here by one Francis Lieber, a Prussian, author of General Orders 100 issued under "authority" of Abraham Lincoln in 1863, and founder of the Encyclopedia Americana; perfected later by Thomas Dewey in the 1920's. Others were fomented before Lincoln's War by the European education of America's youth; and after by inclusion of Darwin's theory into the evolution of law, morality, and ethics of the State. The religious practice or "law" of the State is thus put this way: "Divide et impere--divide and rule" just as Scripture testified above. And this is the way it has always been--not only dividing and conquering families, but also creating classes by and through its form of knowledge of good and evil--morality of civil rights acts--and setting one class against the other in a massive crumbling balancing act:

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Luke 11:51-53.
"For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 6:13-15.

Putting the seed of your loins and fruit of your body over whom God has given you a direct charge to bring up in the nurture and admonition of Him into the hands of the Destroyer is passing God's Inheritance through the fires of Molech that inhabit the lower world of the glory of the kingdoms of the world, whose judgment is coming and slumbers not:

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God [*"christian school"]: I am the LORD." Leviticus 18:21.
"MALCAM. (A.V. Malcham). (Heb.)--their king; their ruler; their counseling.
"a. Son of Shaharaim by Hodesh, a Benjamite (I Chron. 8:9). b. The idol Molech (Zeph. 1:5, 'their king,' margin.)
"Meta. Setting up the outer reasoning or thinking consciousness as king, thus giving it dominion in one's life. Especially does Malcam as referring to the idol Molech signify the worship of the intellect, or reason, directed entirely by the senses, by the prejudices, seemings, customs, and desires of the outer man." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 420.
"And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." Isaiah 13:19. See also Matthew 4:8.
"Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death [*morals of codes, rules and regulations], and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood [*in forms or images of law] have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies [*the judgment of Sodom and Gommorah], and the waters shall overflow the hiding place [*the judgment of the world in Noah's time]. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it. For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth." Isaiah 28:14-22.

...and invites the destruction of you, your house, and family:

"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." Proverbs 11:29.
"Therefoe whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock [*Christ Jesus]: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was built upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, whih built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matthew 7:24-26.

We should note here that Molech is the god of Abraham Lincoln, the great emaciator and mighty hunter before the LORD, under whose present system of fascism these schools flourish under a record of infamy and death:

"Happy day when--all appetites controlled, all poisons subdued, all matter subjected--mind, all conquering mind, shall live and move, the monarch of the world. Glorious consummation! Hail, fall of fury! Reign of reason, all hail!" Speech by Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, Feb. 22, 1842, from The Lincoln Encyclopedia (1950), compiled by Archer W. Shaw, p. 266.
"Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must furnish all the materials for our future [national] support and defence. Let those materials be molded into general intelligence, sound morality, and, in particular, a reverence for the Constitution, and laws." Speech by Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, Jan. 1, 1837, from The Lincoln Encyclopedia (1950), compiled by Archer W. Shaw, p. 266.

One cannot be a lover of schools and school systems and be a sojourner in Christ. The two are mutually exclusive by the judgment of Christ Jesus:

"Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Psalm 127:1.

In next month's concluding part on this vital subject, we will explore the foundation and validity (or non-validity) of "Christian schools."

In the Name of His church

Part Two

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

By the Grace of God and according to His Perfect Will, there is the hope that we will have completed the Fifth Edition of The Book of the Hundreds by the end of this year. If and when that comes about, it will contain major changes, most notably in The Non-Statutory Abatement Handbook. The following is a small sample of some of those changes.

As we stated last month, all process, including Habeas Corpus and Trespass will be issued by "the church at .........." after having deliberated in "Lawful assembly" on behalf of the "individual" member.

The U.S. Postal Service will no longer be used for service of process, or for a return answer from the defendant(s). It will be done through messengers from the church.

"Case numbers" will be issued by the Lawful assembly, further eliminating any dependance on The Postal Service or Sheriff's Department.

All process will have the seal of the general church of the area affixed to the upper left-hand corner of the cover page. Below is an example of the seal:

The following is an example of the changes to the Introduction of the Abatement process:

Introduction

By the Authority of all Power in heaven and earth being given unto our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus; all things having been delivered of God our Father to Him; all Power over all flesh having been given unto Him; and all Judgment having been committed unto Him; and by His sanctification, and sending His church in the world to bear Witness of Him to the world, His church at Denver declares:

This Non-Statutory Abatement is issued by and under the Ministerial Power and Authority vested solely in and appertaining to the Ministerial Office of Christ, established from everlasting and forever in Truth by the Grace of God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who is the Foundation of Law, customs, and usages common among all those sojourning bondservants in and of Him, being co-heirs and appointed co-Executors of His Testament governing His Estate brought into being by His original Act sworn to by Him in His Testament, and in Lawful execution of the Judgments declared therein by Him, against D Newt, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Ryan Reinhold, Presiding Judge, DENVER JUSTICE COURT, and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO idolatrous, natural persons, that are enemies of, and alien to, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour for Whom we minister and serve. Said Defendants are attempting to plunder in the Nature of a Praemunire, imperium in imperio, using unproven strange and alien purported process unknown to, and not recognized by, the Law of Our Sovereign. The aforesaid unproven strange and alien purported process is outlawed in His Kingdom because it disturbs His Peace, which Peace He bestowed upon His church at Denver, and because it conflicts with the Law He put on our inward parts for it is written, this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people; and again it is written, At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images, i.e. STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF ARAPAHO, CITY OF DENVER. Therefore the Law He put on our inward parts, known by all men to be the lex non scripta, is the jus publicum in His church at Denver, for it is written, For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there Am I in the midst of them; and He that is not with Me is against Me: and He that gathereth not scattereth abroad:

The following is a sample of the changes to "the marks":

Your abandoned paper and purported record contain the following Marks of Deceit:

First:

Mark:Your abandoned paper does not have upon its face our Sister's full Christian Appellation in upper and lower case letters conforming to proper English grammar, thereby evidencing an unproven purported law distinct and separate from, and strange and alien to, the Law we minister in the Name and by the Authority of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; and, in addition thereto nor does your abandoned paper have corroboration of Witness by the Spirit of God in His Creation, and cannot apply to our Sister who is a quickened spirit in His Image and Likeness; and,

Second:

Mark:Your abandoned paper alleges violations of an unproven purported law, alien and strange to the Law governing the Venue in which our Sister is found and occupies solely by the Grace of God; and your abandoned paper has no Oath, Promise, or Law attaching our Sister to, or bringing her within, the unproven purported venue from which it originates; and,

Third:

Mark:Your purported agency, its fiduciaries, and the nom de guerre D Newt, are created and established by an entity dead in Law because it has, and they have, no breath of Life breathed into it by the Spirit of God and therefore are persona non standi in judicio, for all those who trust in such dead entities are like those dead things; and,

The following is an example of the new wording of the Chapters:

Chapter two:

Firstly:

Whereas, the Law in and of Him and His church and state is one and the same for it is written, the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and, there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And whereas, by the Law in and of Him and in His church and state said enemies alien to Him and us cannot Lawfully invade His Dominions with defective and nugatory paper having no Lawful Cause in and from Him for the aggrandizement and lusts of their father:

And whereas, said alien enemy agency is tempting our Sister to move from protection in and of Him and we His church and state, contrary to the mandate given to all men, for it is written, Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of the poor in his cause; and to subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not; and These six things doth the LORD hate: yea seven are an abomination unto Him: A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren:

And whereas, your abandoned paper and purported records containing threats of plunder, disturb His Peace and endangers His Inheritance in His church and state:

And whereas, His Peace and Inheritance is the Law in His church and state, for it is written, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His Government and Peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this;

Now therefore, your abandoned paper and purported record containing threats of plunder is attempting to usurp His Authority, are a disturbance of His Peace and a Trespass upon Him and His church at Denver.

The following is an example of the change of wording in the Verification:

Two. Verification by Asservation

By the Authority and Power conditionally delegated to us solely the Grace of God by, in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with His commandments, precepts, judgments, statutes and ordinances in and of His Holy Writ, solely under Direction of His Warrant in Law and by His Will, do we in and of His Body make and issue this Non-Statutory Abatement for our Sister, for it is written, whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it; and, we are the body of Christ, and members in particular; again it is written, So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another; and, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens; and, therefore we are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; because Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:

sign manual

L.S.

An example of changes to the wording of the Default are as follows:

(Default and Default Judgment)

Two. Order for Entry of Default and Default Judgment:

The Non-Statutory Abatement in this action having been personally served upon <*Defendants' names>, and the <*Name of agency or organization>, the aforesaid Defendants, on the first day of the seventh month, in the Year of of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred twentieth year of the Independence of America, a true copy of Proof of Service is annexed hereto, incorporated fully herein, and marked "Exhibit A," for your edification, and the Record showing no answer or other supplication to the plaint having in any manner been made to this Lawful assembly at <*location of church> by said Defendants; and, it appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, the Defendants aforesaid have abandoned prosecution of their accusations against our Brother <*Sister>, a Ministerial Officer by the anointing of Christ Jesus, by Him in His Testament and Will, or any chattels or land Inherited solely by the Grace of God through Christ Jesus thereby bearing witness that their accusations are dead in Law, for it is written, To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them; and, it appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, the Defendants have admitted to all matters of substance and Law well pleaded in the plaint of the Demandant commenced by and under Direction of Christ Jesus; and, it appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, that the Defendants aforesaid witness of themselves that they have acted in an evil Law-less manner in and by showing and displaying contempt for this Honourable Court, its Sacred Law, and its Blessed Judge--a manner inconsistent with the Mark of the Holy Spirit sealing and Witnessing the conduct of a serving sojourner in Christ Jesus having, possessing, and executing Truth established in Law, for it is written, For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only Begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth Truth cometh to the Light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God, and, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus declared, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of life; again He says, As long as I am in the world, I am the Light of the world; therefore, he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: and all they that hate Me love death; and,

Now, therefore, on motion of the Demandant, in accordance with the Law of this Honourable Court, and by Direction of its Blessed Judge:

Next month we will further discuss the background and purposes of the "Lawful assembly."

The Urim and Thummim

From Cruden's Unabridged Concordance (1794):

"URIM & THUMMIM. According to the Hebrew, Exodus 28:30, the literal signification of thee two words is, light and perfection, or the shining and the perfect. According to St. Jerome, doctrine and judgment. According to the Sept., declaration or manifestation, and truth. Some will have it, that the Urim and Thummim are only epithets or explanations of the stones of the breastplate of the high priest; as if it were said, Thou shalt put therein stones that are shining and perfect. Others, to prove that the Urim and Thummim were not the same thing with the twelve stones in the breastplate, give the following reasons: (1) Because the stones were set and engraven in the breastplate, Exodus 28:17, 21, the Urim and Thummim only put into it, which is a word of quite different and more loose and large signification, and therefore probably does not design the same thing. (2) It is not likely that in such a brief account of the sacred utensils, the same command would be repeated again; especially in more dark and general words than it was mentioned before. And how could Moses put it in, when the workers had fastened to it already, and could not, without violence, be taken from it? (3) Because the stones were put in by the workers, Exodus 30:10, the Urim and Thummim by Moses himself, Leviticus 8:8 which seems to shew they were one and the same thing. To which they answer, that there is an evident reason for both these omissions; of the former in Exodus, because Moses mentions only those things which were made by the workers, whereas the Urim and Thummim seems to have been made immediately by God, or by Moses with God's direction; of the latter in Leviticus, because the stones are implied in the breastplate as a part of it, and fastened to it, whereas there Moses only mentions what was put in by himself. Some say, that the Urim and Thummim were two little golden figures which gave responses, which were shut up in the breastplate as in a purse, and which answered, with an articulate voice, to all such questions as were put to them by the high priest. Others think, that the name JEHOVAH written upon a plate of gold, was that the Scripture calls Urim and Thummim. There are various other conjectures concerning the Urim and Thummim, but nothing certain, because the Scripture is silent in this matter. It may suffice us to know, that this was a singular piece of divine workmanship, which the high priest was obliged to wear upon solemn occasions, as one of the conditions upon which God engaged to give him answers.

"There is a great diversity of opinions likewise concerning the manner in which God was consulted by Urim and Thummim. It is agreed, that this way of consultation was used only in affairs of very great importance: that the high priest was the only officiating minister in this ceremony; and that for this he was to be clothed in all his pontifical habits: particularly he was to have on breastplate, to which the Urim and Thummim was affixed; and lastly, that he was not allowed to perform this solemn consultation for a private person, but only for the king, for the president of the Sanhedrim, for the general of the army of Israel, or for other public persons: and even then, not upon any affair of a private nature, but for things that relate to the public welfare of the church or state.

"When the Urim and Thummim was to be consulted, the high priest put on his robes, and presented himself not in the sanctuary, where he could not enter but once a year, but in the holy place, before the curtain that parted the most holy from the holy place. There standing upright, and turning his face toward the ark of the covenant, upon which the divine presence reposed, he proposed the matter for which he had been consulted. Behind him, at some distance out of the holy place, stood the person for whom God was consulted, expecting with humility and reverence, the answer that it should please the Lord to give him. The Rabbins, who are followed by Josephus, Philo, and several of the ancient fathers, are of opinion that the high priest having then his eyes fixed upon the stones of the breastplate, which was before him, he there read the answer of the Lord. The letters that raised themselves out of their places, and that shined with more than ordinary lustre, were formed into the answer desired. For example, when David required of God, whether he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, 2 Samuel 2:1 it was answered him, Alah, go up. The three letters, Ain, Lamed, and He, came out of their places, as it were, and raised themselves, above the rest, to compose that word which contained the answer.

"But there are some difficulties in this opinion. All the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were not found in the breastplate; there were letters wanting, Heth, Teth, Zade, and Koph. To supply these, the Rabbins pretend that the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were also upon the breastplate: but for all that, Teth would be still wanting. Therefore they say, that this title also was read there Col-elle-schibte-Israel.--See here all the tribes of Israel. But all this is advanced without proof, and without the least probability. A second difficulty is this, that though one should admit all that the Hebrew doctors suggest in this affair, yet by what rules did the high priest make a combination of these letters, and how put he them together? [*Interpretation.] For it is not said that they came out of their places, but that they only raised themselves above the rest. Supposed, for example, that any six of the letters should have swelled and shined with more than ordinary lustre; how must the high priest dispose them, which must be first or last? It is answered, that in this circumstance, he was always inquired and filled with the spirit of prophecy; but if it were so, then the Urim and Thummim would have been unnecessary; for why must miracles be multiplied without any occasion? The high priest needed only speak himself. And perhaps the whole use of the Urim and Thummim was this, to be a sigh to the high priest that the Lord would replenish him with an internal and supernatural light, and make him know his will in what was inquired after.

"Others think, with a great deal of probability, that God then gave his answers in attractive voices, which were heard within the sanctuary, and from between the cherubims, which covered the ark or the propitiatory. When the Israelites made peace with the Gibeonites, they were blamed for not having inquired at the mouth of the Lord, Joshua 9:14, which insinuates that he had been used to make his voice heard when he was consulted.

"If it be inquired how long the custom of consulting God by Urim and Thummim subsisted in Israel; the Rabbins think, that it continued no longer than under the tabernacle. It is a maxim among them, that the Holy Spirit spake to the children of Israel by Urim and Thummim while the tabernacle remained; and under the first temple, that is, the temple of Solomon, by the prophets; and under the second temple, or after the captivity of Babylon, by the Bath-kol, or the daughter of the voice. By this they mean a voice sent from heaven, as that which was heard at the baptism of Christ, and at his transfiguration, Matthew 3:17 & 17:5.

"Spencer has adopted this opinion, and endeavours to support it by these two arguments. The first is, that the Urim and Thummim were a consequence of the divine government, or of the Theocracy of the Hebrews. While the Lord immediately governed his people, it was necessary that there should always be a means at hand to consult hem, and to have recourse to him. Second, that this method was established to consult God upon affairs that concerned the common interest of the whole nation. But the Theocracy ceased, says he, when the kingdom became hereditary in the person and family of Solomon. The interests of the nation ceased to be common, after the division of Israel into two monarchies; one governed by Rehoboam and the other by Jeroboam. Lastly, what seems to be more convincing than any reasons drawn from a conformity of things, it does not appear from the sacred history that there are any footsteps of consulting the Lord by Urim and Thummim, after the construction of the temple of Solomon to the time of its destruction; and after its destruction, all are agreed, that this was never restored to them again." Alexander Cruden, Cruden's Unabridged Concordance (1794), p. 514.

From Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832):

"URIM & THUMMIM. The high priests of the Jews, we are told, consulted God in the most important matters of their common wealth, and received answers by the Urim and Thummim. What these were, is disputed among the critics. Josephus, and some others, imagine the answer was returned by the stones of the breastplate appearing with an unusual lustre when it was favourable, or in the contrary case dim. Others supposed, that the Urim and Thummim were something enclosed between the folding of the breastplate; this some will have to be the Tetragrammaton, or the word hvhy, Jehovah. Christophorus de Castro, and after him Dr. Spencer, maintain them to be two little images shut up in the doubling of the breastplate, which gave the oracular answer from thence by an articulate voice. Accordingly, they derived them from the Egyptians, who consulted their lares, and had an oracle, or teraphim, which they called Truth. This opinion, however, has been sufficiently confuted by the learned Dr. Pococke and by Witsius. The more common opinion among Christians concerning the oracle by Urim and Thummim, and which Dr. Prideaux espouses, is, that when the high priest appeared before the veil, clothed with his ephod and breastplate, to ask counsel of god, the answer was given with an audible voice from the mercy seat, within the veil; but, it has been observed, that this account will by no means agree with the history of David's consulting the oracle of Abiathar, 1 Samuel xxiii, 9, 11; xxx, 7, 8; because the ark, on which was the mercy seat, was then at Kirjathjearim; whereas David was in the one case at Ziklag, and in the other in the forest of Hareth. Braunius and Hottinger have adopted another opinion: they suppose, that, when Moses is commanded to put in the breastplate the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections in the plural number, it was meant that he should make choice of the most perfect set of stones, and have them so polished as to give the brightest lustre; and, on this hypothesis, the use of the Urim and Thummim, or of these exquisitely polished jewels, was only to be a symbol of the divine presence, and of the light and perfection of the prophetic inspiration; and, as such, constantly to be worn by the high priest in the exercise of his sacred function, especially in consulting the oracle.

"Michaelis observes: That in making distributions of property, and in cases of disputes relative to meum (mine) and tuum (thine) recourse was had to the lot, in default of any other means of decision, will naturally be supposed. The whole land was partitioned by lot; and that, in after times, the lot continued to be used, even in courts of justice, we see from Proverbs 16:33; 18:18; where we are expressly taught to remember, that it is Providence which maketh the choice, and that therefore we ought to be satisfied with the decision of the lot, as the will of God. It was for judicial purposes, in a particular manner, that the sacred lot called Urim and Thummim was employed; and on this account the costly embroidered pouch, in which the priest carried this sacred lot on his breast, was called the judicial ornament. 'But was this sacred lot used likewise in criminal trials?' Yes, says Michaelis, only to discover the guilty, to convict them; for in the only two instances of its use in such cases which occur in the whole Bible, namely, in Joshua 7:14-18, 1 Samuel 14:37-45, we find the confessions of the two delinquents, Achon and Jonathan, annexed. It appears also to have been used only in the case of an oath being transgressed which the whole people had taken, or the leader of the host in their name, but not in the case of other crimes; for an unknown murder, for example, was not to be discovered by recourse to the sacred lot.

"The inner sanctuary, within the veil of the tabernacle, observes Dr. Hales, or most holy place, was called the oracle, 1 Kings 6:16, because there the Lord communed with Moses, face to face, and gave him instructions in cases of legal difficulty or sudden emergency, Exodus 25:22; Numbers 7:89; 9:8; Exodus 33:11; a high privilege granted to none of his successors. After the death of Moses a different mode was appointed for consulting the oracle by the high priest, who put on 'the breastplate of judgment,' a principal part of the pontifical dress, on which were inscribed the words Urim and Thummim, emblematical of divine illumination; as the inscription on his mitre, 'Holiness to the Lord,' was of sanctification, Exodus 28:30-37; Leviticus 8:8. Thus prepared, he presented himself before the Lord to ask counsel on public matters, not in the inner sanctuary, which he presumed not to enter, except on the great day of national atonement, but without the veil, with his face toward the ark of the covenant, inside; and behind him, at some distance, without the sanctuary, stood Joshua, the judge, or person who wanted the response, which seems to have been given with an audible voice from within the veil, Numbers 27:21, as in the case of Joshua, 6:6-15; of the Israelites during the civil war with Benjamin, Judges 20:27, 28; on the appointment of Saul to be king, when he hid himself, 1 Samuel 10:22-24; of David, 1 Samuel 22:10; 23:2-12; 30:8; 2 Samuel 5:23, 24; of Saul, 1 Samuel 28:6. This mode of consultation subsisted under the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness, and until the building of Solomon's temple; after which we find no instances of it. The oracles of the Lord were thenceforth delivered by the prophets; as by Ahijah to Jeroboam, 1 Kings 11:29; by Shemaiah to Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:22; by Elijah to Ahab, 1 Kings 17:1; 21:17-29; by Michaiah to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kings 22:7; by Elisha to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings 3:11-14; by Isaiah to Hezekiah, 2 Kings 19:6-34; 20:1-11; by Huldah to Josiah, 2 Kings 22:13-20; by Jeremiah to Zedekiah, Jeremiah 32:3-5, &c. After the Babylonish captivity, and the last of the prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the oracle ceased; but its revival was foretold by Ezra, 2:63, and accomplished by Christ, who was himself the oracle, under the old and new covenants, Genesis 15:1; John 1:1. See BREASTPLATE." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), vol. II, pp. 940-941.

From Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832):

"BREASTPLATE or PECTORAL. One part of the priestly vestments, belonging to the Jewish high priests. It was about ten inches square, Exodus 28:13-31; and consisted of a folded piece of the same rich embroidered stuff of which the ephod was made. It was worn on the breast of the high priest, and was set with twelve precious stones, on each of which was engraven the name of one of the tribes. They were set in four rows, three in each row, and were divided from each other by the little golden squares or partitions in which they were set. The names of these stones, and that of the tribe engraven on them, as also their disposition on the breastplate, are usually given as follows; but what stones really answer to the Hebrew name, is for the most part very uncertain:

"This breastplate was fastened at the four corners, those on the top to each shoulder, by a golden hook or ring, at the end of a wreathen chain; and those below to the girdle of the ephod, by two strings or ribbons, which had likewise two rings or hooks. This ornament was never to be separated from the priestly garment; and it was called the memorial, because it was a sign whereby the children of Israel might know that they were presented to God, and that they were had in remembrance by him. It was also called the breastplate of judgment, because it had the divine oracle of URIM and THUMMIM annexed to it. These words signify lights and perfection, and are mentioned as in the high priest's breastplate; but what they were, we cannot determine. Some think they were two precious stones added to the other twelve, by the extraordinary lustre of which, God had marked his approbation of a design, and, by their becoming dim, his disallowance of it; others, that these two words were written on a precious stone, or plate of gold, fixed in the breastplate; others, that the letters of the names of the tribes, were the Urim and Thummim; and that the letters by standing out, or by an extraordinary illumination, marked such words as contained the answer of God to him who consulted this oracle. Le Clerc will have them to be the names of two precious stones, set in a golden collar of the high priest, and coming down to his breasts, as the magistrates of Egypt wore a golden chain, at the end of which hung the figure of truth, engraven on a precious stone. Prideaux thinks the words chiefly denote the clearness of the oracles dictated to the high priest, though perhaps the lustre of the stones in his breastplate might represent this clearness. Jahn says the most probable opinion is, that URIM and THUMMIM (,ydva, ,ymtv, light and justice, Septuagint) (manifestation and truth) was a sacred lot, 1 Samuel 14:41, 42. There were employed, perhaps, in determining this lot, three precious stones, on one of which was engraven dk, yes; on the other al, no; the third being destitute of any inscription. The question proposed, therefore, was always to be put in such a way, that the answer might be direct, either yes or no, provided any answer was given at all. These stones were carried in the purse or bag, formed by the lining or interior of the pectoral; and when the question was proposed, if the high priest drew out the stone which exhibited yes, the answer was affirmative; if the one on which no was written, the answer was negative; if the third, no answer was to be given, Joshua 7:13-21; 1 Samuel 14:40-43; 28:6. In the midst of all this conjecture, only two things are certain: 1. That one of the appointed methods of consulting God, on extraordinary emergencies, was by URIM and THUMMIM; 2. That the oracles of God rejected all equivocal and enigmatical replies, which was the character of the Heathen pretended oracles. 'The words of the Lord are pure words.' His own oracle bears, therefore, an inscription which signifies lights and perfections, or, the shining and the perfect; or, according to the Septuagint, manifestation and truth. In this respect it might be a type of the Christian revelation made to the true Israel, the Christian church, by the Gospel. St. Paul seems especially to allude to this translation of Urim and Thummim by the Septuagint, when he speaks of himself and his fellow labourers, 'commending themselves to every man's conscience by manifestation of the truth;' in opposition to those who by their errors and compliances with the Jewish prejudices, or with the philosophical taste of the Greeks, obscured the truth, and rendered ambiguous the guidance of Christian doctrine. His preaching is thus tacitly compared to the oracles of God; theirs, to their misleading and perplexed oracles of the Heathen." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), pp. 179-180.

From The Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944):

"URIM & THUMMIM. [lights and perfections]. It should be observed that the two Hebrew words begin with the first and last letters of the alphabet respectively. The order is once reversed (Deuteronomy 33:8), and twice Urim alone is used (Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 28:6). One or more objects belonging to the ephod of the high priest, put in the breastplate of judgment so as to be on the high priest's heart when he went in before the Lord (Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; cf. Ecclesiasticus 45:10). The receptacle was probably a fold of the breastplate or the space underneath it. In connection with the Urim and Thummim, the high priest learned the will of God in doubtful cases. This method was not adapted for inquiring the divine will concerning private individuals or private matters, but was employed only in behalf of the nation; hence the required place for the Urim and Thummim was in the breastplate of judgment, which bore the names of the 12 tribes of Israel on 12 precious stones. With the Urim and Thummim, the will of Jehovah, the Judge, concerning judicial matters, and the royal desire of Jehovah, the King, were learned (Numbers 27:21; cf. Joshua 9:14; Judges 1:1; 20:18, 23, 27, 28; 1 Samuel 10:22; 14:36-42; 22:10, 13; 23:9-12; 28:6; 30:7, 8; 2 Samuel 2:1; 5:19, 23, 24). The will of Jehovah was inquired with Urim and Thummim, not only the sanctuary or where the Ark was (Judges 20:27, 28; 1 Samuel 22:10), but in any place, provided the authorized priest with the ephod was present. The answer was usually quite simple, often a mere affirmation or denial, or a choice of one tribe or place out of several; but it was not always so (1 Samuel 10:22; 2 Samuel 5:23, 24). Occasionally, also, when sin had interrupted communion with God, no answer was granted (1 Samuel 14:37; 28:6). There is no reference to the use of the Urim and Thummim after the reign of David, and at the time of the Return from exile there was no priest with Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65); hence Josephus is probably wrong in saying that the virtue or use ceased 200 years before his time (Josephus, Antiquities, iii, 8, 9). The use of this method was a prerogative of the high priest alone; and, since he belonged to the tribe of Levi, the possession of the Urim and Thummim was a glory of that tribe (Deuteronomy 33:8).

"Different explanations of the Urim and Thummim have been offered. For example, an analogue has been sought in the badge of office which the Egyptian high priest, as supreme judge, is reported by classical writers to have worn, consisting of an emblem of truth suspended from his neck on a golden chain; but the Egyptian high priest carried this official token during the judicial proceedings only, and hung it on the person in whose favor judgment was pronounced; and there is no evidence that it was ever used a means for inquiring the divine will. Other interpreters have supposed that when to the high priest, clad in the ephod with the Urim and Thummim and offering prayer, and idea occurred, its divine origin and truth were confirmed by the unwonted gleaming f the gems in the breastplate. From this phenomenon was derived the name Urim, lights. It has been suggested that the answer was spelled out by the successive gleaming of the letters which composed the proper names on the stones; but, to say nothing of the fact that the complete alphabet is not yielded by these names, and that in several of the recorded responses letters occur which are not found on the stones, the whole idea smacks of the feigned miracles of Greek and Roman priests, and is foreign to the methods and conceptions of the Hebrew ritual.

"Only 2 theories are important: 1. The Urim and Thummim probably were 2 appendages of the ephod and detachable, and were used as the lot, cast like dice, and by their fall somehow revealed the divine will. Support is sought for this theory in the fact that the casting of the lot is twice referred to in close association with seeking revelation through Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 10:19-22; 14:37-42). In the later case, Saul prayed, 'Give a perfect lot,' (ch. 14:41, R.V. margin). The word thumim is used, which it is proposed to pronounce thummim, and thus make the Urim and Thummim to have been a kind of sacred lot. The text of the Septuagint favors this interpretation. While there is much uncertainty about Urim and Thummim in the sacred lot, some have supposed that they were flat stones, white on the one side and black on the other. If both fell white side up, the answer was in the affirmative; if black, then negative. But if one had the white side and the other the black side upwards, no reply was vouchsafed to the question. 2. The Urim and Thummim give no outward manifestation, but served as a symbol. The high priest arrayed himself in the ephod with Urim and Thummim, which betokened his authority to obtain light and truth, as the name indicates, in order that he might seek counsel of Jehovah in the divinely appointed manner. He laid the matter humbly before God in prayer; the answer dawned in his mind; he believed that the response was correct, because he had made his request in the manner of God's appointment, and because he had God's promise that he should receive light and truth. The answer was inward illumination, without any external sign, and finds its parallel in the revelations granted to the prophets." Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944), pp. 619-620.

"BREASTPLATE. 1. A sacred article of dress worn by the Jewish high priest (Exodus 28:15-30). See HIGH PRIEST. 2. Armor designed to protect the body in battle (Revelation 9:3); see ARMOR. Figuratively righteousness (Isaiah 59:17; Ephesians 6:14; Wisdom of Solomon 5:18), or faith and love, constitute a spiritual breastplate (1 Thessalonians 5:8)." Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944), p. 80.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary:

"THUM'MIM. Perfection (LXX., 'truth;' Vulg., 'veritas'), Ex.28:30; Deut.33:8; Judg.1:1;20:18; 1 Sam.14:3,18; 23:9; 2 Sam.21:1. What the 'Urim and Thummim' were cannot be determined with any certainty. All we certainly know is that they were a certain divinely-given means by which God imparted, through the high priest, direction and counsel to Israel when these were needed. The method by which this was done can be only a matter of mere conjecture. They were apparently material objects, quite distinct from the breastplate, but something added to it after all the stones had been set in it, something in addition to the breastplate and its jewels. They may have been, as some suppose, two small images, like the teraphim (comp. Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17, 20; Hos. 3:4), which were kept in the bag of the breastplate, by which, in some unknown way, the high priest could give forth his divinely imparted decision when consulted. They were probably lost at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar. They were never seen after the return from captivity." Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

from Webster's New International Dictionary (1931)

Nice

Nice (nïs), a. ; NIC'ER (nïs'êr); NIC'EST (nïs'êst). [ME., foolish, fr. OF. nice ignorant, fool, fr. L. nescius ignorant; ne-not+scius knowing, scire to know. See NO; SCIENCE.]

1. Foolish; silly; stupid; simple; ignorant. Obs. Gower.

But say that we ben wise and nothing nice. Chaucer.

2. Lewd; lascivious; wanton. Obs.

3. Exacting in matters of taste; fastidious; in a derogatory sense, over dainty; finical; in a laudatory sense, refined; cultured; discriminating.

And to taste

Think not I shall be nice. Milton.

4. Strange or uncommon; esp., of dress, appearance, etc.; smart; showy; flaunting.

5. In reference to character, conduct, etc.: a. Affecting coy reserve; unduly shy or retiring; also, properly coy or modest; hence, reluctant; unwilling. Obs.

Virtue is nice to take what's not her own. Dryden.

b. Unduly weak, tender, or delicate; effeminate; luxurious. Obs. c. Exacting in requirement or standard; scrupulous; punctilious; as, nice politics do not always succeed.

6. Demanding close discrimination, consideration, or treatment; calling for close observation, minute analysis, delicate handling, tactful treatment, or the like; as, a nice experiment; a nice problem; a nice situation.

7. Displaying, or characterized by, close discrimination, delicate, minute, or tactful treatment, etc.; minute; subtle; fine; as, a nice distinction; a nice stroke.

8. Susceptible to nice distinctions, or able to make them; delicately sensitive or discriminative; as, a nice ear for music; nice judgment; hence, of instruments, methods, etc., minutely accurate; adjusted or adjustable to small differences; precise; exact; as, a nice balance.

There is need of the nice fingers of the girl as well as the tough hand of the farmer. Thoreau

9. Of trifling moment; trivial.

The letter was not nice, but full of charge

Of dear import. Shakspeare.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

The Happy Miner

"There's danger in the mines, old man," I said to an aged miner, with this arms bent, leaning against the side of the immense vault, absorbed in meditation,--"it must be a fearful life." The old man looked at me with a steadfast but somewhat vacant stare, and then in half-broken sentences he uttered, "Danger, where is there not on earth, or beneath it, in the mountain, or in the valley, on the ocean or in the quiet of the most hidden spot--where is there no danger? Where has death not left some token of its presence?"

"True," I replied, "but the vicissitudes of life are various; the sailor seeks his living on the waters, and he knows each moment that they may engulph him; the hunter seek death in the wild-woods; and the soldier in the battle field; and the miner knows not the spot where he now stands, tomorrow may be his tomb."

"It is so, indeed" replied the old man, "we we find death in the means we seek to perpetuate life; 'tis a strange riddle; who shall solve it?"

"Have you long followed this occupation?"--I asked, somewhat struck with the old man's manner.

"From a boy. I drew my first breath in the mines. I shall yield it up in their gloom."

"You have seen some of the vicissitudes," said I, "to which you have just now alluded."

"Yes," he replied, with a faltering voice, "I have. There was a time when three tall boys looked up to me and called me father. They were sturdy striplings! Now it seems but yesterday, they stood before me, so proud in their strength, and, I, filled too with a father's vanity. But the Lord chasteneth the proud heart. Where are they now? I saw the youngest--he was the dearest of the flock, his mother's spirit seemed to have settled on him--crushed at my feet a bleeding mass. We were together; so near that his hot blood sprung up into my face. Molten lead would have been less lasting than those fearful drops. One moment, and his light laugh was in my ears; the next, and the large mass came; there was no cry; no look of terror; but the transition to eternity was as the lightning's flash; and my poor boy lay crushed beneath the fearful load. It was an awful moment; but time that changeth all things brought relief; and I had still two sons. But my cup of affliction was not yet full. They too were taken from me; side by side they died, not like their brother; but the firedamp caught their breath, and left them scorched and lifeless. They brought them home to the old man, his fair jewels; than whom earth's richest treasures in his sight had no price; and told him he was childless and alone. It is a strange decree, that the old plant should thus survive the stripling things it shaded, and for whom it would have died a thousand times. Is it surprising that I should wish to die in the mine?"

"You have indeed," I replied, "drank of affliction.--Whence did you derive consolation?"

The old man looked up; "from Heaven; God gave and he hath taken away, blessed be His name."

I bowed my head to the miner's pious prayer, and the old man passed.

Bits and Pieces

Sinlessly Perfect?

"The fact that a man is 'in Christ' does not free him from responsibility for his actions. His life should correspond to his spiritual status in the new creation. Even though from the Divine perspective the final outcome of the whole scheme of redemption is foreseen, it is man's responsibility to guide his actions and order his life in a manner befitting a Christian. So long as man is in his physical body, conditions to sin will always be present and the possibility of his yielding to the pull of the old life will continue to be very real. Nothing in his new status before God makes it impossible for him to allow sin to control his body. But Paul appeals to those who have discovered the potential for new life in Christ to avail themselves of their spiritual Resources, and to allow God to use them for His purposes. The service of God was a corporate rather than an individual matter, but each member was to see to it that the controlling influence of his life was obedience to God and not a yielding to sinful impulses. To sharpen the issue, Paul speaks as though there were no halfway house between the life of obedience and the life of sin. Either a man devoted himself to the service of God or he became the servant of sin, in spite of his having been set free from the power of sin. If he chose voluntarily to return to his former enslaved condition, God would permitted him to exercise his own will in the matter. [God permits us to convict ourselves.]

"But we must not infer from this passage in the letter to the Romans that Paul thought a man must be either sinlessly perfect or hopelessly sinful. He makes this clear in writing to the Philippians (Philippians 3), when he tells them that he is himself bending every effort to increase in righteousness and to become more like Christ in his unconditional obedience to God's will. But he also warns them that he has not achieved perfection. Although failures have plagued him, he tries to leave them behind, pressing on to the prize that awaits the obedient. Yet the compelling force behind Paul's earnest striving was not 'the prize,' but an eagerness to express gratitude and devotion for the redemption that he and the whole community had experienced 'in Christ.'" Kee and Young, Understanding the New Testament (1957), pp. 282-283.

The Wind and the Compass

"The Lord doth no sooner call his people to Himself, but as soon as ever He hath thus crowned them with these glorious privileges, and given them any sense and feeling of them, then they immediately cry out, O Lord, what shall I now do for Thee? How shall I now live to Thee? They know now that they are no more their own, but His; and therefore should now live to Him.

"It is true indeed, obedience to the Law is not required of us now as it was of Adam; it was required of him as a condition antecedent to life, but of those that be in Christ it is required only as a duty consequent to life, or as a rule of life, that seeing He hath purchased our lives in redemption, and actually given us life in vocation and sanctification, we should now live unto Him, in all thankful and fruitful obedience, according to His Will revealed in His Word. It is a vain thing to imagine that our obedience is to have no other rule but the Spirit, without an attendance to the Law: the Spirit is indeed the efficient cause of our obedience, and hence we are said to be "led by the Spirit" (Romans viii. 14); but it is not properly the rule of our obedience, but the Will of God revealed in His Word, especially in the Law, is the rule; the Spirit is the wind that drives us in our obedience; the Law is our compass, according to which it steers our course for us: the Spirit and the Law, the wind and the compass, can stand well together. "Teach me to do Thy will; for Thou art my God" (there is David's rule, viz., God's Will revealed); "Thy Spirit is good" (there is David's wind, that enabled him to steer his course according to it). The Spirit of life doth free us from the law of sin and death; but not from the holy, and pure, and good, and righteous Law of God." Thomas Shepard quoted by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Treasury of David, vol. III, p. 350.

Dependance on Christ Alone

"A Christian seldom wants comfort, but by breaking the order and method of the gospel; i.e. by looking upon his own righteousness, instead of looking off to the perfect righteousness of Christ. What is this, but choosing rather to live by candlelight, than by the light of the sun?" Wilcox, quoted by Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 568.

"If you would so see the sinfulness of sin, as to loathe it, and to mourn for it; do not stand looking upon sin, but first look upon Christ as suffering and satisfying." Ibid., p. 568.

Duty

"Take up all duties in point of performance; and lay them down in point of dependence. Duty can never have too much of our diligence, nor too little of our confidence." Dyer, quoted by Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 570.

"Be serious and exact in duty, having the weight of it upon thy heart; but be as much afraid of taking comfort from thy duties themselves as from thy sins." Wilcox, quoted by Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 570.

Our Love for Christ

"A martyr was asked, whether he did not love his wife and children who stood weeping by him? 'Love them? Yes,' said he, 'if all the world were gold, and at my disposal, I would give it all for the satisfaction of living with them, though it were in a prison. Yet, in comparison of Christ, I love them not.' Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 507.

"Anaxagoras, the Ionian, being asked to what end he was born, replied, 'To contemplate the sun, moon and skies.'--Had he been a Christian, he would have answered, 'To glorify God, and to be glorified by Him.'" Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 1987), p. 507.

Issue the Forty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Cult of Lincoln...

The Early Church, Part Two...

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Part One...

In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord or Fear & Adoration of the State, Part Three...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Cult of Lincoln

by Greg Loren Durand

The following is Appendix Five from Greg Loren Durand's newly released 380 page book "America's Caesar -- Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire." His original footnotes ( {1} ) appear at the end of the article.

"Abraham Lincoln has long since entered the sublime realm of apotheosis. Where now is the man so rash as to warmly criticize Abraham Lincoln?"{1}

The American obsession with the sixteenth President of the United States can rightly be described as a cult -- not merely a political cult, but an idolatrous religious cult wherein Abraham Lincoln is literally worshipped as a god. His deified likeness seated upon its marble throne in Washington, D.C. is but a symbol of the sublime place of adoration he occupies in the hearts of his admirers everywhere.

This cult was founded on 15 April 1865 when the death of Lincoln altered what otherwise would have been his rightful place in history. Up until that time, Lincoln was denounced by nearly everyone in Washington, including the men of his own party and the members of his own Cabinet, as "a despicable tyrant,"{2} "that original gorilla,"{3} and "a low, cunning clown."{4}

He was ridiculed for his "halting imbecility,"{5} and his Administration was criticized for its "feebleness, faithlessness and incapacity,"{6} for being "an insult to the flag, and a traitor to their God,"{7} and for dragging the Union to ruin."{8} Of "Ol' Honest Abe" it was asserted that "a hound might hunt Mr. Lincoln, and never find him by an honest scent."{9} Wendell Phillips, a leading Republican Abolitionist, viewed Lincoln as "a mere convenience [who was] waiting, like any other broomstick, to be used."{10}

In an editorial entitled "Lincoln and Johnson," the editors of the New York World wrote in 1864:

The age of railsplitters and tailors, of buffoons, boors and fanatics has succeeded. Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson are both men of mediocre talent, neglected education, narrow views, deficient information and of course, vulgar manners. A statesman is supposed to be a man of some depth of thought and extent of knowledge. Has this country with so proud a record been reduced to such intellectual poverty as to be forced to present two such names as Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson for the highest stations in this most trying crisis of its history? It is a cruel mockery and bitter humiliation. Such nominations at this juncture are an insult to the common sense of the people.{11}

The denunciations ceased with Lincoln's last breath when the real Abraham Lincoln suddenly vanished from the public record to be replaced by a figure resembling the mythical gods of pagan Rome more than a man. The Republican-run and ill-named Globe-Democrat of St. Louis stated, "One thing is certain, Lincoln was apotheosized after his death. Had he lived 4000 years ago his name would now be enrolled among the gods of Greece and Rome."{12} In the words of Charles L. C. Minor, "The real Lincoln was a very different man, in his private and in his public life , from what the world's verdict has pronounced him to be."{13} Ward H. Lamon, who was one of Lincoln's closest friends during his stay in the White House, stated:

The ceremony of Mr. Lincoln's apostheosis was planned and executed by men who were unfriendly to him while he lived. The deification took place with showy magnificence; men who had exhausted the resources of their skill and ingenuity in venomous detractions of the living Lincoln were the first, after his death, to undertake the task of guarding his memory, not as a human being, but as a god.
There was the fiercest rivalry as to who should canonize Mr. Lincoln in the most solemn words; who should compare him to the most sacred character in all history. He was prophet, priest and king, he was Washington, he was Moses, he was liken to Christ the Redeemer, he was likened to God. After that came the ceremony of apotheosis.
For days and nights after the President's death it was considered treason to be seen in public with a smile on your face. Men who ventured to doubt the ineffable purity and saintliness of Lincoln's character, were pursued by mobs of men, beaten to death with paving stones, or strung up by the neck to lamp posts until dead.{14}

Since American society at that time was dominated by an external form of Christianity, one of the main features of Lincoln's apotheosis was to declare his eminent religious character. J.G. Holland eulogized his dead hero with these words:

Lincoln unequaled since Washington in service to the Nation. Mr. Lincoln will always be remembered as eminently a Christian President. Conscience, not popular applause, not love of power, was the ruling motive of Lincoln's life. No stimulant ever entered his mouth, no profanity ever came from his lips.
Abraham Lincoln was the first of all men who have walked the earth since the Nazarene.{15}

Likewise, when Lincoln's alleged birthplace in Kentucky{16} was dedicated as a national monument, Henry Watterson, a Southern-born man and a former Confederate soldier, boldly declared:

You lowly cabin which is to be dedicated on the morrow may well be likened to the Manger of Bethlehem, the boy that went thence to a God-like destiny, to the Son of God, the Father Almighty of Him and us all. Whence his prompting except from God? His tragic death may be likened also to that other martyr whom Lincoln so closely resembled.
There are utterances of his which read like rescripts from the Sermon on the Mount. Reviled as Him of Galilee, slain, even as Him of Galilee, yet as gentle and as unoffending a man who died for men.{17}

Today, nearly a century and a half after his death, the myth of Lincoln's moral character and faith in Christianity continues to be perpetuated. In his lectures, David Barton of Wallbuilders, Inc. often cites Lincoln's ambiguous religious statements as supporting evidence of "America's Christian Heritage." One Internet site refers to Lincoln as "America's Abraham."{18} In the words of popular Southern Baptist minister, Dr. Charles Stanley:

Despite his Christian upbringing, Lincoln did not accept Christ as his Savior until later in life. While he governed the nation by many of the principles written in God's Word, he lacked a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. After the death of his son, Willie, Lincoln heard for the first time of Christ's personal love and forgiveness for each man and woman.
He wrote: "When I left Springfield, I asked the people to pray for me; I was not a Christian. When I buried my son--the severest trial of my life--I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ."
Finally, Lincoln had found the inner peace he longed for all his life. Following his salvation experience, he worshiped regularly at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church and planned to make a public confession of his faith. The war was winding down. Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9--Palm Sunday, and Lincoln was re-
elected President. He gave thanks to God for bringing a close to the war and began turning the nation's interest toward reconciliation and reconstruction. However, five days later on Good Friday, he was shot by an assassin's bullet.
Throughout his life, Lincoln suffered many defeats -- enough to make most men give-up. But not Abraham Lincoln. His dedication and commitment found merit in heaven. He believed he was chosen "for such a time as this."{19}

Was Lincoln indeed a Christian? Is it true that he accepted Jesus Christ in the last days of his life? To answer these questions, we must not turn to the tall tales that were concocted following Lincoln's death by ambitious Republican radicals and later permanently etched in the historical record by endless repetition, but to the testimonies of those who knew him personally, both before and during his tenure as President of the United States. In the suppressed biography entitled The Life of Lincoln, by William H. Herndon, who was "for Twenty Years His Friend and Partner," we find the following description of the sixteenth President:

Lincoln was a deep-grounded infidel. He disliked and despised churches. He never entered a church except to scoff and ridicule. On coming from a church he would mimic the preacher. Before running for any office he wrote a book against Christianity and the Bible. He showed it to some friends and read extracts. A man named Hill was greatly shocked and urged Lincoln not to publish it. Urged it would kill him politically. Hill got this book in his hands, opened the stove door, and it went up in flames and ashes. After that, Lincoln became more discreet, and when running for office often used words and phrases to make it appear that he was a Christian. He never changed on this subject. He lived and died a deep-grounded infidel.{20}

Herndon was so outraged by the "pretended biographies" of his late friend that he wrote the following to Lincoln's former associate Ward H. Lamon on 18 February 1870:

In New Salem Mr. Lincoln lived with a class of men, moved with them, and had his being with them. They were scoffers at religion, made loud protests against the followers of Christianity. They declared that Jesus was an illegitimate child. On all occasions that offered they debated on the various forms of Christianity. They ridiculed old divines, and not infrequently made those very divines skeptics by their logic; made them disbelievers as bad as themselves. In 1835 Lincoln wrote a book on infidelity and intended to have it published. The book was an attack on the idea that Jesus was Christ. Lincoln read the book to his friend Hill. Hill tried to persuade him not to publish it. Lincoln said it should be published. Hill, believing that if the book was published it would kill Lincoln forever as a politician, seized it and thrust it in the stove. It went up in smoke and ashes before Lincoln could get it out. When Mr. Lincoln was candidate for the Legislature he was accused of being an infidel, and of having said that Jesus was an illegitimate child. He never denied it, never flinched from his views on religion. In 1854 he made erase the name of God from a speech I was about to make. He did this to one of his friends in Washington City. In the year 1847 Mr. Lincoln ran for Congress against the Rev. Peter Cartwright. He was accused of being an infidel; he never denied it. He knew it could and would be proved on him. I know when he left Springfield for Washington he had undergone no change in his opinion on religion. He held many of the Christian ideas in abhorrence. He held that God could not forgive sinners. The idea that Mr. Lincoln carried a Bible in his bosom or in his boots to draw on his opponents is ridiculous.{21}

Two years later Lamon himself admitted:

[Lincoln] never joined any church. He did not believe that the Bible was inspired.
He denied that Jesus was the Son of God. Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths, and nothing stranger than out of his own, place these truths beyond controversy.{22}

In her biography entitled Life of Abraham Lincoln, Ida Tarbell declared, "If Mr. Lincoln was not strictly orthodox, he was profoundly religious. He was a regular and reverent attendant at church."{23} However, Lincoln's "regular and reverent" church attendance was seen in a different light by his cousin, Dennis Hanks:

When Lincoln went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic. When he went to New Salem he consorted with free thinkers [atheists] and joined with them in deriding the gospel story of Jesus. He wrote a labored book on this subject, which his friend Hill put in the stove and burned up. Not until after Mr. Lincoln's death were these facts denied [by the Republicans]...
At an early age Abe began to attend the preachings around about, but mostly at the Pidgeon Creek Church, with a view to catching anything that might be ludicrous in the preaching, in the manner or matter, and making it a subject of mimicry as soon as he could collect a crowd of idle boys and men to hear him. He frequently reproduced a sermon with a nasal twang, rolling his eyes, and all sorts of droll aggravations, to the great delight of the wild fellows assembled. Sometimes he broke out with stories passably humorous and invariably vulgar.{24}

John Matthews, who described himself as Lincoln's "personal and political friend," testified that he "attacked the Bible and the New Testament," and "would come into the clerk's office where I and some young men were writing... and would bring a Bible with him; would read a chapter and argue against it."{25} John G. Nicolay, who was Lincoln's private secretary throughout his Presidency, and who "probably was closer to the martyred [sic] President than any other man,"{26} declared, "Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way change his religious views or beliefs from the time he left Springfield till his death."{27} Even Lincoln's own widow confessed in a letter to family friend Lamon that, "Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in Christianity."{28}

It is beyond comprehension how a professing Christian, such as Lincoln is said to have been, would have engaged in the vulgar manner of behavior that he did. According to William Herndon, "Lincoln could never realize the impropriety of telling vulgar yarns in the presence of a minister of the gospel," and "Lincoln's highest delight was to get a rowdy crowd in groceries or on street corners and retell vulgar yarns too coarse to put in print."{29} A.Y. Ellis, who was a friend of Lincoln's, said, "On electioneering trips Mr. Lincoln told stories which drew the boys after him. I remember them, but modesty forbids me to repeat them."{30} Ward Lamon likewise stated, "His humor was not of a delicate quality; it was chiefly exercised in telling and hearing stories of the grossest sort. Mr. Lincoln's habit of relating vulgar yarns (not one of which will bear printing) was restrained by no presence and no occasion."{31} In a rare moment of honesty, Lincoln worshipper J.G. Holland wrote:

It is useless for Mr. Lincoln's biographers to ignore this habit; the whole West, if not the whole country, is full of these stories, and there is no doubt at all that he indulged in them with the same freedom that he did in those of a less objectionable character.... Men who knew him throughout all his professional and political life... have said that "he was the foulest in his jests and stories of any man in the country."{32}

Following the bloody battle of Antietam in 1862, the Sussex, New Jersey Statesman published the following account:

We see that many papers are referring to the fact that Lincoln ordered a comic song to be sung upon the battlefield. We have known the facts of the transaction for some time, but have refrained from speaking about them. As the newspapers are stating some of the facts, we will give the whole. Soon after one of the most desperate and sanguinary battles, Mr. Lincoln visited the Commanding General [George McClellan], who, with his staff, took him over the field, and explained to him the plan of the battle, and the particular places where the battle was most fierce. At one point the Commanding General said: "Here on this side of the road five hundred of our brave fellows were killed, and just on the other side of the road four hundred and fifty more were killed, and right on the other side of that well five hundred rebels were destroyed. We have buried them where they fell." "I declare," said the President, "this is getting gloomy; let us drive away." After driving a few rods the President said: "Jack," speaking to his companion [Ward Lamon], "can't you give us something to cheer us up? Give us a song, and a lively one." Whereupon, Jack struck up, as loud as he could bawl, a comic negro song, which he continued to sing while they were riding off from the battle ground, and until they approached a regiment drawn up, when the Commanding General said: "Would it not be well for your friend to cease his song till we pass this regiment? The poor fellows have lost more than half their number. They are feeling very badly, and I should be afraid of the effect it would have on them." The President asked his friend to stop singing until they passed the regiment.
When this story was told to us we said: "It is incredible, it is impossible, that any man could act so over the fresh-made graves of the heroic dead." But the story is told on such authority we know it to be true. We tell the story now that the people may have some idea of the man elected to be President of the United States.{33}

Above we have read the alleged and undocumented testimony of Lincoln that he "consecrated his life to Christ" on the battlefield of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. However, despite its uncritical endorsement by Charles Stanley's organization, such is merely a myth drawn from one of the many stories that were fabricated about Lincoln as part of his apotheosis ceremony. Indeed, it does not coincide with the testimonies of eyewitnesses of Lincoln's conduct at Gettysburg while the ground was still wet from the blood of both Union and Confederate soldiers. General Donn Piatt, who was present as Lincoln toured the battlefield, referred to Gettysburg as "the field that he shamed with a ribald song."{34} One observer of Lincoln's lack of respect for those who died for their convictions voiced his disgust in verse: "Abe may crack his jolly jokes/Over bloody fields of battle/While yet the ebbing life tide smokes/ From men who die like butchered cattle/And even before the guns grow cold/To pimps and pet Abe cracks his jokes."{35} Lincoln's last words were a joke told at the expense of the conquered and devastated Southern people. In fulfillment of the promise of Psalm 7: 11-16, the foul tongue of the reprobate President was forever silenced by the assassin's bullet as he sat in the audience of--fittingly--a comedy play at Ford's Theater in the capital of a country he had destroyed.

It is noteworthy that during Lincoln's campaign for the Presidency, twenty out of the twenty-three Christian ministers in his home town of Springfield, Illinois, opposed him because of his anti-Christian views. The closest that Lincoln ever came to a denial of this consensus was in the handbill that was circulated during his campaign for re-election in 1864:

TO THE VOTERS OF THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
FELLOW CITIZENS:
A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this district in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity. I have by the advice of friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian church is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scripture; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination, of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity,"--that is, that the human mind is impelled to action or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two, or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus, however, I have entirely left off for more than five years; and I
add here I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing is the whole truth, briefly stated in relation to myself on this subject.{36}

Lincoln was the consummate politician and a master of rhetoric, so his "denial" of the charges against him need to be carefully dissected. Lincoln claimed that he had "never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general." Technically, this was true. He could not afford to speak with disrespect for "religion in general" since the Republican party upon which his political career depended was dominated by Unitarians, who, like himself, held to a form of "natural religion" which found the "spark of divinity" in all mankind and denied the unique Divinity of Jesus Christ. The "Scripture" of such people was nature itself, which human reason was capable of comprehending without the aid of divine revelation, and the Bible was derided, in the words of Thaddeus Stevens, as "nothing but obsolete history of a barbarous people." Such was the basis of the Abolition movement that declared war on the Christian South.

Furthermore, Lincoln did not directly lie when he claimed that he had never spoken with disrespect for "any denomination, of Christians in particular." As seen in the above testimonies of his closest friends and associates, his disdain was voiced for Christianity in general, rather than for denominations "in particular." Finally, Lincoln's claim that his "Doctrine of Necessity" was "held by several of the Christian denominations" was an outright lie. This doctrine, in which events are predetermined by "some power over which the mind has no control," was nothing more than a pagan fatalism upon which Lincoln could rely to relieve himself of the responsibility for the deaths of 600,000 American men and the destruction of the Union and its Constitution which he had been sworn to uphold and defend. After all, reasoned Lincoln, "What is to be will be."{37} this was not the predestinarianism held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, but was the doctrine espoused by the atheist Abolitionists at the helm of Lincoln's Republican party, who merely used religious rhetoric to conceal their true character from their deceived constituents. It was only later, in his second Inaugural Address, that Lincoln attempted to pin the blame for the horrific carnage which he had caused on the righteous Judge of men, for which blasphemy he was not long thereafter summoned before the Heavenly Bench to give an account.

It is a travesty indeed that Abraham Lincoln, the infidel, is mythologized by so many today as "Abraham Lincoln, the Christian." As the present writer has endeavored to prove in this book, the sixteenth U.S. President was no friend to the Union he professed to save, no friend to the slaves he professed to emancipate, and no friend to his "fellow countrymen" for whom he professed no malice. It is time for History to execute her long over-due sentence of infamy against the godless tyrant who, with the wave of his executive scepter, nearly single-handedly destroyed the remnants of a centuries-old Christian social and law order and plunged America into the dark abyss of pagan despotism from which we have yet to recover.

"America's Caesar - Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire" can be acquired by writing to: Crown Rights Book Company--c/o U.S. Post Office Box 769--Wiggins, Mississippi C.S.A.

Endnotes

{1} St. Louis Globe-Democrat, 6 March 1898.

{2} New York World, 26 October 1864.

{3} Edwin Stanton, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, page 18.

{4} Edwin Stanton, quoted by Charles L. C. Minor, The Real Lincoln (Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Company, [1928] 1997), page 42.

{5} Editorial: "A Yearning for the Democratic Party," New York World, 15 April 1864.

{6} New York World, 2 June 1864.

{7} Alfred R. Wooten, Attorney-General of Delaware, quoted by New York Tribune, 4 June 1863.

{8} Wendell Phillips, quoted by ibid.

{9} Wooten, quoted by ibid.

{10} Wendell Phillips, a speech delivered on 1 August 1862; quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, page 16.

{11} Editorial: "Lincoln and Johnson," New York World, 9 June 1864.

{12} The Globe-Democrat, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, page 2.

{13} Minor, Real Lincoln, page 1.

{14} Ward H. Lamon, Life of Abraham Lincoln (Boston, Mass.: Osgood, 1872); quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pages 2-3, 9, 10.

{15} J.G. Holland, quoted by Rutherford, True Estimate, page 72.

{16} As documented by James H. Cathey in 1899, Lincoln was actually born in the western North Carolinian home of Abraham Enloe, for whom his mother, Nancy Hanks, worked as a servant and with whom she had an adulterous affair. Because of the reproach thus brought upon the family, Nancy and her infant child were sent by Enloe to Kentucky, where she eventually married Thomas Lincoln (reference: The Genesis of Lincoln [Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Company 1899, 1999)].

{17} Henry Watterson, quoted by Rutherford, ibid., page 73.

{18} America's Christian Heritage, http://user. mc.net/dougp/a/heritage.html.

{19} Charles Stanley, article, "Abraham Lincoln: For Such a Time as This," http://www.intouch.org/INTOUCH/study/.

{20} William H. Herndon, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pages 54-55.

{21} Herndon, letter to Ward H. Lamon, quoted by Edmonds, ibid., pages 54-55, Minor, Real Lincoln, page 29.

{22} Lamon, Life of Abraham Lincoln; quoted by Rutherford, True Estimate, page 53.

{23} Tarbell, Life of Lincoln.

{24} Dennis Hanks, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pages 54-55.

{25} John Matthews, quoted by Edmonds, ibid., page 56; Minor, Real Lincoln, pages 28-29.

{26} Cosmopolitan of March 1901, quoted by Minor, ibid, page 30.

{27} John G. Nicolay, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, page 54.

{28} Mary Todd Lincoln, quoted by Edmonds, ibid, page 56.

{29} Herndon, quoted by Edmonds, ibid., pages 68, 69.

{30} A.Y. Ellis, quoted by Edmonds, ibid., page 69.

{31} Lamon, Life of Abraham Lincoln, page 480.

{32} Holland, Abraham Lincoln (1866); quoted by Minor, Real Lincoln. pages 31-32.

{33} Sussex (New Jersey) Statesman, quoted by Edmonds, Facts and Falsehoods, pp. 73-74.

{34} Donn Piatt, Memories of the Men Who Saved the Union (New York: Butler Brothers, 1887), page 35.

{35} Editorial: "One of Mr. Lincoln's Jokes," New York World, 9 September 1864.

{36} Lincoln, quoted by Roy P. Basler, A Touchstone For Greatness (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1973), page 61.

{37} Lincoln, quoted by Lamon, Life of Lincoln, page 503.

The Early Church

Part Two

by Daniel Wendell

In my last article (Issue the Thirty Eighth), Pliny the Younger (late first century or early second) referred to " . . . two maidservants, who were called deaconesses" . . . I mentioned that a deaconess might be appointed as young as forty years of age, so she should not be confused with the "widow presbyters," mentioned in 1 Tim. v. 3-16, who were to have attained the age of sixty years. A brief look at this passage in Timothy will give us insight into the structure of the early church.

"Honor widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth . . . But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

The first thing we're struck by is how this passage resembles the passage concerning qualifications for the office of a bishop in 1 Tim. iii. 2-7. For of a bishop it is said:

" . . . [he] must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality . . . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity . . . Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without." (without: i.e., outside the church).

Compare the qualifications for widows:

"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."

The widows spoken of here are at least sixty years of age, so they are not deaconesses (who could be chosen at forty). Neither are they; "she that liveth in pleasure" in verse 6, nor the "widows indeed" mentioned in verses 3 and 5 who are desolate. The widows spoken of here have "lodged strangers" which would indicate some competence, at least in times past, and are referred to without the adjective "indeed"; as also are the widows in verse 4, who have "children or nephews" to support them. (Nephews meant grandchildren in old English i.e., [ekgona] 'descendants'). If Paul is speaking here of providing church sustenance (as in verse 3) to these widows who have lodged strangers and raised children, (which children could care for them) then childless desolate widows would be excluded; the very class requiring charity. If they are to have attained the age of sixty it would seem harsh to withhold help to the poor until they had reached such age. ("But the younger widows refuse: " . . .). In verse 14 Paul encourages the younger widows to marry again. If they were to follow his advice, it would deny them assistance when older; since they must have been married only once, by age sixty, to be enrolled in the catalogue. Paul then is making a transition to a new subject in verse 9. To what then?

Tertullian, "De velandis Virginibus," c. 9; Hermas, "Shepherd," b. i. 2; and Chrysostom, "Homily" 31, refer to an order of ecclesiastical widowhood, traces of which may be found in Acts ix. 41 concerning Tabitha who, by way of interpretation, was called Dorcas. When Paul states that the younger women should be refused, this can only make sense if he is saying they must be refused from the widow presbytery, not charity rolls; for they will wax wanton against Christ and will marry. If Paul were speaking of providing charity, then it would be good they would marry, thereby taking the burden off the church. Paul's desire, by the way, that these elder widows not " . . . wax wanton against Christ and . . . marry " is a far cry from Rome's unnatural vows of celibacy taken by young marriageable women.

The church fathers (mentioned above) reveal that these widow presbyters were at least sixty years of age, resembling the presbyters in respect paid to them, ministering to widows and orphans and having general supervision over the women in the church. They, and the bishops or presbyters, could have only been married once, so that a stumblingblock wouldn't be thrown in the way of the Jews and heathen who regarded second marriages with disfavour. (. . . "a good report of them which are without.") Their purpose was, after all, to evangelize the Jew first then the gentile. Rom. ii. 10.

When we see the lives of these widows having brought up children and lodged strangers (qualifying them to minister to orphans and mothers), washed the feet of saints after Jesus' example, having served one another in love, relieved the afflicted, and followed every good work; and compare them to "she that liveth in pleasure"; we must look at ourselves and realize that the entire "culture of commerce" holding sway in this country removes us daily from the self denying widow towards the lavish excess of "she that liveth in pleasure (who) is dead while she liveth."

Next a brief look at the incipient form of Gnosticism at Ephesus, the angel worship invading the church at Colossæ; and the Docetic sect John warned against in II John 7.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." II John 7.

To understand the importance of this verse and the introduction to the gospel of John (And the Word was made flesh), an understanding of Gnosticism's main concern is necessary, i.e., the problem of evil. Gnostics attempted to solve this problem with a doctrine of dualism that separated God as good from matter as evil. Christ, to them, could not have manifested in the flesh since matter was evil. The Docetics taught He was a mere phantasm, who left no footprints when he walked and believed he only appeared to suffer on the cross. Others say that "the Christ" flew back to heaven before the passion and only the flesh suffered.

To mediate between God and matter Gnostics invented a series of semi divine powers:

"This invasion of credulity into a metaphysic mitigated by intermediaries would seem to be universal, rooted in human psychology. You will find it in India; it gave life to the hagiolatry of the Middle Ages; it is a notable mark of the romantic movement of which we are draining the lees; it played havoc with the ancient science of astronomy and threatens to overlay the abstractions of modern physics; it was, as we have seen, rampant in religion at the time when Gnosticism reared its head as the great rival of the church . . . " ("Christ The Word," Paul Elmer More)

Upon the destruction of Jerusalem an anti-Judaic Gnosticism arose. But another form existed earlier, the source of which was a corrupted Judaism:

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. . . . rebuke them sharply . . . not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." Titus i. 10-14.

There were many Jews in Crete (Josephus), so the Jewish leaven remained in them after conversion.

At Ephesus, along with "fables," were "endless (i.e., tedious and unprofitable) genealogies." (1 Tim. i. 4). Not genealogical decent from patriarchs (which Paul wouldn't have classed with fables), but genealogies of spirits, aeons, and emanations,

"having swerved . . . aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." (1 Tim. i. 7).

This was not full blown Gnosticism, but Judaizers maintaining the obligations to the Mosaic Law and adding to it a theosophic asceticism. (. . . forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats . . . 1Tim. iv. 3). The Holy Spirit anticipated the later gnostics by calling God the "King of the Aeons" ("The King Eternal" K.J.V.), ". . . throughout the aeons of aeons. Amen." (See 1 Tim. i. 17).

Paul in his letters to Timothy at Ephesus warns against " . . . seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron . . . " indicating that this evil now had reached a more deadly phase than at the time he wrote the Collosians, where these "teachers" were not so sharply condemned.

Also, what we today call the "prosperity doctrine" was added to these teachings, ("men of corrupt minds . . . supposing that gain is godliness: . . . " 1 Tim vi. 5). Paul rebuked this in his well known verse:

"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy vi. 6-10.

"...having food and raiment let us be therewith content." This passage is a good summation of the life led by many in the early church.

"Oh Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding . . . oppositions (antitheses) of science (Gnosis) falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Timothy vi. 20.

Germs of dualistic oppositions (i.e., "antitheses") already existed. Paul in this same letter to Timothy at the church at Ephesus (chapter iii. verse 16) presented his just antithesis:

"God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, beloved on in the world, received up into glory."

This verse may have been an early hymn. We'll look closer at this passage at a later date.

From the Judaizers, whom Paul addressed in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians who made works of the law necessary for justification, to those who went on to add "fables" to the law, ignorantly abusing it with their fantastic interpretations, becoming lawless; along with Hymeneus and Philetus (also at Ephesus) who taught " . . . that the resurrection is past already " . . . (i.e., the belief that it were merely the spiritual raising of souls from the death of sin) the seeds of Gnosticism were in bloom.

These seeds may have been sewn earlier, at Colossæ. In Paul's letter to the church at Colossæ he resisted the invasion of angel worship with his astonishing Christology found in Col. i. and ii. His object was to counteract a Judaic oriental theosophy, which had sprung up there:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days": Col. ii. 16.

This shows that the false teaching was that of Judaizing Christians. The angel worship, and aceticism of certain Jewish sects, especially the Essenes, is seen in passages such as ii. 8 & 9 &18-23:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily . . . Let no man begile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen . . . Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not . . . ? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh."

Self imposed ordinances to mortify the flesh actually gratify it by the resultant "will worship" inherent in aceticism.

The Collosian heretics identified the angelic powers with the "rudiments of the world" or fundamental principals of the universe. We'll see this later in Valentinus and his grouping of aeons such as Nous (reason) Aletheia (truth) Zoe (life) Anthropos (unfallen man) Ekklesia (church) and Logos (word).

It's thought that some Alexandrian Jew appeared at Colossæ, bringing the philosophy of Philo, along with rabbinical theosophy and angelology. All of this later became embodied in the cabala. Josephus (Antiquities, xii. 3, 4) states that Alexander the Great had garrisoned Lydia and Phrygia (wherein is Collosæ) with 2,000 Mesopotamian and Babylonian Jews in the time of a threatened revolt. The influence of these along with the Phrygian Cybele worship predisposed Colossians to a ready acceptance of this early Gnosticism, thereby threatening the doctrine of the Lordship of Christ. To call Christ the "Son of God" when angels were called the same in Job i. 6, ii. 1, & xxxviii. 7 was not enough. Paul's declaration of Christ to the Colossians is stunning in it's power and clarity:

". . . the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (prototokos) of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist; and he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." Col. i. 12-18.

The "Jehovah's Witnesses" (modern day Arians), in their NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, insert the word "other" in this passage; " . . . for by Him all [other] things were created " . . . not only doing violence to the text but reducing Christ to a created "thing." Their sophistry continues in stating that the word "first-born" means "first-created." John went further than Paul and laid waste, not only to the gnostic's denial of Christ becoming flesh, but the Sabellians of the second century (the Word was with God) and the Arians of the third (the Word was God) in his prologue to the fourth gospel:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; . . . (and lest any man think "all things" might not mean "all things" he makes it clear) . . . and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not . . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John i. 1-14.

You might mention anyone in history without much controversy, but not so with our Lord, and this is from the hand of God. Everyone seems to have an opinion about Jesus Christ and who they imagine or think He is. Especially those who deny absolute truth; they're absolutely sure who He was. So it's not surprising that those in the first century could not simply ignore Jesus. If they had not the Spirit of God, they made themselves professors of hidden knowledge. Bringing the philosophy of the ancient world, mixing it with Judaism and the teachings of Jesus to appear wise; and sometimes for "filthy lucre." The church called them "vain janglers" who neither understood their own asseverations nor the object about which they made them.

The Martyrdom of

Perpetua and Felicitas

Introduction, Preface, and Translation

by the Rev. R. E. Wallis

Part One

Introduction

Nobody will blame me for placing here the touching history of these Martyrs. It illustrates the period of history we are now considering. I can hardly read it without tears, and it ought to make us love "the noble army of martyrs." I think Turtullian was the editor of the story, not its author. Felicitas is mentioned by name in the De Anima: and the closing paragraph of this memoir is quite in his style. To these words I need only add that Dr. Routh, who unfortunately decided not to re-edit it, ascribes the first edition to Lucas Holstenius. He was Librarian of the Vatican and died in 1661. The rest may be learned from this Introductory Notice of the Translator:

Perpetua and Felicitas suffered martyrdom in the reign of Septimius Sererus, about the year 202 a.d. Tertullian mentions Perpetua, and a further clue to the date is given in the allusion to the birth-day of "Geta the Cusar," the son of Septimius Serverus. There is therefore, good reason for rejecting the opinion held by some, that they suffered under Valerian and Gallienus. Some think that they suffered at Tuburbium in Mauritania; but the more general opinion is, that Carthage was the scene of their martyrdom.

The "Acta," detailing the sufferings of Perpetua and Felicitas, has been held by all critics to be a genuine document of antiquity. But much difference exists as to whom was the compiler. In the writing itself, Perpetua and Saturus are mentioned as having written certain portions of it; and there is no reason to doubt the statement. Who the writer of the remaining portion was, is not known. Some have assigned the work to Tertullian; some have maintained that, whoever the writer was, he was a Montanist, and some have tried to show that both martyrs and narrator were Montanists. The narrator must have been a contemporary; according to many critics, he was an eye-witness of the sufferings of the martyrs. And he must of written the narrative shortly after the events.

Dean Milman says, "There appear stong indications that the acts of these African martyrs are translated from the Greek; at least it is difficult otherwise to account for the frequent untranslated Greek words and idioms in the text.

The Passions of Perpetua and Felicitas was edited by Petrus Possinus, Rome, 1663; by Henr. Valesius, Paris, 1664; and the Bollandists. The best and latest edition is by Ruissart, whose text is adopted in Gallandi's and Migne's collection of the Fathers.

Preface

If ancient illustrations of faith which both testify to God's grace and tend to man's edification are collected in writing, so that by the perusal of them, as if by the reproduction of the facts, as well God may be honoured, as man may be strengthened; why should not new instances be also collected, that shall be equally suitable for both purposes, if only on the ground that these modern examples will one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in their present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they judge the power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times and seasons; since some things of later date must be esteemed of more account as being nearer to the very last times, in accordance with the exuberance of grace manifested to the final periods determined for the world. For "in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy. And upon My servants and My handmaidens will I pour out My Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." And thus we who both acknowledge and reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as the Lord distributed to every one as well needfully collect them in writing, as commemorate them in reading to God's glory; that so no weakness or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs, or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit. And we therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honor, for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter One

When the Saints Were Apprehended, Perpetua Successfully Resisted Her Father's Pleading, Was Baptized with the Others, Was Thrust into a Filthy Dungeon. Anxious About Her Infant, by a Vision Granted to Her, She Understood that Her Martyrdom Would Take Place Very Shortly.

1. The young catechumens, Revocatus and his fellow-servant Felicitas, Saturnius and Secundulus, were apprehended. And among them also was Vivia Perpetua, respectfully born, liberally educated, a married matron, having a father and mother and two brothers, one of whom, like herself, was a catechumen, and a son an infant at the breast. She herself was about twenty-two years of age. From this point onward she shall herself narrate the whole course of her martyrdom, as she left it described by her own hand and with her own mind.

2. "While" says she, "we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith, 'Father,' said I, 'do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?' And he said, 'I see it to be so.' And I replied to him, 'Can it be called by any other name than what it is?' And he said, 'No.' 'Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.' Then my father, provoked at this saying, threw himself upon me, as if he would tear my eyes out. But he only distressed me, and went away overcome by the devil's arguments. Then, in a few days after I had been without my father, I gave thanks to the Lord; and his absence became a source of consolation to me. In that same interval of a few days we were baptized, and to me the Spirit prescribed that in the water of baptism nothing else was to be sought for bodily endurance. After a few days we were taken into the dungeon, and I was very much afraid, because I had never felt such darkness. O terrible day! O the fierce heat of the shock of the soldiery, because of the crowds! I was very unusually distressed by my anxiety for my infant. There were present there Tertius and Pomponius, the blessed deacons who ministered to us, and had arranged by means of a gratuity that we might be refreshed by being sent out for a few hours into a pleasanter part of the prison. Then going out of the dungeon, all attended to their own wants. I suckled my child, which was now enfeebled with hunger. In my anxiety for it, I addressed my mother and comforted my brother, and commended to their care my son. I was languishing because I had seen them languishing on my account. Such solicitude I suffered for many days, and I obtained for my infant to remain in the dungeon with me; and forthwith I grew strong and was relieved from distress and anxiety about my infant; and the dungeon became to me as it were a palace, so that I preferred being there to being elsewhere.

3. "Then my brother said to me, 'My dear sister, you are already in a position of great dignity, and are such that you may ask for a vision, and that it may be made known to you whether this is to result in a passion or an escape.' And I, who knew that I was privileged to converse with the Lord, whose kindnesses I had found to be so great, boldly promised him, an said, 'To-morrow I will tell you.' And I asked, and this was what was shown to me. I saw a golden ladder of marvellous height, reaching up even to heaven, and very narrow, so those only persons could only ascend it one by one; and on the sides of the ladder was fixed every kind of iron weapon. There were there swords, lances, hooks, daggers; so that if anyone went up carelessly, or not looking upwards, he would be torn to pieces and his flesh would cleave to the iron weapons. And under the ladder itself was crouching a dragon of wonderful size, who lay in wait for those who ascended, and frightened them from the ascent. And Saturus went up first, who had subsequently delivered himself up freely on our account, not having been present at the time that we werte taken prisoners.

And he attained the top of the ladder, and turned towards me, 'Perpetua, I am waiting for you; but be careful that the dragon do not bite you.' And I said, 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he shall not hurt me.' And from under the ladder itself, as if in fear of me, he slowly lifted up his head; and as I trod upon the first step, I trod upon his head. And I went up, and I saw an immense extent of garden, and in the midst of the garden a white-haired man sitting in the dress of a sheperd, of a large stature, milking sheep; and standing around were many thousand white-robed ones. And he raised his head, and looked upon me, and said to me, 'Thou art welcome daughter.' And he called me, and from the cheese as he was milking he gave me as it were a little cake, and I received it with folded hands; and I ate it, and all who stood around said Amen. And at the sound of their voices I was awakened, still tasting a sweetness which I cannot describe. And I immediately related this to my brother, and we understood that it was to be a passion, and we ceased henceforth to have any hope in this world.

To be continued next month.

In the Nurture and Admonition of Our Lord

Under the Fear and Adoration of the State

Part Three

written solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our Sovereign

Lord and Saviour, by John Joseph, His mere bondservant

You may state that you send your seed to a "christian school"; or, you are a teacher in a "christian school." Let us be frank about this: there is no Record in God's Creation witnessing the establishment of a christian school or seminary by Him. Your testimony is not true. Thus they are doomed to die the death decreed by God our Father:

"But He answered and said, Every plant, which My heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Matthew 15:13.

Further, the State regulates the curriculum, methods, and spirit there as well. Note well the following:

"Q. In the exercise of its authority, may the State prohibit private schools?
"A. It may not, but it may prohibit the teaching of doctrines which are contrary to the best interests [*commercial] of the State or which are subversive. It may set up reasonable standards [*necessarily outside of Scripture] for private schools and require them to meet them." Garber, Handbook of School Law (1954), p. 7.

Note the consistency of words in these statements.

The word "reasonable" used above should be enough to set off any one who sojourns in Christ to make diligent inquiry about these standards. When diligent inquiry is made, you find there is no substance, no Truth, and no Law:

"Words like reasonable, substantial, satisfactory, blatantly flaunt their lack of precision.
"Take reasonable, for instance. English, via Old French, since the fourteenth century, it was not originally nor is it exclusively a law word.In our day, when reasonable stands alone, there is general agreement that it cannot be hog-tied and branded." Mellinkoff, Language of the Law (1963), pp. 301-302.
"REASONABLE. What is reasonable depends upon a variety of circumstances. It is an elastic term which is of uncertain value in a definition. See Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v. Midwest Refining Co., U.S.C.C.A., 34 A.L.R. 249, 257, 294 F. 597." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 708.
"REASONABLE. Reasonable means in the law what it means in ordinary English: rational, just, fair-minded, not too much and not too little, etc. Reasonable means what you want it to mean. Ambrose Bierce, 'Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion, and evasion. (The Devil's Dictionary). Reasonable has no precise legal meaning. It is flexible. That is its virtue and only utility for the law." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 539.

But it gets worse, much worse:

"REASONABLE.Having the faculty of reason; rational; governed by reason; under the influence of reason; agreeable to reason. Clausen v. State, 21 Wyo. 505, 133 P. 1055, 1056. Thinking, speaking, or acting according to the dictates of reason; not immoderate or excessive, being synonymous with rational; honest; equitable; fair; suitable; moderate; tolerable. Cass v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.r. 208, 61 S.W.2d 500." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 &1968), p. 1431.

Law is not reason; and reason is not Law:

"Lord Denman, delivering judgment in the House of Lords, in a celebrated case, took occasion to remark, that a large portion of the legal opinion which has passed current for law falls within the the description of 'law taken for granted'; and that, 'when, in the pursuit of truth, we are obliged to investigate the grounds of the law, it is plain, and has often been proved by recent experience, that the mere statement and restatement of a doctrine--the mere repetition of the cantilena of the lawyers-- cannot make it law, unless it can be traced to some competent authority, and if it be irreconcilable to some clear legal principle.' [O'Connell v. The Queen, 11 Clark & Finnelly, p. 373. And see per Pollock, C. B. 2 H. & N. 139.]" Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 157.

This is the "knowledge" referred to in Bouvier's Law Dictionary that directs the moral acts of TYRANNUS, who also is the natural man. Does the "christian lawyer" who was and is condemned by Christ, know this? Yes, he does:

"The law is full of deliberately flexible words which lawyers [*and the ignorant] will continue to live with. These words should not be used at all when precision is aimed at. When using flexible words, lawyers should know in their immediate consciousness--not only vaguely in some deep recess--what it is they are doing. It ought to be done knowingly, and for reasons other than precision, for against the charge of uncertainty the flexibles are defenseless. And most lawyers--when they think about it--know that this is so." Mellinkoff, Language of the Law (1963), p. 304.

Reasonable is a euphonious word of compromise, neglect, and dereliction of duty to Christ. By the way, the goddess of Lincoln's War stands in New York harbor today--REASON.

Further, they teach philosophy based on Plato and Aristotle, the same authors of secular schools, although now their philosophy is taken for granted and new authors have improved upon them:

"SCHOLASTICISM. The philosophy taught in the church schools and theological training in the medieval period. Scholasticism was the dominant philosophical approach in Europe from perhaps the 11th to the 16th century, or the time of Abelard to that of Suarez. It combined religious doctrine, study of the Church fathers, and philosophical and logical work based particularly on Aristotle and his commentators, and to some extent on themes from Plato. Prominent scholastics included Aquinas, Buridan, Duns Scotus, and Ockham." Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 342.

This aided the apostasy alluded to by Paul.

"SCHOLASTICISM. A form of Christian philosophy and theology developed by scholars who came to be called schoolmen. It flourished during the medieval period of European history. The heart of scholasticism insisted upon a system that was clear and definitional in tone. The system attempted to synthesize ideas expressed in classical Roman and Greek writings and in Christian Scripture [*what fellowship hath light with darkness?], the writings of the patristic fathers, and other Christian writings preceding the medieval period. Aristotle's views helped give scholasticism a systematic structure, but Platonism also played a large part in the enterprise.
"Some persons consider scholasticism to have been a boring, dry system emphasizing sheer memorization. However, in many respects it was dynamic, truly seeking to settle questions concerning reality. The Disputed Questions of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his Summa, point out the vibrancy of the system. The philosophical aspects of scholasticism were not dictated strictly by a set of theological dogmas but rather worked with both faith and reason in an attempt to understand reality from the viewpoint of a human being [*not the mind of Christ]." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

Wherefore, the myth of a "christian school" is shown for what it is: a lie for it is written:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Therefore, it is not possible that the fruit given by the corrupt tree can be good fruit fit for our Father:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves [*hypocrites]. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20.
"And if ye offer the blind [*ignorant of the ways of God] for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame [*unable to walk in the knowledge of God] and sick [*those that are not healed by Christ], is it not evil? offer it [*those physically having these infirmities] now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts." Malachi 1:8.
"A person may be a citizen for commercial [*asset] purposes and not political purposes." 7 Md. 209.

Reason alone then leads to death, both spiritually and physically:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17.
"whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Romans 14:23.
"Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." John 8:34.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. " Romans 6:23.

There is no middle ground between the two that can be negotiated:

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." Genesis 1:4.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

....and do not expect any blessings of and from God's Righteousness to come from or through them:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:1 & 10.
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Job 14:4.
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." Proverbs 16:2.
"Of an unclean thing what can be cleansed? and from that thing which is false what truth can come?" Ecclesiasticus 34:4.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matthew 7:17-18.
"Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." Proverbs 20:11.
"They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power; To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom. Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." Psalm 145:11-13.

Brother Spurgeon remarks:

"'They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom.' Excellent themes for saintly minds. Those who bless God from their hearts rejoice to see Him enthroned, glorified, and magnified in power. No subject is more profitable for humility obedience, hope, and joy than that of the reigning power of the Lord our God. His works praise Him, but they cannot crown Him: this remains for holy hands and hearts. It is their high pleasure to tell of the glory of His Kingdom in its justice, kindness, eternity, and so forth. Kingdoms of earth are glorious for riches, for extent of territory, for victories, for liberty, for commerce, and other matters; but in all true glories the Kingdom of Jehovah excels them. We have seen a palace dedicated 'to all the glories of France'; but time, eternity, and all space are filled with the glories of God: on these we love to speak. 'And talk of thy power.' This power supports the kingdom and displays the glory, and we are sure to talk of it when the glory of the divine kingdom is under discussion. God's power to create or to destroy, to bless or to punish, to strengthen or to crush, is matter for frequent rehearsal. All Power comes from God. Apart from Him the laws of nature would be inoperative. His Power is one source of force--mechanical, vital, mental, spiritual. Beyond the Power of God which has been put forth, infinite force lies latent in Himself. Who can calculate the reserve forces of the Infinite? How, then, can His Kingdom fail? We hear of talk of the five great powers, but what they to the One Great Power? The Lord is 'the blessed and only Potentate.' Let us accustom ourselves to think more deeply and speak more largely of the power which ever makes for righteousness and works for mercy.
"12. 'To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts.' These glorious deeds ought to be known to all mankind. As the State cannot teach these holy histories the people of God must take care to do it themselves. The work must be done for every age, for men have short memories in reference to their God, and the doings of His Power. They inscribe the deeds of their heroes upon brass, but the glorious acts of Jehovah are written upon the sand, and the tide of time washes them from present memory; therefore we must repeat the lesson, and yet again repeat it. The saints are the religious instructors of the race; they ought to be not only the historians of the past, but the bards of the present, whose duty it is to keep the sons of men in memory of the great deeds which the Lord did in the days of their fathers [*380] and in the old time before them. Note the contrast between the great deeds of God and the puny sons of Adam, who have even degenerated from their father, though he was as nothing compared with his Maker.
"And the glorious majesty of His Kingdom.' What a grand subject! Yet this we are to make known; the publication of it is left to us who bless the Lord. 'The Glory of the Majesty of His Reign.' What a theme! Jehovah's reign as Sovereign Lord of all, His Majesty in that dominion, and the Glory of that Majesty! The threefold subject baffles the most willing mind. How shall we make this known to the sons of men? Let us first labour to know it ourselves, and then let us make it a frequent subject of discourse, so shall men know it from us, the Holy Spirit attending our word.
"'Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.' His meditation has brought him near to God, and God near to him: he speaks to Him in adoration, changing the pronoun from 'his' to 'thy.' He sees the great King, and prostrates himself before Him. It is well when our devotion opens the gate of heaven, and enters within the portal to speak with God face to face, as a man speaketh with his friend. The point upon which the Psalmist's mind rests is the eternity of the Divine Throne,--'Thy reign is a reign of all eternities.' The Lord's Kingdom is without beginning, without break, without bound, and without end. He never abdicates His Throne, neither does He call in a second to share His Empire. None can overthrow His Power, or break away from His Rule. Neither this age, nor the age to come, nor ages of ages shall cause His Sovereignty to fall. Herein is rest for faith. 'The Lord sitteth King for ever.' 'And Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.' Men come and go like shadows on the wall, but God reigneth eternally. We distinguish kings as they succeed each other by calling them first and second; but this King is Jehovah, the First and the Last. Adam in his generation knew his Creator to be King, and the last of his race shall know the same. All hail, Great God! Thou art ever Lord of hosts!
"These three verses are a reverent hymn concerning 'the Kingdom of God': they will be best appreciated by those who are in that Kingdom in the fullest sense, and are most truly loyal to the Lord. It is, according to these verses, a Kingdom of Glory and Power; a Kingdom of Light which men are to know, and of might which men are to feel; it is full of majesty and eternity; it is the benediction of every generation. We are to speak of it, talk of it, and make it known, and then we are to acknowledge it in the homage directed distinctly to the Lord Himself--as in verse thirteen." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Treasury of David, vol. IIIb , pp. 379-380.

The sojourner in Christ openly offers and gives his life for a daily sacrifice in true religious worship to God our Father Who gives Life by, in and through Christ to those in and of Him; and he teaches his seed to do the same:

"He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him, and shall rejoice of him among his acquaintance. He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. Though his father die, yet he as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not sorrowful. He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends." Ecclesiasticus 30:1-6.

Brother James makes a special point of this in his epistle:

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27.
"2356. RELIGION. Threseia. Signifies 'religion' in its external aspect (akin to threskos, see below), 'religious worship,' especially the ceremonial service of 'religion'; it is used of the 'religion' of the Jews, Acts 26:5; of the 'worshiping' of angels, Col. 2:18, which they themselves repudiate (Rev. 22:8, 9); 'there was an officious parade of humility in selecting these lower beings as intercessors rather than appealing directly to the Throne of Grace' (Lightfoot); in Jas. 1:26, 27 the writer purposely uses the word to set in contrast that which is unreal and deceptive, and the 'pure religion' which consists in visiting 'the fatherless and widows in their affliction,' and in keeping oneself 'unspotted from the world.' He is 'not herein affirmingthese offices to be the sum total, nor yet the great essentials, of true religion, but declares them to be the body, the threskeia, of which godliness, or the love of God, is the informing soul' (Trench)." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, vol. III, p. 272.

The religion of the Pharisees and Judaizers is the worship of the State; those in Christ religiously serve Him daily by taking up their cross and following Him. This is the life in Christ alone:

"The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath." Proverbs 15:24.
"The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death." Proverbs 13:14.
"The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death." Proverbs 14:27.
"And He said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:23.

Note carefully Christ is saying that the morality of men and their commerce are of death and from hell.

"The thief [*Abaddon, Apollyon] cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10.
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matthew 16:24.
"La ley favour la vie d'un home --The law favors the life of a man." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1014. (See Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11).

It is and was for the deceit of not nurturing the seed of Israel in the admonition of the Lord that Christ Jesus condemned them:

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men [*State worship--idolatry]." Matthew 15:7-9.

...And judged, conquered and overcame them:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world [*of which schools play an integral role] of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me [*see Torcaso v. Watkins]; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world [*and his disciple,TYRANNUS] is judged [*past tense--cannot be overruled or appealed from]." John 16:7-11.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." Colossians 2:14-15.

Thus forever separating them to the anti-Christ, the Adversary of God, Satan, who is the Destroyer, Abaddon, or Apollyon:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." 1 John 2:22-23.
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1 John 2:16-19.
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4.
"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." Revelation 19:20.

because;

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." Matthew 10:38.

His church, therefore, shares in His overcoming the world and its schools:

"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." Romans 8:37.

Lastly, if you are a teacher or administrator in TYRANNUS' schools,

"Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath come upon thee from before the LORD." 2 Chronicles 19:2.

In the will of God our Father we will continue this subject in the future, and through His Grace there will be a full book released on this subject soon.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Anoint, Anointing

In the OT. Anointing for such routine purposes, common to the entire ancient Near East, acquired distinctly religious significance in the OT. Anointing with oil set persons and objects apart as dedicated to divine service. According to legislation, elaborately prepared oils were used to dedicate the tabernacle, its furniture, and vessels (Exod. 30:22-33; 40:10-11), together with those from the high-priestly class of Levi who were to serve in it (Exod. 28:40-42; 29:1-46; 30:30-33). There are also scattered references to the anointing of prophets (I Chr. 19:16; Isa. 61:1). The greatest number of references by far is to the anointing of kings, which dates back to the beginnings of the monarchy (I Sam. 10:1; 16:13; I Chr. 1:39). As "anointed of the Lord" such kings were assured of succession and elevated to an inviolable status (I Sam. 24:7; 26:9, 11, 16).

The ancient Hebrews also looked forward to the coming of a king from the line of David who would be specially anointed of God to bring in his kingdom, and to this figure was given a name borrowed from the Hebrew word for anointing, the Messiah. OT prophetic descriptions of the Messiah vary widely in emphasis and content. Often depicted as a great and just king (Pss. 2; 7; 72; 110; Zech. 3), he invariably enjoys a unique relationship with God the Father and is fully endowed with extraordinary spiritual and charismatic gifts (Isa. 7:14; 9:1-6; 11:1-5; Mic. 5:1ff.). This figure was never lost sight of in the intertestamental period but did not play so prominent a role as in some of the later prophets.

In the NT. The entire NT testifies to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah. The equivalent Greek term for the "anointed one" (Christos) was applied to Jesus in every book except III John, and among the Greco-Roman communities where its original meaning was probably not understood it quickly lost the article and became a part of Jesus' name. The Gospel of Mark turns entirely upon the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah (Mark 8:29), whereas Matthew establishes it at the outset in his links to the line of David (Matt. 1:16). The apostles preached this same message throughout the Acts (2:36; 4:27), and Paul spread it among the Gentiles. Jesus filled the office of Messiah with his own person, sometimes applying OT prophecies to himself, and so other titles or descriptions (Son of man, Son of God, Savior) rapidly overwhelmed the original Hebrew concept of the "anointed one," which simply was substantivized into a name, as in the first verse of Mark: the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Ever since Bultmann a large modernist school has attempted in this century to deny that Jesus was himself conscious of being the "anointed one" or Messiah. But this rests upon an extremely arbitrary reading of the Gospels which conservative critics have learned in recent years how better to refute.

In Church History. Such numerous references to anointing in Scripture could not fail to have an impact upon Christians in the course of the church's history. Beginning in the eight and ninth centuries kings and bishops were anointed with chrism (holy oil) upon their elevation into office. They were considered the vicars or placeholders of Christ, set apart, like the kings and high priests of the OT, for divine service. Anointing was extended to the thumbs and hands of Catholic bishops (with which they are to bless the people), and is still a part of the ritual today. Kings were anointed with cathechumen's oil (a lesser oil to distinguish them from the sacerdotal office) into the nineteenth century. Beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries the hands of priests were anointed at their ordination in order to dedicate to the Lord that which was, in Catholic teaching, to confect and to hold the Body of Christ. Beyond these instances of ritual anointing there are two others which came to assume sacramental status in the Roman Catholic Church.

From at least the year 200 onward, the church practiced a postbaptismal anointing (see II Cor. 1:21; I John 2:20-27) and laying on of hands (see Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6) in order to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the early church and in large measure still in Eastern churches, this was not clearly distinguished from the baptism itself, and the rite took its name from the anointing or, more accurately, from the chrism it employed. In the course of the Middle Ages the Western or Catholic Church separated this rite from baptism and elevated it to the sacrament of confirmation, through which, its theologians taught, an increased or fortifying grace of the Spirit was conferred upon children or young adults.

The command to anoint the sick found in James 5:14 together with a suggestive reference in Mark 6:13 led to a practice which in the Catholic Church eventually came to be known as extreme unction and since Vatican II is once again called the anointing of the sick. From early Christian times until about 800 there are scattered references in both the Eastern and Western churches to the anointing of the sick with oil blessed by a priest or bishop, but such anointing was still repeatable and could be performed by laymen as well as clergy. Between 900 and 1300 Western practice linked it to penance done in mortal illness and the viaticum, the final reception of Communion, and thus it came to be regarded as the final forgiveness of sins, the healing of the soul which prepared it for heaven and the beatific vision. Medieval theologians often set it in parallel with cleansing infants of original sin at baptism (according to Catholic theology). Protestant Reformers uniformly rejected both the practice and its associated theology. In recent years, however, scattered Protestant groups have reconsidered the practice, which is now understood only with respect to prayer for physical healing. Just in the last decade the Catholic Church has also reconsidered the medieval practice and theology which had been reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. Pope Paul VI issued a constitution (Sacram unctionem infirmorum, 1972) which placed much greater emphasis upon prayer for healing, wholly ignored the old name of extreme unction, and deemphasised the notion of it as the final sacrament. J. VAN ENGEN

Remembering the Old Ways

The True Church (1649), by William Dell

"The right Church then is not the whole multitude of the people whether good or bad, that join together in an outward form or way of worship.And therefore I shall not speak of this church. But the church I shall speak of is the true Church of the New Testament, which, I say, is not any outward or visible society, gathered together into the consent or use of outward things, forms, ceremonies, worship, as the churches of men are; neither is it known by seeing or feeling, or the help of any outward sense, as the society of mercers or drapers, or the like; but it is a spiritual and invisible fellowship, gathered together in the unity of faith, hope, and love, and so into the unity of the Son, and of the Father by the Spirit; wherefore it is wholly hid from carnal eyes, neither hath the world any knowledge or judgment of it.

"This true Church is the communion of Saints, which is the communion believers have with one another; not in the things of the world, nor in the things of man, but in the things of God. For as believers have their union in the Son, and in the Father, so in them also they have their communion; and the communion they have with one another in God cannot be in their own things, but in God's things, even in his light, life, righteousness, wisdom, truth, love, power, peace, joy, &c. This is the true communion of Saints, and this communion of Saints is the true Church of God.

"Now this true Church of God differs from the churches of men in very many particulars, as follows.

"In the churches of men members are admitted through an outward confession of doctrine; but none are admitted into these true Church but through a new birth from God and his Spirit. John 3.: Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which is the right Church of the New Testament.

"The churches of men knit themselves together into such societies by some outward covenant or agreement among themselves. But the true Church is knit into their society among themselves by being first knit unto Christ, their head; and as soon as ever they are one with him, they are also one with one another in him; and are not first one among themselves, and then after one with Christ. So that the true Church is a spiritual society knit unto Christ by faith, and knit to one another in Christ by the Spirit and love; and this makes them infinitely more than one than any outward covenant they can engage themselves in, the union wherein God makes us one, passing all the unions wherein we can make ourselves one. And so when some believers perceive the grace that is given unto others, they presently fall into one communion, without any more ado. Wherefore they that are of the Church, the body, cannot deny communion to them that are in true union with Christ, the head, when they do perceive this grace. For this is considerable in this matter, that we are not first one with the Church, and then after one with Christ; but we are first one with Christ, and then one with the Church, and our union with the Church flows from our union with Christ, and not our union with Christ, from our union with the Church. Christ (John 17.) prays, That they all (that is, believers) may be one in us; so that our Union is not first among ourselves, and then with the Son, and with the Father, but it is first with the Son, and with the Father, and then with one another in them. And Christ is the door through which we enter into the Church, and not the Church the door through which we enter into Christ. For men may join themselves to believers in the use of all outward ordinances, and yet never be joined to Christ, nor to that communion which believers have in Christ; but a man cannot be joined to Christ but he is joined to all believers in the world, in the communion they have with Christ and with one another in him; which upon all occasions he enjoys with them wherever he meets with them. So that the true Church is knit up together into one body and society by one faith and Spirit; the churches of men by an outward covenant or agreement only.

"The churches of men have the government of them laid on men's shoulders.But the true Church hath its government laid only on Christ's shoulders.For if the Church be gathered together in Christ, as the true Church is, Christ is always in the midst of them, and if Christ is ever present with them, his own self, how cometh it to pass that Christ may not reign immediately over them? Wherefore the true Church reckons it sufficient authority that they have Christ and his word for the ground of their practice; and whatever they find in the Word, they presently set upon the practice of it, and never ask leave either of civil or ecclesiastical powers. But the churches of men will do nothing without the authority of the magistrate or assembly, though it never be so clear in the word of God. For in their religion they regard the authority of men more than the authority of God.

"The churches of men are still setting themselves one above another, but the assemblies of the true Church are all equal, having Christ and the Spirit equally present with them and in them. And therefore the believers of one congregation cannot say they have power over the believers of another congregation, seeing all congregations have Christ and his Spirit alike among them, and Christ hath not anywhere promised that he will be more with one than another. And so Christ and the Spirit in one congregation do not subject, neither are subjected to Christ and the Spirit in another congregation, as if Christ and the Spirit in several places should be above and under themselves. But Christ in each assembly of the faithful is their head, and this head they dare not leave, and set up a fleshly head to themselves whether it consist of one or many men, seeing Antichrist doth strongly invade Christ's headship in many as in one man, in council, as in a pope.

"Now the true Church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as, it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of his Church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world. [See following Scripture references.]

"As the Church of the faithful hath power from Christ to meet together, soto appoint its own outward orders.And these things each church or communion of Saints may order by itself, according to the wisdom of the Spirit, so it observe these rules. That they do all things in love, seeing all laws without love are tyranny; and so whatsoever is not from, and for, love, is not to appointed; and if it be, it is again to be abolished; seeing no text of the scripture itself, if it build not up love, is rightly interpreted. They are to do all things for peace.They must appoint nothing as of necessity; for there is no more pestilent doctrine in the Church than to make those things necessary which are not necessary. For thus the liberty of faith is extinguished, and the consciences of men ensnared.They may persuade their orders (if they see cause) by the spirit of love and meekness, but must not enforce them upon pain of secular punishment or church-censure, as those use to do that make themselves lords and tyrants in the Church. For these outward things the Church can order only for the willing, but not for the unwilling." William Dell, The Way of True Peace and Unity (1649), from Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp. 303-310.

Bits and Pieces

The Roman House

MACE, mase, a club-shaped staff used as a symbol of authority in legislative assemblies. If the members appear at times turbulent and beyond the Speaker's control, the mace is carried down the aisle by a sergeant-at-arms, and the act at once restores order. Any member disregarding the mace is in contempt and liable to censure and expulsion. It was first known in early Roman days, when lictors bore fasces, or staves, before magistrates.

In the United States the mace in the House of Representatives in Washington is about three feet in length, and consists of ebony rods bound together with a band of silver. A silver globe stands on a protruding rod, on which rests a silver eagle with wings outspread. See the article LICTOR, for illustration of fasces." The World Book Encyclopedia (1935), pages 4177-4178.

The Roman House Members

LICTORS, lik' torz, in ancient Rome, the official attendants who were appointed to enforce due respect for the chief magistrates and fulfill their commands. The number of lictors depended on the magistrate's rank. A dictator, when appearing in public, was preceded by twenty-four lictors; a consul was preceded by twelve, a propraetor by six, and a praetor by two. The lictors carried axes tied in bundles of rods called fasces, as an ensign of office. The duty also devolved on the lictors of inflicting punishment on Roman citizens who had been condemned. In later times, fasces were carried before the emperor." The World Book Encyclopedia (1935), pages 3976-3977.

The Game

"The deadliest thing that ever can happen to Christianity is that non-Christians should beat Christians at what the Master intended to be their own game, pouring mankind from vessel to vessel." H. E. Fosdick, in Dictionary of American Maxims (1955), p. 375.

Doctrine?

"The first thing that must be said of the Christian doctrine of man is that it is not a 'theory' or a philosophumenon, but a statement of faith. Thus even the expression 'doctrine' is misleading, or at least it needs some explicit explanation. It is the essential element in the Christian faith--and it is this which distinguishes it from all religions, as well as from all mysticism, philosophy, and science--that its statements do not spring from a process of analysis or meditation, or reflection upon existence [all based in natural reason] but from their relation to an historical event [Creation], in which it itself, as one element, participates, and in so doing itself becomes historical. One is tempted to contrast the Christian faith as a metaphysic of history with the non-historical philosophies or religions--that is, with those which have no essential relation to the historical. But again, to do so would be to miss the whole point and distinctive character of the Christian statement." Brunner, Man in Revolt (1947), p. 49.

The Lawless

"Lawless, Lawlessness. adj. ANOMOS, without law, denotes lawless, and is so rendered in the R.V. of Acts 2:23, 'lawless (men),' marg., '(men) without the law,' (A.V.), 'wicked (hands);' 2 Thess. 2:8, 'the lawless one' (A.V., 'that wicked'), of the man of sin (ver.4); in 2 Pet. 2:8, of deeds (A.V., 'unlawful'), where the thought is not simply that of doing what is unlawful, but of flagrant defiance of known will of God. See, LAW, c, no. 3." Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940), vol. II, p. 317

Issue the Forty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Language of the Tower, Part One...

What is in a "name?", Part One...

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

The Language of the Tower

Part One

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

During the course of running the race set before us, to and for our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, many Brothers and Sisters have asked what words all of us should be using, what words to avoid, and what to do or say when we hear the words of our Sovereign's Adversary. This work is to address some of that particular need, bringing together a number of seemingly separated works together in one work that can be useful during your sojourn here. All instances within a quote where the words are preceded with an asterisk within brackets [*...] are our interpolations.

There are probably hundreds of other words, but these are the most popular words we have seen in our research and heard used in all of our discourses with the ministers of the Foe. All of these words you do not find in Scripture in the way the heathen, or natural man, uses them. For instance, you will find the word "home" in Scripture; but it is not a noun, it is an adverb, i.e.:

"Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;" Deut. 21:12
"And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house." Luke 9:61

These two passages show that "home" and "house" are not synonymous parts of speech; and the substitution of one for the other is incorrect. The natural man has made it into a noun for his deceitful purposes. For further confirmation of this, Cruden's or Strong's Concordance may be used.

Every kingdom has its particular language. In America it is American English; in England it is British English; in Japan it is Japanese. Using the words of the Kingdom/kingdom to which you belong is evidence of who you belong to. For instance, when an American meets a Japanese, both speak their own respective languages, and though neither understands the other, they know that the other is not of or from the same kingdom. When Christ Jesus goes looking for His lost sheep, He is looking for those who hear or respond to His voice having His Word written on their hearts, and speaking that Word to Him from their hearts through their works in fulness of faith to Him, thereby bearing witness to the world that they are His. He knows who are His and those who are not. He knows the counterfeits from those who are of His flock. Those not of the Tower know that:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

When Satan looks for the ignorant and weak, he looks for those who ignorantly use the words his ministers have conjured up through their partaking of and using falsely-named knowledge (see 1 Timothy 6:20), i.e. science/philosophy or the wisdom of the world. They speak those words and survive by those words and hear not the words of Christ Jesus. They "desire" the "Language of the Tower," or in Kenneth Boulding's estimation, "the imaginary road leading from nowhere to nothing":

"on the vital matter of intellectual freedom, the image of the academic world is split and divided. We do not know from whence comes our peace, or our prosperity. The universe of discourse is crumbling into a multiverse, and in one's more depressed moments one looks forward to a time when the progress of science [*a graven image] will grind to a standstill in a morass of mutual incomprehensibility [confusio]. Out of our intellectual pride, we may be building a new Tower of Babel." Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), p. 139.
"BABEL, TOWER. A symbol of the false conception [*the lie] that the highest truth may be reached through the exercise of the lower [*human] mental faculties [*philosophy and reason]." Gaskell, Dictionary of All Scriptures and Myths (1960), p. 88.
"Ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum --Where the law is uncertain [*confused], there is no law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2165.

A few basics to start us off are the following:

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4.
"TRUTH. There are three conceptions as to what constitutes 'truth': Agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself. Memphis Telephone Co. v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., C.C.A.Tenn., 231 F. 835, 842." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1685.

Christ manifested all three requirements, for He is the Truth. But the natural man and his vain philosophies deliver none:

"Law and reality. But it is precisely such devices and metaphors that the fictionalist philosophy regards as the best examples of the fiction, and so once more we are brought up against the problem of reality, which has so long perplexed the philosophers and which therefore lawyers can hardly hope to solve." J. W. Jones, Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law (1940), p. 178.

The so-called problem perceived by the lawyer was solved by Christ's death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. See Colossians 2:14-16.

One of the many "curiosities of the law" shows the lies and deceit that surrounds the "law" and "law words" of the natural man:

"Lord Denman, delivering judgment in the House of Lords, in a celebrated case, took occasion to remark, that a large portion of the legal opinion which has passed current for law falls within the description of 'law taken for granted'; and that, 'when, in the pursuit of truth, we are obliged to investigate the grounds of the law, it is plain, and has often been proved by recent experience, that the mere statement and restatement of a doctrine--the mere [*and vain] repetition of the cantilena of the lawyers--cannot make it law, unless it can be traced to some competent authority, and if it be irreconcilable to some clear legal principle.' [O'Connell v. The Queen, 11 Clark & Finnelly, p. 373. And see per Pollock, C. B. 2 H. & N. 139.]" Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 157.

The doctrine of lawyers, judges, and legislators through their vain and empty repetitions can never be Law nor bind those in and of Christ Jesus. All authority must be traceable to The Tree of Life, otherwise it is no authority at all; it is dead in Law.

Persons, Human Being, Individuals, Private, Citizens, Civilian, Pagans, Home, Residence, Resident

"it is precisely those enterprises that are 'creatures of the law' to which the Fourteenth Amendment is addressed." Pollak, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity, 108 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1959).

That "amendment" was the continuing setup of fascism in America. The beginning was the U.S. Constitution:

"It was clear enough by the time of the Treaty of Paris that the loose confederation was not working very well; it was equally clear that Americans were not yet prepared to embrace, as an alternative, the Old World model of centralized nation-states. Was there perhaps something in between --something that could satisfy the interests and quiet the fear of particularism and fulfill the demands of nationalism without sacrificing those liberties for whose vindication the Americans had fought a war of independence? Could they solve that problem which had for centuries baffled and confounded statesmen of the Old World: the problem of imperial organization or--to put it in American terms--of federalism? "They could and they did." Henry Steele Commager, The Empire of Reason (1978), p. 207.

Constitutional law is the morality of fascism and comes from the vain imaginations of men. It is a code, rule, or regulation for the dead thing it brings into being. This is based upon the following:

"The Volksgeist. Savigny's version of the new creed has become familiar. A people's law, like its language or its moral and political order, is the product of the Volksgeist--of something vaguely conceived to be compounded only in part of reason and primarily of intuition, custom, tradition, animal instinct, authority; or, in [*Sir Henry] Maine's words, of the huge mass of opinions, beliefs, and superstitions produced by the institutions and human nature reacting one upon another." J. W. Jones, Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law (1940), pp. 55-56.

In the following, we see that Truth cannot be distorted, or made into a lie. Only that which is a lie to begin with can be made to appear as the truth:

"The fictions of Jurisprudence are therefore assertions [*void of Truth] about rules of law and not about the facts to which these rules apply, although they often take the form of attaching to new groups of facts consequences formerly following other groups. In essence they are metaphors of speech, terminological devices [*terms of art], and not distortions of the truth." J. W. Jones, Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law (1940), p. 177.

This helps in distinguishing the Truth from a lie, for "jurisprudence" itself is a terminological device, or term of art.

"HUMANITY, PRINCIPLE OF. Principle doing the same work as the principle of charity, but suggesting that we regulate our procedures of interpretation by maximizing the extent to which we see the subject as humanly reasonable, rather than the extent to which we see it as right." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 178.

Humanitarianism is a counterfeit of the Love in Christ of the Brethren--the fulfilling of the Law.

"HUMAN BEING. See MONSTER." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 389.

This is the natural man or "the old man."

"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), p. 584.

We may state definitively that the sole purpose of constitutions is to free human beings from God's Law in order to chain them to the morality of the State dictated in its codes, rules, and regulations:

"The old constitution of the United States is the noblest instrument of human [*monster] freedom [*the Way to Truth and Life is too difficult, so the monster is turned loose] ever devised by man, it has grown with our [*sinful philosophical and commercial] growth and risen to the demands of every [*perceived] emergency [*because it is a molten image] for more than a century and a half." Quin O'Brien (1934), speech to the Nebraska State Bar, 13 Nebraska Law Bulletin 69, at 75.

All constitutions were created by the fallen reason of the natural man, and are molded by reasonable interpretation of human beings wearing black robes.

"PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not clothed with office." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2712.

Private rights are always weighed against the greater public good and are regulated by the "police power," post.

"PAGAN. heathen. XIV--L. paganus rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pagus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, f. *pag-, p g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of paganus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christians calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of his militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen--OF. paien (mod. paien)=Pr. paien, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), pp. 640-641.
"CIVILIAN. One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy, or (in England) the church." Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition, 1957 & 1968), p. 313.

Civilians are separate from the Lawful Assemblies in and of Christ.

"INDIVIDUAL. 1. Any thing regarded as something single, as a unit. 2. Especially, a person, a human being.
"In Mournier's personalism, 'individual' is used pejoratively, in contrast to 'person.' An individual is shallow, egocentric, inauthentic, materialistic, with no sense of values or vocation in life [*idle or dead]. A person is the opposite, adopts freely values [*morality] by which to live, and relates to others in a spirit of community [*society or class].
"The word derives from the Latin individuum, which was used by Boethius to translate the Greek atomon, both words signify undividedness [*unity with the world]." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1996), p. 272.

Human beings and things are the same. Pagan forms of law are imposed upon and operate on things, not on words.

"Legislatorum est viv vox, rebus et non verbis legem imponere --The voice of the legislators is a living voice to impose laws on things and not on words." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Non verbis, sed ipsis rebus, leges imponimus --We impose laws, not on words, but upon things themselves." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1205.

This is how the "police power" attaches to those who do not sojourn in Christ.

"EARTHLY, adj. Mundane, material, temporal, secular. See IRRELIGION." Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form (1940), p. 153.
---------------
"IRRELIGION.--I. Nouns. irreligion, impiety, irreligionism, ungodliness, irreverence, godlessness, wickedness; laxity, apathy, indifference.
"skepticism or scepticism, doubt, unbelief, disbelief, incredulity, agnosticism, freethinking; materialism, hylotheism, rationalism, positivism, Comtism, Pyrrhonism, Humism; atheism, infidelity, antichristianity, antichristianism.
"irreligionist, skeptic, unbeliever, heretic, giaour (Turkish), zendik (Arabic), infidel, atheist, miscreant (archaic), heathen, alien, gentile, Nazarene; freethinker, rationalist, materialist, positivist, Comtist, agnostic, Pyrrhonist, nullifidian, esprit fort (F.), nihilist.
"II. Verbs. be irreligious, doubt, disbelieve, skepticize, or scepticize, question, lack faith, deny the truth.
"III. Adjectives. irreligious, undevout, godless, graceless, ungodly, irreverent, profane, impious, blasphemous; unholy, unsanctified, unhallowed.
"skeptical, or sceptical, freethinking, agnostic or agnostical, incredulous, Pyrrhonean, Pyrrhonic, positivistic, materialistic or materialistical, unbelieving, unconverted, faithless, atheistic, nullifidian, unchristian, antichristian.
"worldly, mundane, earthly, carnal, worldly-minded, unspiritual, unregenerate.
"See also IMPIETY, INCREDULITY, UNBELIEF.--Antonyms. See ORTHODOXY, PIETY, THEOLOGY, WORSHIP." Roget's Thesaurus in Dictionary Form (1940), p. 267.
---------------
"PERSON. The characteristic of a person is that he has the capacity to appear at law to defend his rights or prosecute his claims [*One who sojourns in Christ has right to the Tree of Life only]. Until modern times, the extent of this capacity varied greatly with the status of his person. Some persons had full capacity and some only a limited capacity. But personality existed, if there was any such capacity, no matter how restricted. Even a serf was a person to some extent. The only exception was that of a slave, wherever slavery was lawful. At the present time, every living human being is, at common law, a person, although there are still degrees of legal capacity, depending on status, on age and, in a number of jurisdictions, on sex.
"1. In a few common law jurisdictions, persons condemned to life imprisonment are declared to be 'civilly dead,' but they do not cease to be persons in many important respects. They may be sued at law, although they generally may not be plaintiffs, and various devices are used to protect their property interests. See Death, civil.
"2. Human beings are called 'natural' persons, to distinguish them from 'artificial' persons or corporations. [*But for all purposes in statutes, they are the same.] At common law, corporations are declared to be 'persons at law,' or 'artificial' persons. As such they may sue and be sued, and are invested with rights and liabilities different from those of all or any of the natural persons [*human beings who are like the thing they worship--the State licensing their corporation and their corporate status. See Psalm 115 and Psalm 135.] who by combination form them. To acquire the status of artificial or legal personality, the group seeking it must be incorporated, i.e., must obtain a formal state license, which is now obtainable upon fulfilling certain relatively simple requirements. Unincorporated groups, like partnerships, clubs, churches, societies, are given a certain limited and restricted personality at common law, but that is rather for convenience than in recognition of a legal status.
"3. In modern civil law, while incorporation is necessary for some purposes, chiefly in commercial law, any group of persons, acting as a unit, may be treated as an artificial or legal person, and the same is true of a fund, like a foundation or a trust, or a complex of interests like the estate of a decedent. [*This is the condition of the "religious society."]
"4. Within the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the term 'person' includes corporations as well as human beings, but it has been held not to include a political subdivision. Warren Co. v. Heister, 219 La. 763, 54 S.2d 12." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 249.
---------------
"PERSONALTY. Personal property; movable property; chattels.
"In old practice, an action was said to be in the personalty, where it was brought against the right person or the person against whom in law it lay. Old Nat.Brev. 92; Cowell.
"Quasi personalty. Things which are movable in point of law, though fixed to things real, either actually, as emblements, (fructus industriales), fixtures, etc.; or fictitiously, as chattels-real [*deeds], leases for years, etc." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.
---------------
"39. Persons, in law, are entities having capacity to own or be bound by legal rights. [*Those in agreement with the social contract based upon or founded in morality common to them.]
"In General
"The capacity to be the subject or owner of a legal right is the ability to control or influence the acts of others with the aid of the State [*going to law], whereas the capacity to be bound by legal rights is the ability to act so as to subject oneself to the correlative conditions imposed by the legal rights of others. Any entity capable of having legal rights and acting so as to assume legal duties or incur legal liabilities has the status of a legal person, and possesses legal personality. [*Moral persons and legal persons are one and the same thing.]
"Natural and Juristic Persons
"Legal personality is conferred by the [*Roman imperial] law upon two classes of persons, natural and juristic. The former [*natural person] is composed of human beings; the latter, of [*belong to] the State, municipalities, and private corporations. And, although the legal personality of a juristic person may be limited in certain particulars by reason of hte nature of such a person, to the extent that it is conferred the legal personality of a juristic person is as effective as that of a natural person. [*Juristic person, natural person, and moral person are one and the same in and under the State.] On the other hand, not all natural persons have complete legal personalities and may thus be distinguished by their 'normal' and 'abnormal' legal personalities. For example, a natural person may be said to have a 'normal' legal personality when he has the capacity to enforce [*civil] rights in court, assume legal duties [*prescribed by code, rule or regulation], and incur civil and criminal liabilities; whereas such a person has an 'abnormal' legal personality when he does not have all of these capacities. Such abnormality, or an incapacity precluding a natural person from having complete legal personality, may be the consequence of of any of the following conditions: (1) infancy; (2) marriage; (3) alienage; (4) mental infirmity; or, (5) conviction of a crime.
"Except for rights to inherit property accorded an unborn child but which do not become effective until the child is born alive, and except for what protection may be given an unborn child by statutes making abortions criminal, it may be said that the legal personality of a natural person begins with his birth [*note carefully what God tells us in Jeremiah 1:4-5--you have no "legal personality."]; and except for those causes of action which are allowed by the law to survive, it may be said the legal personality of a natural person ends with his death." Smith, Elementary Law (1939), pp. 112-113.

The terms "legal," "person" and "owner" are all Roman imperial terms and are used and promoted heavily to further Caesar's fascist State.

"PERSON. This word is applied to men, women, and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonomous terms [*but for purposes of statutes, they are made equivalent because "man" in vacuo is a flexible term]. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society [*built upon the common morality], with all the [*moral] rights to which the place he holds entitles him [*gives him a title of "citizen"], and the duties [*moral obligations] which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
"2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Comm. 123; 4 Bing. 669; S. C. 33 Eng. C. L. R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
"3. But when the word 'person' is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178. [*Natural persons and artificial persons treated the same in and by statutes, codes, rules, and regulations.]
"4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
"5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons; for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
"6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; Vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
"7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
"8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants. [*Because of the moral obligations and moral entities given to each of them.]
"9. For the derivation of the word person, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), pp. 332-333.
---------------
"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand: but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper useThe words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had a peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individualsA person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is investednot an individual or physical person, but the status, condition, or character borne by physical personsThe law of persons is the law of status or condition.
"A moments reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes [*the lies of philosophy]; this is his personalitythat is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations (*from the caldron pot)." American Law and Procedure, Volume 13, pp. 137-162 (1910).
---------------
"PERSON. n. [L. persona, lit., a face mask used by actors on the stage, hence a character, a person, from personare, to sound through; per, through, and sonare, to sound.] 1. An individual human being, especialy as distinguished from a thing, or lower animal; an individual man, woman, or child. A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted than a zeal for things.--Sprat. 2. A common individual: used in slight or contempt. 3. (a) A living human body; (b) bodily form or appearance; as, she was neat and clean about her person. The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.--Bacon. 4. Personality; self; being; as, his very person. 5. In grammar, (a) division into three classes of pronouns and, in most languages, corresponding verb forms, the use of which indicates and is determined by the identity of the subject, thus: the first person (I or we) is used when the subject is the speaker; the second person (you) when the subject is spoken to; the third person (he, she, or it) when the subject is spoken of; (b) any of these three classes. 6. In law, any individual or incorporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities. [These describe the mask through which the entity sounds through either vocally or by deed.] 7. In theology, one of the three modes of being (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in the Trinity. 8. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the stage; a character; as, a player appears in the person of King Lear. [Archaic.] 9. In biology, a bud or shoot of a plant; a polyp or zooid of any compound hydrozoan, anthozoan, etc. In person; in the flesh; in bodily presence." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 1338.
---------------
"PERSON An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings. Often used without definition, as in the U.S. Constitution (Arts. I, II, III, IV; Amends. IV, V, XII, XIV, XXII). Defined, and redefined, in an endless succession of special purpose statutes, with no assurance to the profession that this is the person you thought you were talking about. The definitions here give an overview of current usage. This omits a whole list of historical horrors in the ugly shadows of slavery, racism, and sexism.
"1. A human being without regard to sex, legitimacy, or competence. This person is the central figure in law, as elsewhere, characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings; with rights and duties under the law. This is the person, sometimes called an individual, and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person.
"2. The physical, biological human being. This is the person who is injured or killed, the person of 'injury to the person 'and of firearms 'concealed upon the person.' This sense overlaps the sense of the person with rights (sense 1), e.g., 'No person shall be excluded on the basis of sex.' Overlaps again on the question of when one becomes a person:
"Existing person: a child unborn, en ventre sa mere (see), a person for purposes of inheritance, but not a person in the criminal law generally. As of this writing, in the abortion controversy, 'a 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.' (Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113, 158)....

[NOTE The fruit of the womb have no "legal personality" assigned them under the Fourteenth Amendment while they are in the womb. Legal personality is assigned at or after delivery from the womb.]

....."3. An artificial person: an abstraction of convenience regarded by the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who create or own it. The classic of this person is the corporation (see under corporate), a being distinct from its shareholders; in its own name owning property, contracting, suing and being sued, taxed, and regulated, with rights and duties often spelled out in statutes and constitutional decision. A labor union and a business trust (see trust) have also been described as artificial persons. The expressions juristic person and legal entity (see, below, in this entry) are frequently used as synonyms of artificial person." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 479.
---------------
"A juristic person is domestic in the [*forum] State by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine.Nationality in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 3, 7.
"The personal law of natural persons depends in different legal systems upon jus sanguinis, jus soli, or domicile. Juristic persons can have no jus sanguinis or jus soli, but they can have domicile [*within the law creating them]." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, supra, 14.

To be continued next month.

What is in a "name?"

Part One:

Written solely by the Grace of God in and

through Christ Jesus by John Joseph, His mere bondman

Throughout the pages of the News we have discussed the importance of names and what they mean in terms of Law. In furtherance of this calling, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ blessed us recently with a case from Indiana concerning the importance of the "the name" in legal process. I know there will be those who may be thinking that we should "obey all government authority," therefore giving your name is not important. I agree that we should obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne. The above statement pre-supposes that we are doing His Will, and not our own will. A few passages from Scripture will suffice in this regard:

"Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face. And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord God; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel." Ezekiel 44:4-9.
"They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off." Hosea 8:4.

The strangers mentioned above are those who are not circumcised in heart by the Word of God, and for that cause have not His Seal. Therefore, God does not recognize them, they have no authority or power from Him, and they are not the higher powers; but are usurpers (TYRANNUS) of His Power:

"TYRANNUS. I, m.=turannosz. I. Gen. A monarch, ruler, sovereign king: Virg.; Hor. II. Esp. A cruel or severe ruler; a despot, tyrant: Cic. Hence, Fr. tyran." White, Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 625.
"DESPOT. princeps or rex, cujus arbitrium pro legibus est, or cujus libido pro legibus habetur (a sovereign whose will is law; after Just., 1, 1, 2; 2, 7, 3); tyrannus, or pure Latin, dominus (a usurper who has obtained absolute power in a free state): rex importunus (opposed to rex clemens)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 198.
"USURPER. Tyrannus (i.e., one who has made himself sovereign of a free state); by circumlocution." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 673.

Their souls are subject to the higher power of God in Christ Jesus:

"All souls are Mine [*not the man's, the State's, or the men using the artifice of the State]; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4.
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18.
"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living." Romans 14:9.
"All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Matthew 11:27.
"All things are delivered to Me of My Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Luke 10:22.
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him." John 17:1-2.
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." John 5:22 & 27.
"For the kingdom is the LORD's: and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28.
"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9:6-7.
"All Thy works shall praise Thee, O LORD; and Thy saints shall bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power; To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13.
"And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through Thy Name." Luke 10:17.

Therefore the Law applies to them,

"He is the LORD our God: His judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant He made with Abraham, and His oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, He reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm." Psalm 105:7-15. See also 2 Chronicles 16.

God's restriction of the acts of the heathen against His Inheritance in His church applies:

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:26-29.

And He has delegated to His Assembly and those serving Him the same Authority that flows through Him from the Father:

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luke 10:19.

Now, a few basics to help us start off. Names, in general, are given by men to things that are subject to them to mark or note them. They are fictions, and not Truth:

"Nomina sunt symbola rerum --Names are the symbols of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2149.
"Nomina sunt notae rerum --Names are the marks of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148.
"Nomen est quasi rei notamen --A name is as it were a note of a thing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148.

The importance of this cannot be stressed enough. In every one of the above maxims of law, the name always refers to a "thing" or "things." So a name because it refers to a thing does not refer to the bondmen of Christ, for it is written:

"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:8-11.

Those that are in and of Christ have answered His Call to "come out of her My People, and be ye separate":

"CHURCH. (ekklhsian), ek, out, kalew, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Acts 19:39. The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Genesis 28:3), where assembly is given for multitude in margin. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Acts 7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed sunagwgh, of which synagogue is a transcription; sun, together, agw, to bring (Acts 13:43). In Christ's words to Peter the word ejkklhsia acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ejkklhsia, without being confounded with the sunagwgh, the Jewish community. See Acts 5:11; 8:1; 12:1; 14:23, 27, etc. Nevertheless sunagwgh is applied to a Christian assembly in James 2:2, while ejpisunagwgh (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1; Hebrews 10:25. Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ejkklhsia implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way. [*Psalm 127:1 for example]In the New Testament the term is used also in the narrower sense of a single church, or a church confined to a particular place. So of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Romans 16:5); the church at Corinth, the churches in Judea, the church at Jerusalem, etc." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), p. 56.

And are known by and of those who also are in and of Him:

"And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother." Mark 3:32-35.
"And when he putteth forth His own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow: for they know his voice." John 10:4.

Those who have not answered His Call are dead both to Him and to those answering His Call. Therefore, the name of the bondman of Christ is hid from the world:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." John 10:1, 5, 8-9.

Those dead to Christ are made after the image that created them: corporations called "The State" having refused or not heard His Call:

"All states whatever are corporations [*dead]." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall.(U.S.) 419, 468, 1 L.Ed. 440.
"'They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicate, for they have no souls.'--10 Rep. 32 b." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 67.

Corporations are therefore dead to Christ. Those that put their trust in "the State" are just like it--dead to Christ:

"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield." Psalm 115:1-9. See also Psalm 135.

Corporations always mark their property, or "things," with "legal descriptions," a.k.a. "legal personality;"

"Legislatorum est viva vox, regus et non verbis legem imponere --The voice of legislators is a living voice, to impose laws on things and not on words." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2142.
"Legis non verbis sed rebus sunt impositae --Laws are imposed on things and not words." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Debita sequuntur personam debitoris --Debts follow the person of the debtor." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2131.
"What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Woe unto him that saith to the wood [*paper certificate], Awake [*resurrection of something dead or asleep]; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over [*deceit] with gold and silver [*euphonious commercial words], and there is no breath [*soul--see Genesis 1:27 & 2:7] at all in the midst of it." Habakkuk 2:18-19. [Insertions added.]

In other words, Christ is not found in the creations of men, just as God always Seals His and knows His own:

"Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:4-5.
"But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Matthew10:30.
"But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows." Luke 12:7.
"To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." John 10:3 & 14.
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." 2 Timothy 2:19.

And this is what this and all other legal cases rest upon: the office one has, the mark or character one bears having standing in the the courts in which the cause is brought. Let us see what the courts of men say:

"The object of the description of persons in all legal proceedings is to identify them, or to designate their office or the character in which they are to be viewed [*perceived] in the proceeding. All persons are presumed to have what is called a christian or given name, and for the purpose of identifying parties, it is a primary rule in practice and pleading, that the full christian and surname should be given at length, unless averred to be unknown. Under our criminal code, as well as the old practice in this State, the christian name of the defendant, if known, must be set out in full in the indictment or information." Gardner v. The State, 4 Indiana 632; Bicknell Criminal Practice, 84."

Note carefully the there are three purposes for a name: One, to identify those who have standing in the court, the subjects of the "law" relied upon by the one opening the action:

"The party who brings a suit is master to decide what law he will rely upon." Reynolds v. Royal Mail Lines, Inc. (1957), 147 F.Supp. 223, aff'd 254 F.2d 55, cert. denied 358 U.S. 818, 79 S.Ct. 28, 3 L.Ed.2d 59.

.....and used in deciding the controversy; Two, the office they have, if any; and Three, the character in which they will be seen during the course of all proceedings of the litigation. The first is why you never cast your pearls before swine, by giving the name God calls you, to those who are not of God:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6.

When you do, it will be converted to something dead of the State's creation to give standing in its courts, because the law it declares is the one written on its books--codes, rules and regulations. You are now re-defining yourself in terms of "the person," or "juridical man," described in its codes, rules, and regulations. The other indicia are a birth date and an address. This makes up the whole "juridical man." In this court, the fiction, (or more accurately) the lie, is the truth that only the dead see:

"Fictio est contra veritatem, sed pro veritate habetur --Fiction is against the truth, but it is to be esteemed truth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.

This is how the State courts of the dead acquire jurisdiction. This is seen in the following:

"Homo iuridicus. Kelsen's system provides the most thoroughgoing attempt yet made to work out a purely objective theory of law. It is directed particularly against what he calls ' politico-psychological' conceptions of law. In some ways it forms a curious parallel with the modern pure theory of economics, which seeks to abolish from economic science all reference to the mental processes which precede economic action and also to exclude any thing which smacks of political evaluation. To such a science, the concept of economic good is a purely formal one: things are included in wealth, not because they have substantial qualities which contribute to human welfare, but because they are scarce. And the concept of an economic man, who buys in the cheapest and sells in the dearest market, is defended as no more than a device for distinguishing the subject-matter of economics from that of other sciences. Since the science of economics is not concerned with ends, as such, but only with the forms taken by human conduct in the disposition of goods which are scarce, it classifies as economic, or non-economic, human acts and not human motives. As a counterpart to this homo æconimicus, Kelsen sets up a homo iuridicus who is merely a number of legally relevant acts, i.e. acts which make up the content of legal rules [*codes, rules, and regulations]. Farther along the road of abstraction is the 'physical person,' a symbol for the aggregate of legal rules having reference to one and the same legal man [*the imposition of legal rules upon the legal person represented by the physical man-the surety for the legal person]; and, farther still, the 'legal person' representing the unity inherent in the complex of rules relating to a number of men forming a group [*class or caste]. Finally there is the State, which is only a name for the unity of a legal system prevailing on a distinct territory, and assumed for the time being to be distinct from the international order and to comprise within itself all other legal entities." J. W. Jones, Historical Introduction to the Theory of Law (1940), pp. 228-229.

The legal entities contained within the State establish one's relation to the State through the name given the thing by it:

"Relatio est fictio juris et intenta ad unum --Relation is a fiction of law, and is intended for one thing." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1452.
"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas --Law creates a fiction where equity exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143.
"In fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas --In a legal fiction equity always exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2138.

This is the power of words Christ refers to in His walk with us, when He said:

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at Him." Mark:12:17.

The word "render" is the key word in this verse. It means:

"591. APODIDOMI. From 575 and 1325; to give away, i.e. up, over, back, etc. (in various applications):--deliver (again), give (again), (re-)pay(-ment be made), perform, recompense, render, requite, restore, reward, sell, yield." Strong's Greek Dictionary.
"591. RENDER. Apodidomi. 'to give up or back,' is translated 'to render,' (a) of righteous acts, (1) human, Matt. 21:41; 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 16:2, RV (KJV, 'give'); Luke 20:25; Rom. 13:7; 1 Cor. 7:3; (2) divine, Matt. 16:27, RV, 'shall render' (KJV, 'shall reward'), an important RV change; Rom. 2:6; 2 Tim. 4:14, RV (KJV, 'reward'); Rev. 18:6 (ditto); 22:12, RV (KJV, 'give'); (b) of unrighteous acts, Rom. 12:17, RV (KJV, 'recompense'); 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9. See DELIVER, A, No. 3, RECOMPENSE, B, No. 2." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

In other words, if the government of men has not named you, then you cannot restore or give back to them something it or they have not given you. Can dead things part with any thing? Can dead things give any thing? The truth is shown:

"Fictio juris non est ubi veritas --Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.
"Fictio cedit veritati, fictio juris non est ubi veritas --Fiction yields to truth, where the truth appears, there can be no fiction of law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.

Thus, when asked for a name, there is no lawful cause for them to ask for something they never gave because it is impossible for things dead to have any lawful testimony:

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Presumption is that you have a name government has given you, and you are asked to confirm that presumption. If they are sent by God to chastise you, then you must ask them to bear witness of the evil or wickedness you have done in the eyes of our Lord Christ Jesus. This Christ did:

"Which of you convinceth Me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe Me?" John 8:46.
"Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?" John 18:23.

The act must be evil or wicked according to the Perfect living Law of Love in Christ:

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:35-40.
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8.
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Galatians 5:14.

There is no other way it can be evil or wicked, codes, rules, or regulations not with standing for they are the moral traditions or religion of men. We read the following:

"II. Development of doctrine.--Of the scribes of this period, with the exception of Ezra and Zadok, Neh. 13:13, we have no record. A later age honored them collectively as the men of the Great Synagogue. Never, perhaps, was so important a work done so silently. They devoted themselves to the careful study of the text, and laid down rules for transcribing it with the scrupulous precision. As time passed on the 'words of the scribes' were honored above the law. It was a [*596] greater crime to offend against them than against the law. The first step was taken toward annulling the commandments of God for the sake of their own traditions. Mark 7:13. The casuistry became at once subtle and prurient, evading the plainest duties, tampering with conscience. Matt. 15:1-6; 23:16-23. We can therefore understand why they were constantly denounced by our Lord along with the Pharisees. While the scribes repeated the traditions of the elders, he 'spake as one having authority,' 'not as the scribes.' Matt. 7:29. While they confined their teachings to the class of scholars, he 'had compassion on the multitudes.' Matt. 9:36. While they were to be found only in the council or in their schools, He journeyed through the cities and villages. Matt. 4:23; 9:35, etc. While they spoke of the kingdom of God vaguely, as a thing far off, he proclaimed that it had already come nigh to men. Matt. 4:17." Smith's Bible Dictionary, pp. 595-596.

Let us now return to "character." "Character" can not be proven by or through third party testimony because character is what the creator of it says it is, not what opinions we or others speculate or entertain of it:

"KNOWN. Familiar; perceived; recognized; understood; especially, when used absolutely, familiar to all; generally understood or perceived, and term may, according to context, refer to both actual and constructive knowledge. Wolf v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 336 Mo. 746, 81 S.W.2d 323, 333; McCullough v. National Bank of Union City, 127 Pa.Super. 452, 193 A. 65, 66." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1013.
"CHARACTER. Character consists of the qualities which constitute the individual, while reputation is the sum of opinions entertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow [*fiction or lie]. Character is what a person is. Reputation is what people say of him. But not with standing this distinction which is every where agreed upon, the two words are sometimes used, even by judges, as synonymous." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 138.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jeremiah 17:9-10.

This may seem to not apply here, but in reality it is straightforward. God in Christ Jesus testifies to the character of those bondmen in and of Him; Satan testifies to the character of the legal person or juridical man "who is merely a number of legally relevant acts which make up the content of legal rules" embodied in the work of the workmen--codes, rules, and regulations. He and his agents can only testify to reputation of the bondman of Christ for he and they cannot see the heart of any one, but can only speculate about it. Speculation is not Truth and is not even remotely connected to it. Corroboration of the character's creator establishes the Truth of that character. For instance, one may claim to be a "bondman of Christ." Claims must be proved, and not relied upon, to be true. And Brother James, in his general epistle, answers this claim fully:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:14-20.

The fullness of the working of faith to, in and of Christ Jesus in the one producing fruit establishes the Truth of character--not the mere spoken words:

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:16-23.

And so,

"Nomen non sufficit si res non sit de jure aut de facto --A name does not suffice if the thing does not exist by law or by fact." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148.

Casting your pearls before the swine then allows the attachment of jurisdiction, and there is no way out. Once the State has received from you what it needs it must now convert you into something tangible in its darkened eyes: a name in all capital letters. This is "branding" you like an animal. Now it can proceed to do what it needs to engorge its insatiable self.

The Martyrdom of

Perpetua and Felicitas

Introduction, Preface, and Translation by the Rev. R. E. Wallis

Part Two

In last months introduction to this account of early martyrdom, we are told that Perpetua and Felicitas suffered in the reign of Septimius Sererus, about the year 202 a.d. Some think that they suffered at Tuburbium in Mauritania; but the more general opinion is, that Carthage was the scene of their martyrdom.

In Chapter One, we were shown the circumstances leading up to their imprisonment and the steadfastness of these martyrs to put Christ Jesus first, before family and the things of this world.

Chapter Two.

Perpetua, When besieged by Her Father, Comforts Him. When Led with Others to the Tribunal, She Avows Herself a Christian, and is Condemned with the Rest to the Wild Beasts.

1. "After a few days there prevailed a report that we should be heard. And then my father came to me from the city, worn out with anxiety. He came up to me, that he might cast me down, saying, 'Have pity my daughter, on my grey hairs. Have pity on your father, if I am worthy to be called a father by you. If with these hands I have brought you up to this flower of your age, if I have preferred you to all your brothers, do not deliver me up to the scorn of men. Have regard to your brothers, have regard to your mother and your aunt, have regard to your son, who will not be able to live after you. Lay aside your courage, and do not bring us all to destruction; for none of us will speak in freedom if you should suffer anything.' These things said my father in his affection, kissing my hands, and throwing himself at my feet; and with tears he called me not Daughter, but Lady. And I grieved over the grey hairs of my father, that he alone of all my family would not rejoice over my passion. And I comforted him, saying, 'On that scaffold whatever God wills shall happen. For know that we are not placed in our own power, but in that of God.' And he departed from me in sorrow.

2. "Another day, while we at dinner, we were suddenly taken away to be heard, and we arrived at the town-hall. At once the rumor spread through the neighborhood of the public place, and an immense number of people were gathered together. We mounted the platform. The rest were interrogated, and confessed. Then they came to me, and my father immediately appeared with my boy, and withdrew me from the step, and said in a supplicating tone, 'Have pity on your babe.' And Hilarianus the procurator, who had just received the power of life and death in the place of the proconsul Minucius Timinianus, who was deceased, said, 'Spare the grey hairs of your father, spare the infancy of your boy, offer sacrifice for the well- being of the emperors.' And I replied, 'I will not do so.' Hilarianus said, 'Are you a Christian?' And I replied, 'I am a Christian.' And as my father stood there to cast me down from the faith, he was ordered by Hilarianus to be thrown down, and was beaten with rods.

And my father's misfortune grieved me as if I myself had been beaten, I so grieved for his wretched old age. The procurator then delivered judgment on all of us, and condemned us to the wild beasts, and we went down cheerfully to the dungeon. Then, because my child had been used to receive suck from me, and to stay with me in the prison, I sent Pomponius the deacon to my father to ask for the infant, but my father would not give it him. And even as God willed it, the child no longer desired the breast, nor did my breast cause me uneasiness, lest it should be tormented by care for my babe and by the pain of my breasts at once.

Chapter Three.

Perpetua is Again tempted by Her Father. Her Third Vision, Wherein She is Led Away to Struggle Against an Egyptian. She Fights, Conquers, and Receives the Reward.

1. "Again, after a few days, Pudens, a soldier, an assistant overseer of the prison, who began to regard us in great esteem, perceiving that the great power of God was in us, admitted many brethren to see us, that both we and they might be mutually refreshed. And when the day of the exhibition drew near, my father, worn with suffering, came into be and began to tear out his beard, and to throw himself on the earth, and to cast himself down on his face, and to reproach his years, and to utter such words as might move all creation. I grieved for his unhappy old age.

2. "The day before that on which we were to fight, I saw in a vision that Pomponius the deacon came hither to the gate of the prison, and knocked vehemently. I went out to him, and opened the gate for him; and he was clothed in a richly ornamented white robe, and he had on manifold calliculm. And he said to me, 'Perpetua, we are waiting for you; come!' And he held his hand to me, and we began to go through rough and winding places. Scarcely at length had we arrived breathless at the amphitheater, when he led me into the middle of the arena, and said to me, 'Do not fear, I am here with you, and I am labouring with you;' and he departed. And I gazed upon an immense assembly, in astonishment. And because I knew that I was given to the wild beasts, I marvelled that the wild beasts were not let loose upon me. Then there came forth against me a certain Egyptian, horrible in appearance, with his backers, to fight with me. And there came to me, as my helpers and encouragers, handsome youths; and I was stripped, and became a man. Then my helpers began to rub me with oil, as is the custom for contest; and I beheld that Egyptian on the other hand rolling in the dust. And a certain man came forth, of wondrous height, so that he even over-topped the top of the amphitheatre; and he wore a loose tunic and a purple robe between two bands over the middle of the breast; and he had on calliculm of varied form, made of gold and silver; and he carried a rod, as if he were a trainer of gladiators, and a green branch upon which were apples of gold. And he called for silence, and said, 'This Egyptian, if he should overcome this woman, shall kill her with the sword; and if she shall conquer him, she shall receive this branch.' Then he departed. And we drew near to one another, and began to deal out blows. He sought to lay hold of my feet, while I stuck at his face with my heels; and I was lifted up in the air, and began thus to thrust at him as if spurning the earth. But when I saw that there was some delay I joined my hands as to twine my fingers with one another; and I took hold upon his head, and he fell on his face, and I trod upon his head. And the people began to shout, and my backers to exult. And I drew near to the trainer and took the branch; and he kissed me, and said to me, 'Daughter, peace be with you:' and I began to go gloriously to the Sanavivariangate. Then I awoke, and perceived that I was not to fight with beasts, but against the devil. Still i knew that the victory was awaiting me.

This, so far, I have completed several days before the exhibition; but what passed at the exhibition itself, let who will write."

Chapter Four.

Saturus, in a Vision, and Perpetua Being Carried by Angels into the Great Light, Behold the Martyrs. Being Brought to the Throne of God, are Received with a Kiss. They Reconcile Opatus the Bishop and Aspasius the Presbyter.

1. Moreover, also, the blessed Saturus related this his vision, which he himself committed to writing:- "We had suffered," says he, "and we were gone forth from the flesh, and we were beginning to be borne by four angels into the east; and their hands touched us not. And we floated not supine, looking upwards, but as if ascending a gentle slope. And being set free, we at length saw the first boundless light; and I said, 'Perpetua (for she was at my side), 'this is what the Lord promised to us; we have received the promise.' And while we are borne by those same four angels, there appears to us a vast space which was like a pleasure-garden, having rose-trees and every kind of flower. And the height of the trees was after the measure of a cypress, and their leaves were falling incessantly. Moreover, there in the pleasure-garden four other angels appeared, brighter than the previous ones, who, when they saw us, gave us honour, and said to the rest of the angels, 'Here they are! Here they are!' with admiration. And those four angels who bore us, being greatly afraid, put us down; and we passed over on foot the space of a furlong in a broad path. There we found Jocundus and Saturninus and Artaxius, who having suffered the same persecution were burnt alive; and Quintus, who also himself a martyr had departed in the prison. And we asked of them where the rest were. And the angels said to us, 'Come first, enter and greet your Lord.'

2. "And we came near to place, the walls of which were such as if they were built of light; and before the gate of that place stood four angels, who clothed those who entered with white robes. And being clothed, we entered and saw the boundless light, and heard the united voice of some who said without ceasing, 'Holy! Holy! Holy!' And in the midst of that place we saw as it were a hoary man sitting, having snow-white hair, and with a youthful countenance; and his feet we saw not. And on his right hand and on his left were four-and-twenty elders, and behind them a great many others were standing. We entered with great wonder, and stood before the throne; and the four angels raised us up, and we kissed Him, and He passed His hand over our face. And the rest of the elders said to us, 'Let us stand;' and we stood and made peace. And the elders said to us, and enjoy.' And I said, 'Perpetua, you have what you wish.' And she said to me, 'Thanks be to God, that joyous as I was in the flesh, I am now more joyous here.'

3. "And we went forth, and saw before the entrance Optatus the bishop at the right hand, and Aspasius the presbyter, a teacher, at the left hand, separate and sad; and they cast themselves at our feet, and said to us, 'Restore peace between us, because you have gone forth and have left us thus.' And we said to them, 'Art not thou our father, and thou our presbyter, that you should cast yourselves at our feet?' And we prostrated ourselves, and we embraced them; and Perpetua began to speak with them, and we drew them apart in the pleasure-garden under a rose-tree. And while we were speaking with them, the angels said unto them, 'Let them alone, that they may refresh themselves; and if you have any dissensions between you, forgive one another.' And they drove them away. And they said to Optatus, 'Rebuke thy people, because they assemble to you as if returning from the circus, and contending about factious matters.' And then it seemed to us as if they would shut the doors. And in that place we began to recognize many brethren, and moreover martyrs. We were all nourished with an indescribable odour, which satisfied us. Then, I joyously awoke."

Chapter Five.

Secundulus Dies in the Prison. Felicitas is Pregnant, But with Many Prayers She Brings Forth in the Eighth Month Without Suffering, the Courage of Perpetua and of Saturus Unbroken.

1. The above were the more eminent visions of the blessed martyrs Saturus and Perpetua themselves, which they themselves committed to writing. But God called Secundulus, while he has yet in the prison, by an earlier exit from the world, not without favour, so as to give a respite to the beasts. Nevertheless, even if his soul did not acknowledge cause for thankfulness, assuredly his flesh did.

2. But respecting Felicitas (for to her also the Lord's favour approached in the same way), when she had already gone eight months with child (for she had been pregnant when she was apprehended), as the day of the exhibition was drawing near, she was in great grief lest on account of her pregnancy she should be delayed, -- because pregnant women are not allowed to be publicly punished, -- and lest she should shed her sacred and guiltless blood among some who had been wicked subsequently. Moreover, also, her fellow- martyrs were painfully saddened lest they should leave so excellent a friend, and as it were companion, alone in the path of the same hope. Therefore, joining together their united cry, they poured forth their prayer to the Lord three days before the exhibition. Immediately after their prayer her pains came upon her, and when, with the difficulty natural to an eight months' delivery, in the labour of bringing forth she was sorrowing, some one of the servants of the Cataractarii said to her, "You who are in such suffering now, what will you do when you are thrown to the beasts, which you despised when you refused to sacrifice?" And she replied, "Now it is I that suffer what I suffer; but then there will be another in me, who will suffer for me, because I also am about to suffer for Him." Thus she brought forth a little girl, which a certain sister brought up as her daughter.

3. Since then the Holy Spirit permitted, and by permitting willed, that the proceedings of that exhibition should be committed to writing, although we are unworthy to complete the description of so great a glory; yet we obey as it were the command of the most blessed Perpetua, nay her sacred trust, and add one more testimony concerning her constancy and her loftiness of mind. While they were treated with more severity by the tribune, because, from the intimations of certain deceitful men, he feared lest they should be withdrawn from the prison by some sort of magic incantations, Perpetua answered to his face, and said, "Why do you not at least permit us to be refreshed, being as we are objectionable to the most noble Caesar, and having to fight on his birth-day? Or is it not your glory if we are brought forward fatter on that occasion?" The tribune shuddered and blushed, and commanded that they should be kept with more humanity, so that permission was given to their brethren and others to go in and be refreshed with them; even the keeper of the prison trusting them now himself.

4. Moreover, on the day before, when in that last meal, which they call the free meal, they were partaking as far as they could, not of a free supper, but of an agape; with the same firmness they were uttering such words as these to the people, denouncing against them the judgment of the Lord, bearing witness to the felicity of their passion, laughing at the curiosity of the people who came together; while Saturus said, "To-morrow is not enough for you, for you to behold with pleasure that which you hate. Friends today, enemies to-morrow. Yet note our faces diligently, that you may recognize them on that day of judgment." Thus all departed thence astonished, and from these things many believed.

Chapter Six.

From the Prison They are Led Forth with Joy into the Amphitheatre, Especially Perpetua and Felicitas. All Refuse to Put on Profane Garments. They are Scourged, They are Thrown to the Wild Beasts. Saturus Twice is Unhurt. Perpetua and Felicitas are Thrown Down; They are Called Back to the Sanavivarian Gate. Saturus Wounded by a Leopard, Exhorts the Soldier. They Kiss One Another, and are Slain with the Sword.

1. The day of their victory shone forth, and they proceeded from the prison into the amphitheatre, as if to an assembly, joyous and of brilliant countenances; if perchance shrinking, it was with joy, and not with fear. Perpetua followed with placid look, and with step and gait as a matron of Christ, beloved of God; casting down the luster of her eyes from the gaze of all. Moreover, Felicitas, rejoicing that she had safely brought forth, so that she might fight with the wild beasts; from the blood and from the midwife to the gladiator, to wash after childbirth with a second baptism. And when they were brought to the gate, and were constrained to put on the clothing--the men, that of the priests of Saturn, and the women, that of those who were consecrated to Ceres--that noble- minded woman resisted even to the end with constancy. For she said, "We have come thus far of our own accord, for this reason, that our liberty might not be restrained. For this reason we have yielded our minds, that we might not do any such thing as this: we have agreed on this with you." Injustice acknowledged the justice; the tribune yielded to their being brought as simply as they were. Perpetua sang psalms, already treading under foot the head of the Egyptian; Revocatus, and Saturninus, and Saturus uttered threatenings against the gazing people about this martyrdom. When they came within sight of Hilarianus, by gesture and nod, they began to say to Hilarianus, "Thou judgest us," say they, "but God will judge thee." At this the people, exasperated, demanded that they should be tormented with scourges as they passed along the rank of the venatores. And they indeed rejoiced that they should have incurred any one of their Lord's passions.

2. But He who had said, "Ask, and ye shall receive," gave to them when they asked, that death which each one had wished for. For when at any time they had been discoursing among themselves about their wish in respect of their martyrdom, Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows. Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.

3. Moreover, for the young women the devil prepared a very fierce cow, provided especially for that purpose contrary to custom, rivalling their sex also in that of the beasts. And so, stripped and clothed with nets, they were led forth. The populace shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being recalled, they are unbound. Perpetua is first led in. She was tossed, and fell on her loins; and when she saw her tunic torn from her side, she drew it over her as a veil for her middle, rather mindful of her modesty than her suffering. Then she was called for again, and bound up her dishevelled hair; for it was not becoming for a martyr to suffer with dishevelled hair, lest she should appear to be mourning in her glory. So she rose up; and when she saw Felicitas crushed, she approached and gave her her hand, and lifted her up. And both of them stood together; and the brutality of the populace being appeased, they were recalled to the Sanavivarian gate. Then Perpetua was received by a certain one who was still a catechumen, Rusticus by name, who kept close to her; and she, as if aroused from sleep, so deeply had she been in the Spirit and in an ecstasy, began to look round her, and to say to the amazement of all, "I cannot tell when we are to be led out to that cow." And when she had heard what had already happened, she did not believe it until she had perceived certain signs of injury in her body and in her dress, and had recognized the catechumen. Afterwards causing that catechumen and the brother to approach, she addressed them, saying, "Stand fast in the faith, and love one another, all of you, and be not offended at my sufferings."

4. The same Saturus at the other entrance exhorted the soldier Pudens, saying, "Assuredly here I am, as I have promised and foretold, for up to this moment I have felt no beast. And now believe with your whole heart. Lo, I am going forth to that beast, and I shall be destroyed with one bite of the leopard." And immediately at the conclusion of the exhibition he was thrown to the leopard; and with one bite of his he was bathed with such a quantity of blood, that the people shouted out to him as he was returning, the testimony of his second baptism, "Saved and washed, saved and washed." Manifestly he was assuredly saved who had been glorified in such a spectacle. Then to the soldier Pudens he said, "Farewell, and be mindful of my faith; and let not these things disturb, but confirm you." And at the same time he asked for a little ring from his finger, and returned it to him bathed in his wound, leaving to him an inherited token and the memory of his blood. And then lifeless he is cast down with the rest, to be slaughtered in the usual place. And when the populace called for them into the midst, that as the sword penetrated into their body they might make their eyes partners in the murder, they rose up of their own accord, and transferred themselves whither the people wished; but they first kissed one another, that they might consummate their martyrdom with the kiss of peace. The rest indeed, immovable and in silence, received the sword-thrust; much more Saturus, who also had first ascended the ladder, and first gave up his spirit, for he also was waiting for Perpetua. But Perpetua, that she might taste some pain, being pierced between the ribs, cried out loudly, and she herself placed the wavering right hand of the youthful gladiator to her throat. Possibly such a woman could not have been slain unless she herself had willed it, because she was feared by the impure spirit.

O most brave and blessed martyrs! O truly called and chosen unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ! whom whoever magnifies, and honours, and adores, assuredly ought to read these examples for the edification of the Church, not less than the ancient ones, so that new virtues also may testify that one and the same Holy Spirit is always operating even until now, and God the Father Omnipotent, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Whose is the glory and infinite power for ever and ever. Amen.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

"CHURCH. (ekklhsian), ek, out, kalew, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned. So in New Testament, Acts 19:39. The Septuagint uses the word for the congregation of Israel, either as summoned for a definite purpose (1 Kings 8:65), or for the community of Israel collectively, regarded as a congregation (Genesis 28:3), where assembly is given for multitude in margin. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Acts 7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed sunagwgh, of which synagogue is a transcription; sun, together, agw, to bring (Acts 13:43). In Christ's words to Peter the word ejkklhsia acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ejkklhsia, without being confounded with the sunagwgh, the Jewish community. See Acts 5:11; 8:1; 12:1; 14:23, 27, etc. Nevertheless sunagwgh is applied to a Christian assembly in James 2:2, while ejpisunagwgh (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1; Hebrews 10:25. Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ejkklhsia implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way. In the New Testament the term is used also in the narrower sense of a single church, or a church confined to a particular place. So of the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Romans 16:5); the church at Corinth, the churches in Judea, the church at Jerusalem, etc." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, p. 56.

"SCRIBES. (Heb. Sôpherim). I. Name.--(1) Three meanings are connected with the verb sâphar, the root of sôpherism--(a) to write, (b) to set in order, (c.) to count. The explanation of the word has been referred to each of these. The sôpherim were so called because they wrote out the law, or because they classified and arranged its precepts, or becase they counted with scrupulous minuteness every clause and letter it contained. (2) The name of Kirjath-sepher, Josh. 15:15; Judges 1:12, may possibly connect itself with some early use of the title, and appears to point to military functions of some kind, Judges 5:14. The men are mentioned as filling the office of scribe under David and Solomon. 2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3. We may think of them as the king's secretaries, writing his letters, drawing up his decrees, managing his finances. Comp. 2 Kings 12:10. In Hezekiah's time they transcribed old records, and became a class of students and interpreters of the law, boasting of their wisdom. Jer. 8:8. After the captivity the office became more prominent, as the exiles would be anxious above all things to preserve the sacred books, the laws, the hymns, the prophecies of the past. II. Development of doctrine.--Of the scribes of this period, with the exception of Ezra and Zadok, Neh. 13:13, we have no record. A later age honored them collectively as the men of the Great Synagogue. Never, perhaps, was so important a work done so silently. They devoted themselves to the careful study of the text, and laid down rules for transcribing it with the scrupulous precision. As time passed on the 'words of the scribes' were honored above the law. It was a greater crime to offend against them than against the law. The first step was taken toward annulling the commandments of God for the sake of their own traditions. Mark 7:13. The casuistry became at once subtle and prurient, evading the plainest duties, tampering with conscience. Matt. 15:1-6; 23:16-23. We can therefore understand why they were constantly denounced by our Lord along with the Pharisees. While the scribes repeated the traditions of the elders, he 'spake as one having authority,' 'not as the scribes.' Matt. 7:29. While they confined their teachings to the class of scholars, he 'had compassion on the multitudes.' Matt. 9:36. While they were to be found only in the council or in their schools, He journeyed through the cities and villages. Matt. 4:23; 9:35, etc. While they spoke of the kingdom of God vaguely, as a thing far off, he proclaimed that it had already come nigh to men. Matt. 4:17. In our Lord's time there were two chief parties: 1, the disciples of Shammai, the conspicuous for their fierceness, appealing to popular passions, using the sword to decide their controversies. Out of this party grew the Zealots. 2. The disciples of Hillel, born B.C. 112, and who may have been one of the doctors before whom the boy Jesus came in the temple, for he lived to be 120 years old. Hillel was a 'liberal conservative, of genial character and broad range of thought, with some approximations to a higher teaching.' In most of the points at issue between the two parties, Jesus must have appeared in direct antagonism to the school of Shammai, in sympathy with that of Hillel. So far, on the other hand, as the temper of the Hillel school was one of mere adaptation to the feeling of the people, cleaving to tradition, wanting in the intuition of a higher life, the teaching of Christ must have felt as unsparingly condemning it. III. Education and life.--The special training for a scribe's office began, probably about the age of thirteen. The boy who was destined by his parents to the calling of a scribe went to Jerusalem and applied for admission in the school of some famous rabbi. After a sufficent period of training, probably at the age of thirty the probationer was solemnly admitted to his office. After his admission there was a choice of a variety of functions, the chances of failure and success. He might give himself to any one of the branches of study, or combine two or more of them. He might rise to high places, become a doctor of the law, an arbitrator in family litigations, Luke 12:14, the head of a school, a member of the Sanhedrin. He might have to content himself with the humbler work of a transcriber, copying the law and the prophets for the use of synagogues, or a notary, writing out contracts of sale, covenants of espousal, bills of repudiation. The position of the more fortunate was of course attractive enough. In our Lord's time the passion for distinction was insatiable. The ascending scale of rab, rabbi, rabban, presented so many steps in the ladder of ambition. Other forms of worldliness were not far off. The salutations in the market-place, Matt. 23:7, the reverential kiss offered by the scholars to their master or by rabbis to each other, the greeting of Abba, father, Matt. 23:9, the long robes with the broad blue fringe, Matt. 23:5,--all these go to make up the picture of a scribe's life. Drawing to themselves, as they did, nearly all of the energy and thought of Judaism, the close of hereditary caste of the priesthood was powerless to compete with them. Unless the priest became a scribe also, he remained in obscurity. The order, as such, became contemptible and base. For the scribes there were the best places at feasts, the chief seats in synagogues. Matt. 23:6; Luke 14:7." William Smith, Smith's Bible Dictionary, pp. 595-597.

Remembering the Old Ways

On Idolatry

by Tertullian (155-220 A.D.)

Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall

Idolatry: Origin and Meaning of the Name.

Idol in ancient times there was none. Before the artificers of this monstrosity had bubbled into being, temples stood solitary and shrines empty, just as to the present day in some places traces of the ancient practice remain permanently. Yet idolatry used to be practised, not under that name, but in that function; for even at this day it can be practised outside a temple, and without an idol. But when the devil introduced into the world artificers of statues and of images, and of every kind of likenesses, that former rude business of human disaster attained from idols both a name and a development. Thenceforward every art which in any way produces an idol instantly became a fount of idolatry. For it makes no difference whether a moulder cast, or a carver grave, or an embroiderer weave the idol; because neither is it a question of material, whether an idol be formed of gypsum, or of colors, or of stone, or of bronze, or of silver, or of thread. For since even without an idol idolatry is committed, when the idol is there it makes no difference of what kind it be, of what material, or what shape; lest any should think that only to be held an idol which is consecrated in human shape. To establish this point, the interpretation of the word is requisite. Eidos, in Greek, signifies form; eidolon, derived diminutively from that, by an equivalent process in our language, makes formling. Every form or forming, therefore, claims to be called an idol. Hence idolatry is "all attendance and service about every idol." Hence also, every artificer of an idol is guilty of one and the same crime, unless, the people which consecrated for itself the likeness of a calf, and not of a man, fell short of incurring the guilt of idolatry.

Idols Not to be Made, Much Less Worshipped.

Idols and Idolmakers in the Same Category.

God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this cause--the eradicating, namely, of the material of idolatry--the divine law proclaims, "Thou shall make no idol;" and by conjoining, "Nor a similitude of the things which are in the heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea," has interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe over. Enoch had preceded, predicting that "the demons, and the spirits of the angelic apostates, would turn into idolatry all the elements, all the garniture of the universe, all things contained in the heaven, in the sea, in the earth, that they might be consecrated as God, in opposition to God." All things, therefore, does human error worship, except the Founder of all Himself. The images of those things are idols; the consecration of the images is idolatry. Whatever guilt idolatry incurs, must necessarily be imputed to every artificer of every idol. In short, the same Enoch fore-condemns in general menace both idol-worshippers and idol-makers together. And again: "I swear to you, sinners, that against the day of perdition of blood repentance is being prepared. Ye who serve stones, and ye who make images of gold, and silver, and wood, and stones and clay, and serve phantoms, and demons, and spirits in fanes, and all errors not according to knowledge, shall find no help from them." But Isaiah says, "Ye are witnesses whether there is a God except Me." "And they who mould and carve out at that time were not: all vain! who do that which liketh them, which shall not profit them!" And that whole ensuing discourse sets a ban as well on the artificers as the worshippers: the close of which is, "Learn that their heart is ashes and earth, and that none can free his own soul." In which sentence David equally includes the makers too. "Such," says he, "let them become who make them." And why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything further? Why recall anything more from the Scriptures? As if either the voice of the Holy Spirit were not sufficient; or else any further deliberation were needful, whether the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the artIficers of those things, of which He curses and condemns the worshippers!

Bits and Pieces

Taxation and the Police Power

"The power of taxation, another method of taking private property without the consent of the owner is, of course, to be distinguished from the police power. It should be observed, however, that police regulations are often carried out in the guise of taxes or fees resembling taxes. Automobile registration fees is a good example." National Law Library (1939), page 144.

Origin of "The Police Power"

"The term 'police power' was not used in the Constitutional Convention nor did it appear in court decisions, so Judge Hastings tells us, until Mr. Chief Justice Marshall used it in the Brown v. Maryland, in 1827." F. Harold Essert (1933), speech before the Nebraska State Bar, 12 Nebraska Law Bulletin 208, at 210.

The Scope

"The scope of police powers, lodged within government, is capable of development and modification and encompasses needs occasioned by changing conditions and changing environment. [State v. Creamer, 85 Oh. 349, 97 N.E. 602.] It is of particular importance to note that the exercise by the government of the police powers lodged within it may over-ride private or property rights specifically guaranteed by the constitution. [In re Anderson, 89 Neb. 689, 96 N.W. 149; Halter v. State, 74 Neb. 757, 105 N.W. 298; Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 26 S.Ct. 127.]" John J. Ledwith, Guides to Constitutional Construction, 14 Nebraska Law Bulletin 76, 79-84.

Commercial Power

"POLICE POWER. (bus) The authority of a state to legislate to protect public health, safety, morals and welfare--the constitutional basis for state labor legislation." A Dictionary of Business and Scientific Terms (2d. Ed., 1968), p. 322.

A License is:

" A permit...to a person...to pursue some occupation or business which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board, 158 P.2d 199.

America's Children of Labor

"It was evident to Nazi leaders, 'untroubled with humanitarian feeling,' that to secure their right to rule 'as being a superior race' was not enough. They must hold it. They must so shape the attitudes of 'the broad masses' that they right they assumed would remain unquestioned.

"But how? The answer lay ready-made before them--ready-made out of the experience of all great organized religions, and out of the countless experiments of scattered sects, cults, and faiths throughout the world and all history: Control the child! Manipulate its environment. Determine its [*moral] values. Shape its mind. Mold its character.

"And to what end? This the Nazis made unmistakably clear; at the center of all their propaganda 'for the broad masses' is the concept of the 'soldier of labor.' Brady, The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism (1937), p. 161.

The Molten Image

"It is a natural fallacy to believe that a written constitution is a bulwark of property and rights of persons. But, in the words of Professor Merriam:

"...those who thus rely upon words of any constitution for such support are leaning upon a broken reed; and their sense of security is a false one. The Constitution does not protect persons or property against unjust invasion, or prevent governmental control and regulation of business, for after all this depends upon interpretations and application by courts." Charles Edward Merriam, "The Written Constitution and the Unwritten Attitude," page 14.

And the courts are selected from among the ranks of men filled with the spirit of the times." F. Harold Essert, Nebraska Law Bulletin, Volume XII, (1933), page 214.

Scholars of the Molten Image

"Those who for political reasons, or otherwise, maintain that congressional legislation must be specifically authorized by direct grants of authority as contained in provisions of the constitution, do so inadvertence to proper constitutional theory. The point simply is that the constitution is more than a few pages of print that can be read by grade school children in the course of fifteen or twenty minutes. The constitution of the United States consists of the document adopted by the colonies in 1789 plus the thousands of legal decisions handed down by the Supreme Court since that date. He who seeks to expound constitutional theories and talks of constitutionality and unconstitutionality without reading and considering and applying such landmark cases as Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, the Legal Tender Cases, the Slaughter-House Cases, the Insular Cases, the Minnesota Moratorium Case, and the New York Milk decision, and a host of others, stamps himself a very stupid scholar." John J. Ledwith, Guides to Constitutional Construction, 14 Nebraska Law Bulletin 76, 79-84.

Replacement Audio Tapes

Those that have received defective audio tapes from The Christian Jural Society Press, please take note of the following:

Over the past six months (or more) the audio tape duplicating machine used by The Christian Jural Society Press has been in need of repair. That is no longer the case, for the members of the church at San Diego have paid for the repair costs in the Name of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ.

For those that have received tapes from The Press that are defective or difficult to hear, we urge you to send those tapes for re-duplication to:

Randy Lee
general delivery
Canoga Park Post Office
Canoga Park, California

They will be returned to you as soon as possible at no cost to you.

Issue the Forty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Divide et Impere or The Doctrine of Modern Fascism, Part One...

The Language of the Tower, Part Two...

The Publicans and Soldiers, their exaction and wages...

The Police Power...

Heresy...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Remembering the Old Ways...

Bits and Pieces...

Divide et Impere

The Doctrine of Modern Fascism

written solely by the Grace of God in and through

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

"Divide and conquer," the main tactical mode of today's Roman fascism is found not only residing in the governmental and political structures of all of the States of the world but is also to be found in the same structures of the "Church world," such as those that call themselves "The Protestant Church," "a New Testament Church," and other such self-defining terms.

We understand that the above statement will be considered by many as an affront or attack on His Lawful assembly--the church--which it is not. The church--His remnant--the body of Jesus, the Christ--has never been divided, and never will be (Matthew 16:18). Therefore, this article does not pertain to the bondmen of Christ Jesus who abide, live, move, and have their being in Him; but is for the edification of those who have been deceived through those "organizations of the world" who have dubbed themselves to be "a New Testament Church," "Protestant Church," or any other "personal" and "divisive" self-engrandizing designations not found in the Word of God or in His Creation, i.e., Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon, Calvinist, Anglican, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptist, Congregational, Unitarian, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Reformed, Presbyterian--and all other "evolutionary" cults and creations by and of the "reasonable" mind of the natural man (see "Denominationalism" in "Bits and Pieces, Page five).

We understand that all of the statements above will also be considered by many as an assault to divide. Again, it is not, and cannot be, for it also pertains to the natural men of those "organizations" which have already "sanctified" themselves from The Way, The Truth, and The Life as a result of their self-willed restatements of the Truth--through the man-made science called theology.

One of the results of theology is the redefinition of God into the pagan image "created" by the particular theologician's "science":

"Theology. The science of God or religion;..." Webster's New International Dictionary (1933), page 2140.
"Science is a subculture among subcultures. It can claim to be useful. It may claim rather more dubiously to be good. It cannot claim to give validity." Boulding, The Image: Knowledge of Life in Society (1956), p. 16.
"Theology. a. The study or science which treats of God, his nature and attributes, and his relations with man and the universe; 'the science of things divine' (Hooker); divinity. b. A particular theological system or theory 1669. c. Applied to pagan or non-Christian systems 1662" The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933), page 2167.
Theory. 1. Mental view, contemplation--1710. 2. A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principals (*creeds, confessions of faith, etc.) to be followed 1597." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933), page 2167.

But all bondmen of Christ Jesus do not engage in theory and its systematic mental speculations, for they have the Truth in Christ Jesus, The Word:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's." 2 Corinthians 10:3-7

One of the many snares of this "falsely named knowledge," called theology, (see 1 Timothy 6:20) that these "'synagogues of Satan" have created since the third century is the Pharisaical outward show through the notions of creeds, confessions, covenants, articles of faith, ad nauseam.

Today the Lawful assembly appears to be divided. Why? First, let us look at Scripture for the answer and then we will get to the heart of the matter. We will note here that Brother Paul addressed the issue of division in and of the Lawful assembly in his epistle to our Brothers at Corinth:

"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." 1 Corinthians 1:11-16.
"For it was shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that strifes among you there are. But I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Has the Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or to the name of Paul were ye baptized? I thank God that not one of you I baptized, except Crispus and Gaius, that not any one should say that unto my name I baptized. And I baptized also the house of Stephanas; as to the rest I know not if any other I baptized." 1 Corinthians 1:11-16 (Berry).

Note that there were those who were contending for their "new" masters whom they claimed, though the ones they claimed never once made such claims. We know of no statements made by Cephas, Apollos or Paul claiming themselves to be masters, for it is written,

"Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Isaiah 55:4.
"Behold, I have made Him a testimony among the Gentiles, a prince and commander to the Gentiles." Isaiah 55:4 (LXX).
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Matthew 23:8 & 10.
"But be ye not called Rabbi; for one is your leader, the Christ, and all ye are brethren.Neither be ye called leaders; for one is your leader, the Christ." Matthew 23:8 & 10 (Berry).

So then we can state that there were others who made such claims without their knowledge until such was brought to Paul's attention. He at once dispelled these myths; for these claims appealed to the flesh, and drew them away from Christ Jesus. Such are the same ones who make confessions, creeds, covenants, or articles of faith. They make the claim that they have come to an "understanding" of Scripture and demand that if you want their fellowship, you must come to their same private knowledge--or to put it in modern terms--their pagan systematic theology having them as its god. Thus, their understanding of Scripture is at the fore, and not Christ. This is evidence that these are not in and of Christ, but are impostors, who "are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1:4.

"For came in stealthily certain men, they who of old have been before marked out to this sentence, ungodly persons changing the grace of our God into licentiousness [*license] and denying the only master--God and our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1:4 (Berry).

They deny the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to us in Scripture, to conjure and preach another christ based on their understanding and pagan theology of the world. Theology is pagan and is not of God. How does one reason "I Am" or "He Who Is"? We can see this in the encounter between Moses and our Father at the burning bush. Moses, who had learned all the wisdom of the Egyptians, asked Who sent him to Pharaoh. He could never have arrived at the Truth in and of God, using the wisdom of men. Therefore, creeds, confessions, covenants, or articles of faith speak of the world of their creators, and not of God revealed in Christ Jesus:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John 4:5-6.

Is God's Revelation of Himself in Christ Jesus sufficient? It was for Moses; are these "divines" more "enlightened" than Moses? And who is the source of that light? For it is written, "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:14. And it stands written,

"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matthew 6:22-23.
"The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye single be, thy whole body light will be. But if thine eye evil be, thy whole body dark will be. If therefore the light that is in thee darkness is, the darkness how great;" Matthew 6:22-23 (Berry).

Satan will appear to be light when the darkness of the eye is dark in respect to him. So that we clearly see that these impostors who "create" false knowledge are representative of the ungodly licentious men spoken of at Jude 4 by making merchandise of Christ and His flock. See Ezekiel 34. Just how did they come in? This is shown plainly to us:

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning [*through pagan systematic theology based on scholasticism], and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [*because they have not and have received not the Spirit of God]. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds [*seared consciences], reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:1-8.
"But this know thou, that in the last days difficult times will be present; for men will be lovers of self [*self-will from which the fruit is creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] lovers of money, vaunting, proud, evil speakers, to parents disobedient, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, incontinent, savage, not lovers of good, betrayers, headlong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; having a form of piety, but the power of it denying; and these turn away from. For of these are those who are entering into houses and leading captive silly women laden with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never to the knowledge of the truth able to come. Now in the way [*manner] Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, thus also these withstand the truth, men utterly corrupted in mind, found worthless as regards the faith [*for their faith is in creeds, covenants and confessions of faith]." 2 Timothy 3:1-8 (Berry).

Truly they are covenant-breakers with God in Christ Jesus, writing another covenant outside Scripture with another Jesus found in their pagan theology and their history--"the historical Jesus." "Form of godliness" is outward show, without any inward renewal by the Spirit of God; and, we know the kingdom of God comes not with outward show. See Luke 17:20. "Denying the power thereof" means they deny Christ Jesus to Whom all Authority, Power and Judgment was given to judge both the living and the dead. This has the result of another and alien interpretation of Romans 13. Their words in their covenants are dead words for adhering to and performing dead works of their dead religion and not execution of Law in and of Christ. Their works are their own works and not the Works of Christ:

"I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves." Amos 5:21-26.

By "creation" of these dead creeds, confessions, covenants, or articles of faith, they join or conform themselves to the dead (a religious society)--the "new man" of or with dead and forbidden morality (a moral person)--and not a life renewed by in and of Christ. Barflies are one breed of those who stealthily crept in:

"A century and a half ago Edwin Burke said, Civilization is a contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn--A contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn. I want to talk to you very briefly this afternoon, my brethren, if I may, about the thing we are trying to do here in America. You and I wanted something to do and engaged in the business of trying law suits for clients, in order that we may make a living, but back of and bigger than it all, you and I--whether or not we know it and whether or not we are wholly conscious of it--are engaged in the most extraordinary thing the world has ever seen. We are helping to build, maintain, and hand to future ages the contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn. And with the band of American lawyers consecrating themselves to that great patriotic duty, we will hand to the ages untarnished the great contract between the dead, the living and the unborn." F. F. Faville, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa, The Great Contract (1935), 15 Nebraska Law Bulletin 88. [*Note carefully the religion connected to the law profession].

The sole purpose of the barfly is to join the living to the dead through artifices of his reasonable conjuring--all outside Christ:

"The theoretical and practical expressions of religious experience are complemented by a third aspect, the sociological. 'Vital religion, by its very nature, must create and sustain a social [*human--without the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus] relationship.'
"In the United States of America, the Declaration of Independence marked a significant epoch in Church-State relations whose import will be assessed below. Disestablishment of all cults-- though only slowly carried out in practice--was to insure the freedom of religious association. The State was [*and still is] to be concerned only with the social [*human] and not with the theological character of religious organizations [*all corporate businesses are the same under the State], and, as a result, all groups, regardless of how they defined themselves (covenant, church, etc.) [*sans Warrant of Authority in, of and from Christ Jesus], are officially classified as religious societies. Complete freedom is given to each group to disseminate religious propaganda." Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion (1944), pp. 27, 277-278.

Creeds, confessions, covenants, and articles of faith change His Lawful assembly into a "religious society," and are, in contemplation of law, just like all corporations under American constitutional law (see also "The Police Power," Page twelve):

"RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. A body of persons associated together for the purpose of maintaining religious worship [*specific and private rites outside Christ and therefore outside the Law--outlawry]. The communicants of a denomination who statedly attend services (*commercial) in the church edifice. Fiske v. Beaty, 201 N.Y.S. 441, 444, 206 App.Div. 349." Blacks Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1456.
"BODY POLITIC OR CORPORATE. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws [*covenants, confessions of faith, creeds, ad nauseam, all restatements of Law, but not Law] for the common good [*based on the morals expressed in the aforesaid documents]. Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E.2d 413, 414. A term applied to a corporation. County. Bazzoli v. Larson, 40 Ohio App. 321, 178 N.E. 331, 332; Lindburg v. Bennett, 117 Neb. 66, 218 N.W. 851, 855. Municipality. Middle-States Utilities Co. v. City of Osceola, 1 N.W.2d 643, 645, 231 Iowa 851, 855. School district. Patrick v. Maybank, 198 S.C. 262, 17 S.E.2d 530, 534.
"State or nation or public associations, Utah State Building Commission, for Use and Benefit of Mountain States Supply Co. v. Great American Indemnity Co., 105 Utah 11, 140 P.2d 763, 767." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 222.
"Ecclesiastical and Lay. In the English law, all corporations private are divided into ecclesiastical and lay, the former being such corporations as are composed exclusively of ecclesiastics organized for spiritual purposes, or for administering property held for religious uses, such as bishops and and certain other dignitaries of the Church and (formerly) abbeys and monasteries.1 Bl. Comm. 470. Lay corporations are those composed of laymen, and existing for secular or business purposes. This distinction is not recognized in American law. Corporations formed for the purpose of maintaining or propagating religion or of supporting public religious services (*commercial), according to the rites of particular denominations, and incidentally owning and administering real and personal property for religious uses (*private), are called 'religious corporations,' as distinguished from business corporations; but they are 'lay' corporations, and not 'ecclesiastical' in the sense of the English law." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 &1968), "Corporation," p. 410.
---------------
"Man has been created [*by] in and for the Word of God, and this makes him the being who is responsible.
"Masses, collectives, and species have no responsibility; they are not capable of assuming responsibility [*because they have no souls (10 Rep. 32 b)]." Brunner, Man in Revolt (The Westminster Press, 1947), p. 279.

Civilizations and societies, corporations and schools have no responsibility to God and therefore are of the spirit of anti-Christ, for they receive not the things of the Spirit of God, but the spirit of the natural men that put the creeds, etc., onto a soulless and dead piece of paper:

"They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls. 10 Rep. 32 b." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 67.

Corporations, including ecclesiastical corporations, are dead to Christ and therefore have no authority or right to the Tree of Life in the midst of the Paradise of God, for they are engaged in, and try to recruit others into, their Baal worship:

"They joined themselves also unto Baal-peor, and ate the sacrifices [*creeds, confessions, covenants, or articles of faith] of the dead." Psalm 106:28.
"BAAL-PEOR. (lord of the opening, i.e., for others to join the worship. We have already referred to the worship of this god. The narrative (Numbers 25) seems clearly to show that this form of Baal-worship was connected with licentious rites [*creeds, confessions of faith, licensing, etc.]. Smiths Bible Dictionary, p. 70. [*So much for "Christian attorneys"].

So that we state what was said before:

"On the 26th of May, 1786, James Madison, who subsequently became president of the United States, said in a sermon he delivered before the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Virginia: I earnestly recommend to our Christians to reject every system as the fallible production of human contrivance, which shall dictate the articles of faith; and adopt the gospel alone as their guide. Those Christian societies will ever be found to have formed their union upon principles, the wisest and the best, which make the Scriptures alone, and not human articles, a confession of belief, the sole rule of faith and conduct." W. D. Frazee, Reminiscences and Sermons (1896), p. 63. [*Madison, being knowledgeable of the Law, knew the consequences of joining the living to the dead].

It is also stated,

"Articles, Creeds, and Confessions of Faith alike fail to give us this full knowledge of God which is so essential to our faith and walk. They are all only mans impressions, inferences, and conclusions drawn from Scripture; and have themselves to be judged by Scripture.
"Whatever of truth there may be in them; or however useful, or even necessary, they may be in their proper place, they can never take the place of the Word of God.
"Only in the "person" of the Living Word, and in the pages of the Written Word, can we get to know God.
"We do not, therefore, now propose to discuss doctrines, or to use any non-scriptural expressions; not even such words as Trinity or Unity, or any Ecclesiastical terminology. These are the things which divide the members of the One Body, instead of uniting them. These introduce the seeds of strife and contention. These have been the causes of controversies and martyrdoms. But, if we confine ourselves to the Word of God, and that alone, both writer and readers may, and will, all learn together what God has revealed concerning Himself." E. W. Bullinger, The Knowledge of God (1920), page 3.

Because these creeds, covenants, confessions, and articles of faith are judged by the Word of God, they are not of Christ Jesus nor of God our Father. Pick up a Strong's or Cruden's Concordance and you will not find any of these terms, except covenant. But the covenant spoken of is with God through Christ Jesus, not through a higher'archy (higher anarchy) of men. Have you Peace with God through creeds, covenants, confessions, and articles of faith that are judged by God? Does God our Father second-guess His own Work? It is written:

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all His works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4.

To be continued next month.

The Language of the Tower

Part Two

(continued from Issue the Forty-third)

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

The Juristic Person

"If we are to consider their intentions as to the nationality of the juristic person, it seems to be at least as reasonable as any other assumption, to assume that they intended it to be domestic in the [forum] state in which it was to have its permanent home, and that is constitution and capacities, and their legal relations inter se as members, should be governed by the laws of that [forum] state. As to the intention of the [forum] state, it seems to be by far the most reasonable assumption that it is its intention that that part of its law which governs the constitution and capacities of juristic personsshould of necessity be applied to those juristic persons, and those only, which have their permanent home within its (the forum state's) jurisdiction, and which thus operate under its protection and enjoy the advantages which it provides. They alone have any permanent connection with it, and constantly renew their legal relations [*licenses, franchises, privileges--all moral entities] with its subjects and under its authority. And it is the rules of law that constitute the part in question of the law of a [forum] state relating to juristic persons, that are the personal law of a juristic person to which they apply,." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, supra, p. 15.
"--to the juristic person in question the rules of law [*statutes] of a certain [*forum] state must be applied as its personal law." E. Hilton Young, The Nationality of a Juristic Person, 22 Harv.L.R. 1, 2.
"(2) A Nexus has two elements: the Persons, and the Interest. The Persons to a Nexus are two. From the side of the person by whom State force is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Right. From the side of the person against whom it is demandable, the Nexus is termed a Burden, Duty, Obligation, or Liability. The former person is termed Obligee, the latter Obligor." Wigmore, A Summary of the Principles of Torts, (Select Cases on the Law of Torts, vol. II, Appendix A.)

All licenses create nexuses: the Parties become Persons in the Contract and the Obligations springing from the Contract become the Interests the Parties have in the other. Licenses create the moral obligation between the licensee and the licensor. See also Progress Development Corp. v. Mitchell, 182 F.Supp. 681.

"PERSONAL LAW. As opposed to territorial law, is the law applicable to persons not subject to the law of the territory in which they reside.
"It is only by permission of the territorial law that personal law can exist at the present day: e.g., it applies to British subjects resident in the Levant and in other Mohammedan and barbarous countries. Under the Roman Empire, it had a very wide application. Brown." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

Personal law is a form of law outside Christ.

"PERSONALITY. In modern civil law. The incidence of a law or statute upon persons, or that quality which makes it a personal law rather than a real law. 'By the personality of laws, foreign jurists generally mean all laws which concern the condition, state, and capacity of persons.' Story, Confl.Laws, 16." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

Persons

"Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being. Artificial persons include a collection of or succession of natural persons [*human beings (or monsters, see Ballantine's Law Dictionary, 1946)] forming a corporation; a collection of property to which the law attributes the capacity of having rights and duties. The latter class of artificial persons is recognized only to a limited extent in our law. Examples are the estate of a bankrupt or deceased person. Hogan v. Greenfield, 58 Wyo. 13, 122 P.2d 850, 853.
"It has been held that when the word person is used in a legislative act, natural persons will be intended unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons, Blair v. Worley, 1 Scam.(Ill.) 178; Appeal of Fox, 112 Pa. 337, 4 A. 149; but as a rule corporations will be considered persons within the statutes unless the intention of the legislature is manifestly to exclude them. Stribbling v. Bank, 5 Rand.(Va.) 132.
---------------
"Persons are the subjects of rights and duties; and, as subject of a right, the person is the object [*thing] of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. 'Entitled' and 'bound' are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law (*and the bondmen of Christ Jesus).
"A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject [*thing] or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), "Person," p. 1300.
---------------
"Man has been created [*by] in and for the Word of God, and this makes him the being who is responsible. This fact unmistakably determines man as an individual. Responsibility is that which sets the individual as individual apart and makes him independent [*of other individuals]. Masses, collectives, species have no responsibility; they are not capable of assuming responsibility [*because they have no souls]." Brunner, Man in Revolt (The Westminster Press, 1947), p. 279.
"'They [*corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicate, for they have no souls.'--10 Rep. 32 b." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 67.
"Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus --A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2153.
---------------
"12. "The masculine includes the feminine and neuter."California Government Code 12.
"The Legislature hereby declares its intent that the terms 'man' or 'men' where appropriate shall be deemed 'person' or 'persons' and any references to the terms 'man' or 'men' in sections of this code be changed to 'person' or 'persons' when such code sections are amendatory for any purpose. This act is declaratory and not amendatory of existing law." California Government Code 12.5. (Added by Stats.1976, c. 1436, p. 6403, 1.) Historical Note: Section 32.5 of Stats.1976, c. 1436, p. 6436, provided: "In furtherance of the declared legislative intent of this act, forms and printed materials used by any public agency, insurer, or person which incorporate the terms 'man' or 'men' shall be modified to substitute the terms 'person' or 'persons' only after the present supply of such forms and materials is exhausted."
---------------
"EJUSDEM GENERIS. Lat. Of the same kind. In the construction of laws, wills, and other instruments, general words following an enumeration of specific things are usually restricted to things of the same kind (ejusdem generis) as those specifically enumerated." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 979.

Statutes are the will or testament of the legislature, because it ceases to exist in law after each session, i.e., sine die.

"Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, when enumerations by specific words or terms are used in a statute or ordinance, and they are followed by general words or terms, the general words or terms are held to refer to the same classification as the specific." Chambers v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 74 A.L.R.2d 412, 250 N.C. 194, 108 S.E.2d 211.
"A law which specifically designates several matters or things to be governed by its provisions, and then by general language undertakes to include other acts and things not specifically named, must be so construed as to apply only to things or acts of the same general nature as those definitely set out." Robinson v. Missouri Real Estate Commission, 56 A.L.R.2d 566 (Mo. App.), 280 S.W.2d 138.
"Where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, they will be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those enumerated." Ross Jewelers, Inc. v. State, 43 A.L.R.2d 851, 260 Ala. 682, 72 So.2d 402.
"NOSCITUR A SOCIIS.--It is known from its associates. The meaning of a word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2150.
"Noscitur a sociis--It is known from its associates. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the meaning of questionable or doubtful words or phrases in a statute may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of other words or phrases associated with it." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1060.
"It (noscitur a sociis) is a rule laid down by Lord Bacon, that copulatio verborum indicat acceptationam in eodem sensu-- the coupling of words together shews that they are to be understood in the same sense. So, where the meaning of any particular word is doubtful or obscure, or where the particular expression when taken singly is inoperative, the intention of the party who has made use of it may frequently be ascertained and carried into effect by looking at the adjoining words, or at expressions occurring in other parts of the same instrument; for quae non valeant singula juncta juvant--Words which are ineffective when taken singly operate when taken conjointly; one provision of a deed, or other instrument, must be construed by the bearing it will have upon another." Broom's Legal Maxims (1845), p. 192.
"Copulatio verborum indicat acceptationem in eodem sensu --Coupling of words together shows that they ought to be understood in the same sense." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2129.
"A word may take on a particular meaning according to the context and subject matter of the statute in which it is used." [Per Birket, Ld. J.] In re M. (1955), 51 A.L.R.2d 488 (Eng.), 3 Week L.R. 320.
"Statuta suo clauduntur territorio, nec ultra territorium disponunt --Statutes are confined to their own territory, and have no extra territorial effect." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2164.
"The meaning of statutory terms cannot be determined in vacuo." Ex parte Anderson, 29 A.L.R.2d 1051, 191 Or. 409, 229 P.2d 633, 230 P.2d 770.
"The legislature may be its own lexicographer and write its own definitions of words and terms." State v. DiPaglia, 49 A.L.R.2d 1223, 247 Iowa 79, 71 N.W.2d 601.
"Where act uses the word in a special sense which it defines, definition by average man or by ordinary dictionary is not a substitute for the definition contained in the act." National Homeopathic Hospital Assn of D.C. v. Britton, 147 F.2d 561.
"Where a statute enumerates things on which it is to operate, it is construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned." Capistrano Union High School District v. Capistrano Beach Acreage Co., 92 A.L.R.2d 349, 188 Cal.App.2d 612, 10 Cal.Rptr. 750.

Bondmen of Christ are specifically excluded from all statutes; the term "christian," because it originates in and with the natural man, is not.

The Natural Man being

the Resident at Home

"HOME. That place or country in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains either residence or intention of residence. Dicey, Confl. L. 81.
"'Home' and 'domicil' do not correspond, yet 'home' is the fundamental idea of 'domicil.' The law takes the conception of 'home,' and moulding it by means of certain fictions and technical rules to suit its own requirements, calls it 'domicil.' Or perhaps this may be best expressed, by slightly altering Westlake's statement, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception of residence,' etc., and saying, 'Domicil is, then, the legal conception of home.' 'Domicil' expresses the legal relation existing between a person and the place where he has, in contemplation of law, his permanent home.' Jac. Dom. c. 3, 72.
"A person having a dwelling house in each of two towns of the state may have his home in one town for the purposes of taxation, although he spends the greater portion of the year in the other, and is there on the first of May; Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 132, 26 Am.Rep. 650. In this case domicil for taxation and home are treated as synonymous. The principal place of abode of a man and his family, when it is only a temporary abode, is not his home in the sense here required; Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650.
"Dwelling-place, or home, means some permanent abode or residence, with intention to remain; and it is not synonymous with domicil, as used in international law, but has a more restricted meaning; Inhabitants of Jefferson v. Washington, 19 Me. 293.
"They do not, necessarily continue until another is acquired; but it may be abandoned, and the individual cease to have any home; id. One who abandons his home or dwelling-house, with or without design of acquiring one elsewhere, has no home by construction, in the place abandoned; id. This case was disapproved and it was held that the town domicil, not being used in a statute (under construction) to indicate a particular status as to habitation can only be used properly as synonymous with the town residence,dwelling-place, or home; Inhabitants of Warren v. Thomaston, 43 Me. 406, 69 Am.Dec. 69.
"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Nature, Law of Nature, Natural Person

"LAWLIKE. See laws of nature." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 214.
"JUS NATURALE. The natural law, or law of nature; law, or legal principles, supposed to be discoverable by the light of nature or abstract reasoning, or to be taught by nature to all nations and men alike; or law supposed to govern men and peoples in a state of nature (*the natural man), i.e., in advance of organized governments or enacted laws.
"This concept originated with the philosophical jurists of Rome, and was gradually extended (*the molten image) until the phrase came to denote a supposed basis or substratum common to all systems of positive law, and hence to be found, in greater or less purity, in the laws of all nations (*of the world). And, conversely, they held that if any rule or principle of law was observed in common by all peoples with whose systems they were acquainted, it must be a part of the jus naturale, or derived from it. Thus the phrases 'jus naturale' and 'jus gentium' came to be used interchangeably." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 998.
---------------
"NATURAL PERSON. Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being so recognized in law. Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216. [*Natural persons are not recognized in law, but are treated the same as corporations].
"LEX NATURALE. Natural law." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1056.
---------------
"NATURAL RIGHTS. Rights which, under the doctrines developed especially in the eighteenth century, all men had before governmental or social institutions were developed. These rights are regarded as inalienable and incapable of being lost except as a punishment for crime [equitable doctrine]. As enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, they are equality--in the sense of equality before the law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the 'Declaration of Rights of Men and Citizens,' prepared by the French Revolutionary Assembly, a much larger number of natural rights are listed. This declaration has been widely copied in republican constitutions of Europe and America.
"The most recent preparation of a list of natural rights is that now undertaken by the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations. See Declaration of Rights." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 217. [*Natural rights are not from God, but from nature, Mother Gaea of Greek mythology.]
---------------
"JUS IN PERSONAM. A right against a person; a right which gives its possessor a power to oblige another person to give or procure, to do or not to do." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 997. [*The State has the right against any person who is created by its codes, rules, and regulations which it issues.] See also The History of the Law of Nature (1901), 1 Columbia L. R. 11; (1902) 2 Columbia L. R. 131.

Rights, Duties, and Obligations

"Duty is the basis of Right. That is to say, parties who have rights, or parties who are invested with rights, have rights to acts, or forbearances enjoined by the sovereign upon other parties.
"Or (in other words) parties invested with rights are invested with rights, because other parties are bound by the command of the sovereign, to do or perform acts; or to forbear or abstain from acts." Austin, Jurisprudence (3d ed.) Vol. I, p. 407. [*With Congress being the sovereign in the Fourteenth Amendment, this has special significance--it claims dispensatory powers over and against the States. Further, it gives the basis for the civil rights acts of the federal government and the States.
"What then is a 'legal right?' But first, what is a right generally?
"It is one man's capacity of influencing acts of another by means, not of his own strength, but of the opinion or the force [*not Law] of society. When a man is said to have a right to do any thing, or over any thing, or to be treated in a particular manner, what is meant is that public opinion would see him do the act, or make use of the thing, or be treated in that particular way, with approbation, or at least with acquiesence; but would reprobate the conduct of any one who should prevent him from doing the act, or making use of the thing, or should fail to treat him in that particular way.
"A 'right' is thus the name given to the advantage a man has when he is so circumstanced that a general feeling of approval, or at least of acquiescence, results when he does or abstains from doing certain acts, and when other people act or forbear to act in accordance with his wishes, while a general feeling of disapproval results when any one prevents him from so doing or abstaining at his pleasure, or refuses to act in accordance with his wishes.
"Jurisprudence is specifically concerned only with such rights as are recognized by law and enforced by the power of a state [*jurisdiction]. We may therefore define a 'legal right,' in what we shall hereafter see is the strictest of that term, as a capacity residing in one man of controlling, with the assent and assistance of the State [*jurisdiction], the actions of others.
"It may be as well to re-state in a few words precisely what we mean by saying that any given individual has 'a right.'
"If a man by his own force or persuasion can carry out his wishes, either by his own acts, or by influencing the acts of others, he has the 'might' so to carry out his wishes.
"If, irrespectively of having or not having this 'might,' public opinion would view with approval, or at least with acquiescence, his so carrying out his wishes, and with disapproval any resistance made to his doing; then he has a 'moral right' [*the molten image] so to carry out his wishes.
"If it is a question of might, all depends upon a man's own powers of force or persuasion. If it is a question of moral right, all depends on the readiness of public opinion [*the molten image] to express itself upon his side. If it is a question of legal right, all depends upon the readiness of the State [*jurisdiction] to exert its force on his behalf. It is hence obvious that a moral and a legal right are so far from being identical that they may easily be opposed to one another. Moral rights have, in general, but a subjective support, legal rights have the objective support of the physical support of the State [*jurisdiction]. The whole purpose of laws is to announce in what cases that objective support will be granted, and the manner in which it may be obtained. In other words, law exists, as was stated previously, for the definition and protection of rights [*might makes right].
"Every right, whether moral or legal, implies the active or passive furtherance by others of the wishes of the party having the right. Wherever any one is entitled to such furtherance on the part of others, such furtherance on their part is said to be their 'duty.'
"Where such furtherance is merely expected by the public opinion of the society in which they live, it is their 'moral duty.'
"Where it will be enforced by the power of the State [*jurisdiction] to which they are amenable, it is their 'legal duty.'
"The correlative of might is necessity [*necessity knows no law], or susceptibility to force; or moral right is moral duty; or legal right is legal duty. These pairs of correlative terms express, it will be observed, in each case the same state of facts viewed from opposite sides [*perspective]." Holland, Jurisprudence, chap. 7, quoted in Readings on the History and System of the Common Law (3d Ed., 1927), pp. 469-471.

The "Right" to be Taxed

"As a general rule, every citizen of the United States, regardless of his residence, and every resident of the United States, regardless of his citizenship, is taxable on his income without respect to its geographic source. The constitutional power to impose the tax on such a world wide basis is sustained by Cook v. Tait (1924), 265 U.S. 47, 44 S.Ct. 444." Cases and Materials on Federal Taxation (1955), by Paul W. Bruton and Raymond J. Bradley, edited by Warren A. Seavey, West Publishing Co., p. 115.
"Privilege within statutes taxing privileges, is synonymous with right." State ex rel. Froedtert Grain and Malting Company v. Tax Commission of Wisconsin, 265 N.W. 672, 674. See also "Income Tax Predicated on Citizenship," 11 Va.L.Rev. 607.

By God's Willing Hand through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, we hope to continue to visit "The Language of the Tower" from time to time in order to identify the words used by His Adversary, thereby learning to shun what He has already shunned according to the Perfect Will of Our Father, Abba. Amen.

The Publicans and Soldiers,

their exaction and wages

Select words of Luke 3:12-14,

from Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. I, pp. 282-286

Verse 12. Publicans (telwnai). From telov, a tax, and wjneomai, to buy. The collectors of Roman imposts. The Romans farmed out the direct taxes and customs duties to capitalists, on their payment of a certain sum in publicum, into the public treasury, whence they were called publicani, publicans. Sometimes this sum, being greater than any one person could pay, was paid by a company. Under these were the submagistri, living in the provinces; and under these again the portitores, or actual custom house officers, who are referred to by the term telwnai in the New Testament. They were often chosen from the dregs of the people, and were so notorious for their extortions that they were habitually included in the same category with harlots and sinners. "If a Jew could scarcely persuade himself that it was right to pay taxes, how much more heinous a crime must it have been in his eyes to become the questionably honest instrument for collecting them. If a publican was hated, how still more intense must have been the disgust entertained against a publican who was also a Jew" (Farrar, "Life of Christ"). The word "publican," as a popular term of reproach, was used even by our Lord (Matthew 18:17). Even the Gentiles despised them. Farrar cites a Greek saying, "All publicans are robbers."

Verse 13. Exact (prassete). The change of the Rev., to exhort is unfortunate. The word is used of the exaction of legal tribute, and excessive exaction is expressed by the following words: John would hardly have commanded them to extort in any case.

Verse 14. Soldiers (strateuomenoi). Strictly, soldiers on service: hence the participle, serving as soldiers, instead of the more comprehensive term stratiwtai, soldiers by profession. Some explain it of soldiers engaged in police inspection in connection with the customs, and hence naturally associated with the publicans.

What shall we do? The "we" in the Greek is emphatic, closing the question. Hence Rev., very aptly, and we, what must we do?

Do violence (diaseishte). Only here in New Testament. Lit., to shake violently; hence to agitate or terrify; and so to extort money from one by terrifying him. The corresponding Latin word concutere is used by later writers in the same sense. Xenophon says of Socrates: "I know of his once having heard from Crito that life at Athens was a hard thing for a man who desired to mind his own business. 'For,' said he, 'they bring actions against me, not because they are wronged by me, but because they think I would rather pay money than have any trouble'" ("Memorabilia," 2:9, 1). For this process of blackmail, seiw, to shake, was used. Thus Aristophanes ("Knights," 840):

"Thou shalt make much money by falsely accusing and frightening" (seiwn te kai tarattwn).

And again ("Peace," 639):

"And of their allies they falsely accused (e]seion) the substantial and rich"

The word in this passage of Luke has the later, secondary meaning, to extort; and therefore the American Revisers rightly insist on, extort from no man by violence. It is used by medical writers, as, for instance, by Hippocrates, of shaking the palsied or benumbed limbs of a patient; or of a shaking by which the liver was relieved of an obstruction. Luke also uses two other compounds of the verb seiw: kataseiw, to beckon, Acts 12:17 (peculiar to Luke); and ajnaseiw, to stir up, which occurs also in Mark 15:11. Both these are also used by medical writers.

Accuse any falsely (sukofanthshte). The common explanation of this word is based on the derivation from sukon, a fig, and fainw, to make known; hence of informing against persons who exported figs from Attica, contrary to the law, or who plundered sacred fig trees. As informers were tempted to accuse innocent persons by the reward paid for pointing out violators of the law, the verb acquired the meaning to accuse falsely. Such is the old explanation, which is now rejected by scholars, though the real explanation is merely conjectural. The fig tree was the pride of Attica, ranking with honey and olives as one of the principal products, and there is no authority for the statement that there was a time when figs were scarce, and required legal protection against export. Neither is it proven that there was a sacred kind of fig..Rettig, in an interesting paper in the "Studien und Kritiken" (1838), explains that, as tribute in Attica was paid in kind as well as in money, and as figs represented a great deal of property, there was a temptation to make false returns of the amount of figs to the assessors; and that thus a class of informers arose who detected and reported these false returns, and received a percentage of the fine which was imposed. These were known as fig-shewers. Another writer has suggested that the reference is to one who brings figs to light by shaking the tree; and so, metaphorically, to one who makes rich men yield up the fruits of their labor or rascality by false accusation. Whatever explanation we may accept, it is evident that the word had some original connection with figs, and that it came to mean to slander or accuse falsely. From it comes our word sycophant. The sycophants as a class were encouraged at Athens, and their services were rewarded. Socrates is said by Xenophon to have advised Crito to take a sycophant into his pay, in order to thwart another who was annoying him; and this person, says Xenophon, "quickly discovered on the part of Crito's accusers many illegal acts, and many persons who were enemies to those accusers; one of whom he summoned to a public trial, in which it would be settled what he should suffer or pay, and he would not let him off until he ceased to molest Crito and paid a sum of money besides." Demosthenes thus describes one: "He glides about the market like a scorpion, with his venomous sting all ready, spying out whom he may surprise with misfortune and ruin, and from whom he can most easily extort money, by threatening him with an action dangerous in its consequences.... It is the bane of our city that it protects and cherishes this poisonous brood, and uses them as informers, so that even the honest man must flatter and court them, in order to be safe from their machinations." The word occurs only here and chapters 19;8, of Zacchaeus, the publican. The American Revisers hold to the A.V., and render neither accuse any one wrongfully, extortion being described by the previous word. Wyc., neither make ye false challenge. In the Sept. it is used in the sense of to oppress or deceive.

Wages (ojywnioiv). From o]yon, cooked meat, and later, generally, provisions. At Athens, especially, fish. Compare oyarion, fish, John 21:9, 10, 13. Hence ojyw>nion is primarily provision money, and so used of supplies and pay for an army. With this understanding the use of the word at Romans 6:23, "the wages of sin," becomes highly suggestive.

The Police Power

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

The so-called "police power" wielded by the State today is the same police power from an earlier time; there is nothing new under the sun:

"Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;" 2 Corinthians 11:25

The background meaning of the "rods" spoken of by our Brother Paul in his letter to our Brothers and Sisters at Corinth is all important in our study on this subject:

"ROD. rhabdizo ^4463^, "to beat with a rod," is used in <Acts 16:22>, RV, "to beat... with rods"; <2 Cor. 11:25>. The "rods" were those of the Roman lictors or "sergeants" (rhabdouchoi, lit., "rodbearers"); the Roman beating with "rods" is distinct from the Jewish infliction of stripes. # In the Sept., <Jud. 6:11; Ruth 2:17>.# Cf. <Matt. 26:67>, RV marg.; <John 18:22> (KJV marg., and RV marg.); <19:3>, RV marg.; see SMITE." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, pp. 302-303.

The rodbearer's rod of that day was one of the black rods removed from the fasces to inflict punishment. Today it is the black nightstick of the patrolling rodbearer known as a "policeman." We also find the ebony rods sitting beside the Speaker of the House in D. C., known as the "mace" (see Issue the Forty-second, Bits and Pieces).

Conjuration of the term "Police Power"

"The term 'police power' was not used in the Constitutional Convention nor did it appear in court decisions, so Judge Hastings tells us, until Mr. Chief Justice Marshall used it in the Brown v. Maryland case, in 1827." F. Harold Essert (1933), An essay on police power, sponsored by the Nebraska State Bar, 12 Nebraska Law Bulletin 208, at 210.

The death in and through the "People's"

self-inflicting Power of Attorney

"[T]he government of the Union (*binding of the fasces through the Constitution) is a government of the people (*their morality); it emanates from them (*from their morality); its powers are granted by them and are to be exercised directly (*no mediator) on them, and for their benefit (*their moral welfare)." McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.

The Molten Image of Man's Law

"The scope of police powers, lodged within government, is capable of development and modification and encompasses needs occasioned by changing conditions and changing environment. [State v. Creamer, 85 Oh. 349, 97 N.E. 602.] It is of particular importance to note that the exercise by the government of the police powers lodged within it may over-ride private or property rights specifically guaranteed by the constitution. [In re Anderson, 89 Neb. 689, 96 N.W. 149; Halter v. State, 74 Neb. 757, 105 N.W. 298; Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 26 S.Ct. 127.]
"The second line of reasoning and interpretation by which the Supreme Court of the United States has given necessary elasticity and adaptability to the constitution is through the development of police power. The definition and the delineation of the limits of the police powers of government is an undertaking (*death) that even the great minds (*of the reasonable men) of the Supreme Court have avoided. In substance (*a flexible law term), police powers are the powers arising and inhering in government from the aggregate powers of government (self-fulfilling and aggrandizing). In the language of the great Justice Holmes [*the man who admitted that "I know not what is true"],
"'It may be said in a general (*undefined) way that police power extends to all great public need (*the State's need). It may be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage (*tradition of the elders), or held by prevailing morality (*the molten image), or strong and preponderant opinion to be immediately necessary to the public welfare (*welfare of the State).' [Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 31 S.Ct. 105.]
"There is still another line of reasoning recently indulged in by the Supreme Court that has given elasticity to the constitution, the so-called emergency doctrine. This theory, that public exigency and emergency may sustain an exercise of governmental authority that would not be justified under normal conditions, had been hinted at by the court in several of the earlier cases [Bonditch v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16, 25 L.Ed. 980; Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 331, 37 S.Ct. 298.]our (*whose?) Supreme Court held, in spite of the constitutional prohibitions, that public emergency 'may justify (*whose justification) a law (*law?) which could not be upheld as a permanent change.' [Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 138, 41 S.Ct. 138.] John J. Ledwith, Guides to Constitutional Construction, (1933) 14 Nebraska Law Bulletin 76, 79-84.

For further information on "The Police Power," there is available 2 - 90 minute audio tapes from the Free Indeed, Nicklas Arthur Radio Show, and the Nebraska Law Bulletin on "Police Power." You can request these to be sent to you by calling 818-347-7080.

Heresy

by Richard Watson

From Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), pp. 448-451.

"HERESY. Hæresis, aireoij, from airew, I choose, signifies an error in some essential point of Christian faith, publicly avowed, and obstinately maintained; or, according to the legal definition, 'Sententia rerum divinarum humano sensu excogitate, palm dicta, et pertinaciter defense.' [An opinion of divine things invented by human reason, openly taught, and obstinately defended.'] Among the ancients, the word heresy appears to have had nothing of that odious signification which has been attached to it by ecclesiastical writers in later times. It only signified a peculiar opinion, dogma, or sect, without conveying any reproach; being indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one disapproved by the writer. In this sense they spoke of the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, Epicureans, &c., meaning the sect or peculiar system of these philosophers. In the historical part of the New Testament, the word seems to bear very nearly the same signification, being employed indiscriminately to denote a sect or party, whether good or bad. Thus we read of the sect or heresy of the Sadducees, of the Pharisees, of the Nazarenes, &c. See Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5; 28:22. In the two former of these passages, the term heresy seems to be adopted by the sacred historian merely for the sake of distinction, without the least appearance of any intention to convey either praise or blame. In Acts 26:4, 5, St. Paul, in defending himself before King Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was manifestly his design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and to give their system the preference over every other system of Judaism, both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals.

"2. It has been suggested that the acceptance of the word airesij in the epistles is different from what it has been observed to be in the historical books of the New Testament. In order to account for this difference, it may be observed that the word sect has always something relative in it; and therefore, although the general import of the term be the same, it will convey a favorable or an unfavorable idea, according to the particular relation it bears in the application. When it is used along with the proper name, by way of distinguishing one party from another, it conveys neither praise nor reproach. If any thing reprehensible or commendable be meant, it is suggested, not by the word airesij itself, but by the words with which it stands connected in construction. Thus we may speak of a strict sect, or a lax sect; or of a good sect, or a bad sect. Again, the term may be applied to a party formed in a community, when considered in reference to the whole. If the community be of such a nature as not to admit of such a subdivision, without impairing or corrupting its constitution, a charge of splitting into sects, or forming parties, is equivalent to a charge of corruption in that which is most essential to the existence and welfare of the society. Hence arises the whole difference of the word, as it is used in the historical part of the New Testament, and in the epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul; for these are the only Apostles who employ it. In the history, the reference is always of the first kind; in the epistles, it is always of the second. In these last, the Apostles address themselves only to Christians, and either reprehend them for, or warn them against, forming sects among themselves, to the prejudice of charity, to the production of much mischief within their community, and of great scandal to the unconverted world without. In both applications, however, the radical import of the word is the same; and even in the latter it has no necessary reference to doctrine, true or false. During the early ages of Christianity, the term heresy gradually lost the innocence of its original meaning, and came to be applied, in a reproachful sense, to any corruption of what was considered as the orthodox creed, or even to any departure from the established rites and ceremonies of the Church.

"3. The heresies chiefly alluded to in the apostolical epistles are, first, those of the Judaizers, or rigid adherents to the Mosaic rites, especially that of circumcision; second, those of converted Hellenists, or Grecian Jews, who held the Greek eloquence and philosophy in too high an estimation, and corrupted, by the speculations of the latter, the simplicity of the Glad Tidings; and third, those who endeavored to blend Christianity with a mixed philosophy of magic, demonology, and Platonism, which was then highly popular in the world. With respect to the latter, the remarks of Hug will tend to illustrate some passages in the writings of St. Paul:--Without being acquainted with the notions of those teachers who caused the Apostle so much anxiety and so much vexation, a considerable part of these treatises must necessarily remain dark and unintelligible. From the criteria by which the Apostle points them out, at one time some deemed that they recognized the Gnostics; others perceived none but the Essenes; and every one found arguments for his assertions from the similarity of the doctrines, opinions, and morals. It would, however, be as difficult to prove that the Gnostic school had at that time indeed perfectly developed itself, as it is unjust to charge the Essenes with that extreme of immorality of which St. Paul accused these seducers, since the contemporaries and acquaintenances of this Jewish sect mention them with honor and respect, and extol its members as the most virtuous men of their age. The similarity of the principles and opinions, which will have been observed in both parties compared with St. Paul's declarations, flows from a common source, from the philosophy of that age, whence both the one and the other have derived their share. We shall therefore go less astray, if we recede a step, and consider the philosophy itself, as the general modeller of these derivative theories. It found its followers among Judaism as well as among the Heathens; it both introduced its speculative preparations into Christianity, and endeavoured to unite them or to adjust them to it, as well as they were able, by which means Christianity would have become deformed and unlike to itself, and would have been merged in the ocean of philosophical reveries, unless the Apostles had on this occasion defended it against the follies of men. An oriental, or, as it is commonly called, a Babylonian or Chaldean, doctrinal system had already long become known to the Greeks, and even to the Romans, before Augustus, and still more so in the Augustan age, and was in the full progress of its extension over Asia and Europe. It set up different deities and intermediate spirits in explanation of certain phenomena of nature, for the office of governing the world, and for the solution of other metaphysical questions, which from time immemorial were reckoned among the difficult propositions of philosophy. The practical part of this system was occupied with the precepts by means of which a person might enter into communication with these spirits or demons. But the result which they promised to themselves from this union with the divine natures, was that of acquiring, by their assistance, superhuman knowledge, that of predicting future events, and of performing supernatural works. These philosophers were celebrated under the name of magi and Chaldeans; who, for the sake of better accommodating themselves to the western nations, modified their system after the Greek forms, and then, as it appears, knew how to unite it with the doctrine of Plato, from whence afterward arose the Neo-Platonic and in Christendom the Gnostic school. These men forced their way even to the throne. Tiberius had received instruction in their philosophy, and was very confident that by means of an intelligence with the demons, it was possible to learn and perform extraordinary things. Nero caused a great number of them to be brought over from Asia, not unfrequently at the expense of the provinces. The supernatural spirits would not always appear, yet he did not discard his belief of them. The magi and Chaldeans were the persons who were consulted on great undertakings, who, when conspiracies arose, predicted the issue; who invoked spirits, prepared offerings, and in love affairs were obliged to afford aid from their art. Even the force of the laws, to which recourse was frequently necessary to be had at Rome, tended to nothing but the argumentation of their authority. As they found access and favour with the people of all classes in the capital, so did they also in the provinces. Paul found a magus at the court of the proconsul at Paphos, Acts 13:6. Such was that Simon in Samaria, Acts 8:10, who was there considered as a higher being of the spiritual class. The expression is remarkable, as it is a part of the technical language of the Theurgists; they called him Denamij tou Qeou megalh, 'The great power of God.' So also Pliny calls some of the demons and intermediate spirits, by whose cooperation particular results were effected, potestates. [Powers.] Justin Martyr, the fellow countryman of Simon, has preserved to us some technical expressions of his followers. He says that they ascribed to him the high title nperanw washj archj, kai dunamewj. [Far above all principality, and power, and might.] Of these classes of spirits, which appear under such different appellations, the superior were those who ruled; but the inferior, who had more of a material substance, and who, on that account, were able to connect themselves immediately with matter, were those who executed the commands of the superior. By an intelligence with the superior spirits a person might have the subaltern at his service and assistance; for the more powerful demons thus commanded the inferior to execute certain commissions in the material world: 'Sn tw doconti twn daimoniwn,' 'By the prince of the devils,' [*Beelzebub] Matthew 12:24.

"4. The Syrian philosopher, Jamblichus, of Chalcis, has furnished us with a circumstantial representation of this system and its several varieties, in his book on the mysteries of the Chaldeans and Egyptians:--The nature of the gods is a pure, spiritual, and perfect unity. With this highest and perfect immateriality no influence on matter is conceivable, consequently, no creation and dominion of the world. Certain subordinate deities must therefore be admitted, which are more compounded in their nature, and can act upon gross matter. These are the 'creators of the world,' dhmiourgoi, and 'the rulers of the world,' kosmokratorej. The superior deities are, however, the real cause of all that exists; and from their fulness, from their wlhrwma, it derives its existence. The succession from the highest deities down to the lowest is not by a sudden descent, but by a continually graduating decrease from the highest, pure, and spiritual natures, down to those which are more substantial and material, which are the nearest related to the gross matter of the creation, and which consequently possess the property of acting upon it. In proportion to their purer quality, or coarser composition, they occupy different places as their residence, either in a denser atmosphere, or in higher regions. The highest among these classes of spirits are called arcai, or, arcikon. Others among the 'divine natures,' Ieai ousiai, are 'intermediate beings,' mioai. Those which occupy themselves with the laws of the world are also called arcontej, and 'ministering spirits' are dunameij and aggeloi. The archangels are not generally recognized in this theory; this class is said to have been of a later origin, and to have been first introduced by Porphyry. (See Archangel.) If we take here also into consideration the exousiai, of which Justin has before spoken, we shall have enumerated the greater part of the technical appellations of this demonology. But to arrive at a union with the higher orders of the spiritual world, in which alone the highest bliss of man consists, it is necessary, before all things, to become disengaged from the servitude of the body, which detains the soul from soaring up to the purely spiritual. Matrimony, therefore, and every inclination to sexual concupiscence, must be renounced before the attainment of this perfection. Hence, the offerings and initiations of the magi cannot, without great injury, be even communicated to those who have not as yet emancipated themselves from the libido procreandi, and the propensities to corporeal attachments. To eat meat, or to partake in general of any slain animal, nay, to even touch it, contaminates. Bodily exercises and purifications, though not productive of the gifts of prophecy, are nevertheless conducive to them. Though the gods only attend to the pure, they nevertheless mislead men to impure, actions. This may perhaps proceed from the totally different ideas of that which is good and righteous, which subsist between them and mankind.

"5. The philosophy of which the elements had already existed a long time in the east, formed itself, in its progress to the west, into a doctrinal system, which found there far more approbation and celebrity than it ever had deserved. It was principally welcome in those countries, to which the epistles of the Apostle are directed. When St. Paul had preached at Ephesus, a quantity of magical and theurgical books were brought forward by their possessors and burned before his eyes, Acts 19:19. This city had long since been celebrated for them, and the 'Efesia alexifarmaka, and 'Efesiagratta were spells highly extolled by the ancients for the purpose of procuring an authority over the demons. As late as the fourth century, the synod at Laodicea was obliged to institute severe laws against the worship of angels, against magic, and against incantations. These opinions had taken such a deep root in the mind, that some centuries did not suffice for the extinction of the recollection of them. Now, there are passages in the Apostle which strikingly characterize this theory. He calls the doctrinal system of his opponents filosofia ou kata Cri, 'a philosophy incompatible with Christianity,' Colossians 2:8; Irhskeia twn aggelwn, 'a worship of angels,' Colossians 2:18; didaskaliai daimoniwn, 'a demonology,' 1 Timothy 4:1. He calls still farther gohteia, 2 Timothy 3:13. This is the peculiar expression by which the ancients denoted magical arts and necromantic experiments; gohj is, according to Hesychius, magoj, kolax, weiergoj, and gohteuei, apata, mageuei, faruakeuei, exaidei l. St. Paul compares these teachers to Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:8. These two persons are, according to the ancient tradition, the magicians who withstood Moses by their arts. They were from time immemorial names so notorious in the magical science, that they did not remain unknown even to the Neo-Platonics. When the Apostle enjoins the Ephesians to array themselves in the arms of faith, and courageously to endure the combat, Ephesians 6:12, he says that it the more necessary, because their combat is not against human force, ou wroj [not against] aima kai sarka, 'flesh and blood,' but against superhuman natures. Where he mentions these, he enumerates in order the names of this magico-spiritual world, arcas, exousiaj, particularly the kosmokratoraj, 'principalities,' 'powers,' 'rulers'; and likewise fixes their abode in the upper aerial regions, eij ton aira en toij epouranioij. In like manner, in the Epistle to the Colossians, for the sake of representing to them Christianity in an exalted and important light, and of praising the divine nature of Jesus, he says, that all that exists is His creation, and is subjected to Him, not even the spiritual world excepted. He then selects the philosophic appellations to demonstrate that this superstitious demonacracy is wholly subservient to Him; whether they be Ironoi, or kuriothtej, arcai, exousiai [thrones, dominions, principalities, powers] Colossians 1:16. Finally, to destroy completely and decisively, the whole doctrinal system, he demonstrates, that Christ, through the work of redemption, has obtained the victory over the entire spiritual creation, and he drags in triumph the arcaj [principalities] and exousiaj [powers] as vanquished, and that henceforth their dominion and exercise of power have ceased, Colossians 2:15. But what he says respecting the seared consciences of these heretics, respecting their deceptions, their avarice, &c., is certainly more applicable to this class of men, than to any other. None throughout all antiquity are more accused of these immoralities, than those pretended confidents of the occult powers. If he speaks warmly against any distinction of meats, against abstinence from matrimony, this also applies to them; and if he rejects bodily exercises, it was because they recommended them, because they imposed baths, lustrations, continence, and long preparations, as the conditions by which alone the connection with the spirits became possible. These, then, are the persons who passed before the Apostle's mind, and who, when they adopted Christianity, established that sect among the professors of Jesus, which gave to it the name of Gnostics, and which, together with the different varieties of this system, is accused by history of magical arts. Other adherents of this system among the Heathens, to which the Syrian philosophers, as well as some Egyptian, such as Plotinus and his scholars, belonged, formed the sect of Neo-Platonism.

"But in the above remarks of this learned German, some considerations are wanting, necessary to the right understanding of several of the above passages quoted from St. Paul. The philosophic system above mentioned was built on the Scripture doctrine of good and evil angels, and so had a basis of truth, although abused to a gross superstition, and even idolatry. It was grounded, too, upon the notion of different orders among both good and evil spirits, with subordination and government; which also is a truth of which some intimation is given in Scripture. The Apostle then could use all these terms without giving any sanction to the errors of the day. He knew that the spiritual powers they had converted into subordinate deities, were either good or evil angels in their various ranks, and he uproots the whole superstition, by showing that the 'thrones and dominions' of heaven are submissive created servants of Christ; and that the evil spirits, the rulers of 'the darkness of this world,' are put under his feet." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), pp. 448-451.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

"Market-places (ajgoraiv). From ajgeirw, to assemble. Wyc., renders cheepynge; compare cheapside, the place for buying and selling; for the word cheap had originally no reference to small price, but meant simply barter or price. The primary conception in the Greek word has nothing to do with buying and selling. Agora is an assembly; then the place of assembly. The idea of a place of trade comes in afterward, and naturally, since trade plants itself where people habitually gather. Hence the Roman Forum was devoted, not only to popular and judicial assemblies, but to commercial purposes, especially of bankers. The idea of trade gradually becomes the dominant one in the word. In Eastern cities the markets are held in bazaars and streets, rather than in squares. In these public places the children would be found playing. Compare Zechariah 8:5." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 88.

"60. COURT. Agoraios . Is an adjective, 'signifying pertaining to the agora, any place of public meeting, and especially where trials were held,' Acts 19:38; the RV translates the sentence 'the courts are open'; a more literal rendering is 'court days are kept.' [*calendar] In Acts 17:5 it is translated in the RV, 'rabble'; KJV, 'baser sort,' lit., 'frequenters of the markets.' See BASER." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. [*This is the court in the market-place--the judicial tribunal of the lex mercatoria].

"60. BASE, BASER. Agoraios. Translated in the KJV of Acts 17:5 'of the baser sort,' RV, 'of the rabble,' signifies, lit., 'relating to the market place'; hence, frequenting markets, and so sauntering about idly. It is also used of affairs usually transacted in the market-place, and hence of judicial assemblies, Acts 19:38, RV, 'courts' (KJV, 'law'); the margin in both RV and KJV has 'court days are kept.' [*calendar] See COURT." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Remembering the Old Ways

The Martyrdom of James, the Lord's brother

by Marvin Vincent,

from Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. I, page 616

"No doubt," says Dean Stanley, "if we look at James' influence and authority from the more general point of view, whether of the whole Jewish Christian world or of the whole Gentile Christian world, it sinks into nothing before the majesty of Peter and Paul;" but within the circle of the purely Palestinian Christians, and in Jerusalem, James is the chief representative of the Christian society. The later traditions of the Jewish Christians invest him with a priestly sanctity. His austerities and devotions are described in extravagant terms. He is said to have kneeled until his knees were as hard as the knees of camels, and to have been constant in prayer in the temple. He went barefoot, and practiced abstinence from wine, and wore the long hair, the linen ephod, and the unshorn beard of the Nazarites, and even abstained from washing. He was known as "The Just." The people vied with each other to touch the hem of his garment; and he is reputed to have called down rain in the drought, after the manner of Elijah. His chair was preserved as a relic until the fourth century, and a pillar in the valley of Jehosaphat marked the spot where he fell.

The account of his martyrdom is given by Eusebius from the lost work of Hegesippus, by Josephus, and in the Clementine Recognitions. In Hegesippus and the Recognitions, the story is dramatic and deeply tinged with romance. The narrative of the former "is," says Dr. Schaff, "an overdrawn picture of the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits, which may have been derived from 'the Ascents of James' and other apocryphal sources." It is, substantially, as follows: Having been asked, "What is the gate of Jesus?" he replied that he was the Savior; from which some believed that Jesus is the Christ. The Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, becoming alarmed, came to James, and besought him to restrain the people from going after Jesus, to persuade against him all that came to the Passover, and, with this view, to stand on the pinnacle of the temple, where he might be seen and heard by all the people. They accordingly placed him there, and said, "O Just One, to whom we all give heed, inasmuch as the people is gone astray after Jesus who is crucified, tell us what is the gate of Jesus?" He answered, with a loud voice, "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus, the Son of man? He sits in heaven, on the right hand of the mighty power, and he is also about to come in the clouds of heaven." Many being convinced, and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" the Scribes and Pharisees said, "We have done ill in furnishing so great a testimony to Jesus. Let us go and cast him down." They went up then and threw him down, and as he was not killed by the fall they began to stone him. And he, turning round, knelt and said, "I beseech thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." But while they were thus stoning him, one of the priests, of the sons of Rechab, cried, saying, "Stop! what do ye? The Just One prays for you;" and one of them, one of the fullers, took the club with which he used to press the cloths, and struck it on the head of the Just One. And so he bore witness, and they buried him on the place by the temple.

Bits and Pieces

Denominationalism

"The system and ideology founded on the division of the religious population into numerous ecclesiastical bodies, each stressing particular values or traditions and each competing with the other in the same community under substantial conditions of freedom. Thus denominationalism has usually been associated with religious pluralism, voluntaryism [*Eve volunteered through self-will], mutual respect and recognition, and neutrality on the part of the State (*You are now like us, therefore you must be one of ours, and subject to us!)." Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), pp. 262-263.

Theological/Denominational Heresy

"One of the results of the growth of more liberal theological ideas within the orthodox churches was a number of heresy trials. Nearly all of these were within the Presbyterian Church. The Congregationalists and Episcopalians developed a considerable degree of theological tolerance, the Methodists were more interested in administrative efficiency than in doctrinal uniformity, the Lutherans were practically unanimous in maintaining their old theology unmodified, the Baptists and Disciples had no ecclesiastical courts for dealing with heresy, and so threshed out the cases of their heretics in their religious papers without decisive results. Two cases of not much more than local importance occurred among the Presbyterians in 1883. Rev. W. W. McLane of Steubenville, Ohio, was put out of his pulpit by the presbytery for writing a book on The Cross in Light of Today, in which he maintained a theory other than that of the substitutionary atonement. Rev. J. W. White, of the presbytery of Huntington, Pennsylvania, was suspended from the ministry for lax views on the physical resurrection and on the atonement and in particular for saying that when Christ died 'he was not smitten with the divine wrath, but filled with all the fullness of divine love.'" The March of Faith (1930), pp. 96-97.

Commercial Evolution and Subdivision

"Denominations are associations of congregations, though sometimes it might be said that congregations are localized subdivisions of denominations, that have a common heritage. Moreover, a true denomination does not claim to be the only legitimate expression of the church. A denominational heritage normally includes doctrinal or experiential or organizational emphases and also frequently includes common ethnicity, language, social class, and geographical origin. However, many or all of these once common features have usually evolved into considerable contemporary diversity, especially in older and larger denominations. This often results in as wide a range of differences within a denomination, despite organizational unity, as exists between denominations.

"The Bible in no way envisages the organization of the church into denominations. It instead assumes the opposite, that all Christians, except those being disciplined, will be in full fellowship with all others. Any tendencies to the contrary were roundly denounced (I Cor. 1:10-13). Paul could write a letter to the Christians meeting in various places in Rome or Galatia with every assurance that all would receive its message. Today, for any city or country, he would have to place the letter as an advertisement in the secular media (*commercial), and hope." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), page 310.

The New Dominant Religion

"Denominationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The theological distinction between the church visible and invisible, made by Wycliffe and Hus and elaborated by the Protestant Reformers, underlies the practice and defense of denominationalism that emerged among seventeenth century English Puritans, who agreed on most things but not on the crucial issue of how the church should be organized. The eighteenth century revivals associated with Wesley and Whitefield greatly encouraged the practice, especially in America, where it became dominant." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), page 310.

Issue the Forty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Simplicity in Christ, Part One...

A Sacred Name for God: Must it be used?...

Divide et Impere, conclusion...

Office Found/Abatement...

Pagan Practices, yesterday and Today: The Pagan Origins of the Modern Days and Months...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Simplicity in Christ

Part One

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so should be corrupted your thoughts from the simplicity which is as to the Christ. For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus whom we did not proclaim, or ye receive a different spirit which ye did not receive, or different glad tidings, which ye did not accept, well were ye bearing with it." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 [Interlinear Greek/ English, Stephanus Text, George Ricker Berry]

As we continue our exodus out of the house of bondage with the confusion and fascination that reigns therein, and reach His promised land of simplicity in and of Him, we continue to leave behind all of the dead ways of the world, thereby fulfilling His command to "come out of her My people." Consistent with this exodus and joyful fellowship with all called and assembled by Him in and to His Lawful assemblies, through His revealed knowledge and understanding we will continue to shed the dead errors of the past by the road, and by His Grace, never to return to those ways again; that we may, by His Grace, walk in newness of Life in faithfulness to Him. To enter in to this simplicity and to continue the separation of the bone from the marrow, a change of the name of the work you now have in your possession is warranted.

To show where we have been led, we will break down the journey into two separate parts. This part will explain the change of the name of this work and the elimination of the term "Christian Jural Society; and, by the Grace of God through Christ Jesus, in the second part [which will appear in the next issue], we will share the recent research information relating to the "general post-office" and what this means to the executing bondman of Christ Jesus.

Note: The Christian Jural Societies throughout the land have been formed and assembled for His purposes. It is time to consider the shedding of the "legal personality" of the term "Christian Jural Society" and look to the Simplicity in Christ only.

Beginning with the former name of this work, "The Christian Jural Society News," we see three key words. We ask that you take special note of the first word, "Christian." In all of the many epistles of Brothers Peter, Paul, John, Jude, James, and in all the historical research on the early Lawful assemblies, we have never come across any of them referring to themselves by this dead moniker, but to that of substance:

"Paul and Timotheus, bondmen of Jesus Christ..." Phillippians 1:1
"James, bondman of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ..." James 1:1
"Simeon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ..." II Peter 1:1
"Jude, bondman of Jesus Christ..." Jude 1:1
"Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the glad tidings of God..." Romans 1:1
"Paul, bondman of God, and apostle of Jesus Christ..." Titus 1:1
"Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him, to shew to His bondmen..." Revelation 1:1

[The above verses are from the Interlinear Greek/English, Stephanus Text, George Ricker Berry].

The heathen at Antioch were the first users of the dead moniker, "Christians," to put a label on those who did not follow the ways of the world of Antioch. Labels are images as was the superscription on the coin shown to Christ. It is one of those euphonious words to bring a bondman in and of Christ into the house of bondage to the world. Just as Peter gave credence to the temple-tax and thereby was bound to pay it, those who give credence to the label are bound to the service of those who use or make such labels of the world. This is why it is so important when remaining faithful to Christ Jesus, that you be able to know what words and what evidence must be presently shown to sanctify the Christ's bondman from the world's "christian." This is part of "running the race" set before us.

The second to take into consideration is the word "jural." "Jural" refers to natural "rights" or positive right, or to man's "doctrines" of rights and obligations. The bondmen in and of Christ have no rights and obligations from or to the world, but only duties to Him who bought them for a price to do His Will and not their own self-aggrandizing will. In Him do they find their abode [their rest], their salvation, their Life, and their being. With the Law being an Image of Him, outside of Him there is only lawlessness, and "jural" has no Law, but has only "moral" rights and obligations that describe the "moral persons" of that society. In short, all things relating to "jural" are the creations of the heathen world and are for the heathen only.

The third to take note of is "society." "Society" is just another word for "the world." It is not a word found anywhere to describe God's children, for it denoted "persons" gathered together according to their own will for their own purposes:

"Society. A number of persons associated for any temporary or permanent object; an association for mutual or joint usefulness, pleasure or profit." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1987.

The humanist James Ward best described the depravity of and anti-Christ purpose of "society" when he wrote:

"Without this intersubjective intercourse mankind would remain a herd; with it they become a society."

We, according to the Grace and Will of God our Father, will remain as sheep in the herd under the Guidance of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, our only Shepherd.

A Sacred Name for God:

Must it be used?

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our

Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph

In the past we have been criticized for not using the so-called "sacred name" for God in our writings and in our many discourses. To begin this discourse, we will call witnesses to bring their testimony as it has relevance. The Spirit of God through Brother John gave us a list of witnesses to call:

"This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." 1 John 5:6-8.

Above are a total of four witnesses--three are one in essence; and, the other three agree with that essence being One. Note that the Spirit is both a Witness in heaven against ungodly men; and, a Witness for God in Christ Jesus to all men, regardless of race, religion, creed, ad nauseam; none of which are in Christ, nor can they trace their authority to Him. We will be consulting these Witnesses for their Testimony in this present work, for from them do we hear the Truth; and, not from the works of men, i.e., creeds, confessions, covenants, and articles of faith. The Spirit of God...

"now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Romans 16:26-27.
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;" Ephesians 3:5.
"God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," Hebrews 1:1.

Note that the testimony of the New Testament corroborates the testimony of the Old Testament for the Spirit of God changes not at any time:

"God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?" Numbers 23:19.
"God is not as man to waver nor as the son of man to be threatened; shall He say and not perform? shall He speak and not keep to His word?" Numbers 23:19 (LXX).
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that He should repent." 1 Samuel 15:29.
"and God will not turn nor repent, for He is not as a man to repent." 1 Samuel 15:29 (LXX).
"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3:6.
"For I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed." Malachi 3:6 (LXX).

This shows then that there can be no separation--both are contained in Christ, so to separate one from the other is to separate Christ. "Is Christ divided?" So we will be consulting the writings of the prophets for the Witness of the Spirit of God in looking toward the coming of Christ; and, we will be consulting the writings of the prophets of the New Testament in looking back to Christ.

We have been led by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to answer these criticisms and these critics, not by the wisdom of the world; but by the Power of the Word, that may be summed up by the Spirit as follows:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." John 1:1 & 2. (Berry)

Christ's own Testimony corroborating the Spirit's Testimony is,

"I and My Father are one." John 10:30.

Note here that the Spirit speaking through Brother John never conveyed a sacred name, for to do so would divide the Testimony of one against the others. The bolded phrase in John 1:2 is the key to every act that every bondmen in and of Christ Jesus undertakes in His Name and by His Authority, for there is no Authority or Power superior to or antedating Christ. In Truth and in deed, it is written for us that;

"And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church: Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:17-18.
"All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3.
"O LORD, Thou art my God; I will exalt Thee, I will praise Thy name; for Thou hast done wonderful things; Thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth." Isaiah 25:1.
"O Lord God, I will glorify Thee, I will sing to Thy name for thou hast done wonderful things, even an ancient and faithful counsel." Isaiah 25:1 (LXX).
"Shall any teach God knowledge? seeing He judgeth those that are high." Job 21:22.
"Is it not the Lord Who teaches understanding and knowledge? and does not He judge murders?" Job 21:22 (LXX).

For our particular Cause here it demonstrates that Christ Jesus was in the beginning with God. This implies that there is a certain knowledge of God known to Christ alone before He showed Him to us. The veil was in place from the time of Adam's judgment to the dawn of Christ for it is written, to wit;

"and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." Luke 10:22.
"No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John 4:12.
"No man hath seen God at any time [*not Moses, not Abraham, none of the prophets]; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." John 1:18.

Notice that we do not hear Moses declaring the Father for he never saw Him face to face. But Christ Jesus, being in the bosom of the Father, has both seen and declared Him. And the Word of His Testimony is recorded for us, to wit;

"Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:8-9.

Now, in the above testimony, we do not hear or read of God instructing Christ to use the terms "Elohim," "Yahweh," "Jehovah," or "El-Shaddai" or other words that merely describe what is seen or heard in the outer court looking at the veil of the Law hiding the inner court, the activities of the Father for His Purposes taking place in the inner court.

Names are always given by those to things of which they are not a constituent. For instance, if you do not belong to a certain kingdom, you are labeled or named by that kingdom to be of another kingdom. For example, Americans call those from the continent of Asia, Asians; from Africa, Africans; the ungodly calling bondmen of Christ, christians, ad nauseam. But if you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but, you call them according to the relation between the two of you, i.e., brother, sister, father, mother. But Who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver;

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:5.
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20.
"For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50.
"If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and His love is perfected in us [*not perfected through someone's mere description of Him]." 1 John 4:12.
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law." Romans 13:8.

Love for Him is what is required--not the lust for the letters of a sacred name. We can say then, that if you use any names for God other than Abba Father, you are outside Him and not in Christ. This is seen when we read or hear of the Testimony of the Son about His Father, and the Father's Testimony of His Son, to wit;

"And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son: hear Him." Mark 9:7.
"And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son: hear Him." Luke 9:35.

The prophets wrote:

"Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in Whom My soul delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." Isaiah 42:1. [This is confirmed at Matthew 12:18].
"Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go." Isaiah 48:17. [This is confirmed at Matthew 11:29].

Note Who's Word we are to hear and note that no euphonious words of men or Massoretic conjurations are mentioned. Also note Who is teaching us. Is there any one else who can take His place? In Truth, no. In fact Moses wrote the following testimony given by God our Father through Christ Jesus to him:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My Name, I will require it of him." Deuteronomy 18:18-19.
"I will raise up to them a prophet of their brethren, like thee; and I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them as I shall command Him. And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that prophet shall speak in My name, I will take vengeance on him." Deuteronomy 18:18-19 (LXX).

Christ's Testimony of the above reads:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?" John 5:39-40, 46-47.

Note carefully the bolded words. If you believe not Christ's Words, you have nothing in Him or God our Father. God our Father put the words Christ Jesus spoke to us in His mouth. These were not words that Christ Jesus spoke out of turn, or of His own will; but of the Will of Him Who sent Him. Let us now hear the Testimony of Christ Jesus Himself:

"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things." John 8:28.
"And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak." John 12:50.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works." John 14:10.

The prophets also wrote:

"For His God doth instruct Him to discretion, and doth teach Him." Isaiah 28:26.

Following this chain, there is and was no commandment given by God our Father, through His Son--His Word--our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ to call Him by any sacred name. Would God our Father teach lies to His Son? or would He teach His Son to lie to His Inheritance? or would He teach His Son to withhold access to Him through or by withholding a sacred name for God from us?

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Romans 3:4.

Would Christ Jesus be an obedient Son by withholding some key sacred name for God from us? The Spirit testifies;

"And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8.

Let us also consult with the woman at the well, who conversed with Christ Jesus, and her testimony is recorded to be;

"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when He is come, He will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He." John 4:25-26.

Has Christ Jesus told us all things? Is His Testimony True? We know His Testimony is True;

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." John 14:6.

...and therefore He has told us all things; and so those that deny He was and is complete condemn themselves. There is no thing that has not been revealed or manifested to us by, in and through Him. He bears witness;

"And He said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." Mark 4:21-23. [Have you heard any of the so-called sacred names coming from His lips?]
"For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me.I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:8 & 14.

Did God forget to give Christ Jesus some words? Did Christ Jesus forget to speak some words given by God? In and of Truth, no. What words did God or Christ Jesus forget? In and of Truth, none. You bear false witness otherwise.

The next question is, does God, our Father, tell us to hear the voice of a liar? The Scripture is full of warnings and admonitions against hearing the voice of liars, but for our purposes it is sufficient to quote just one, for all three Witnesses in heaven being One declare:

"But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods [*attributes or activities are now god, and not His Eternal Power and Theiotes], even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously [marg. ref., arrogance]: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

So that we can say then, that because Christ is and was Sealed from the beginning, then we are to hear Him Whom God has Sealed and not those whom God has not sealed and who speak arrogantly--the sciolist, sophist, philosopher, theologian, theorician, knave, pietatus simulator, ad nauseam. The Son Whom we hear, the Father recognizes and declares by His Seal;

"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for Him hath God the Father sealed." John 6:27.

The Seal of God not only is recognition of His Son, but also that His Testimony is True. There is no one else bearing this recognition unless he is a son of God. For one to be a son, however, means that there must be a Father Who has recognized His son and declared him to the world;

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Romans 8:16.

And likewise the son must bear witness of Who is his Father to the world. Again Romans 8:16 testifies to this very fact. The Spirit of God bearing witness with our spirit is a reciprocal flow: we bear witness of our Father, and He bears Witness of us. Without this reciprocal flow we are bastards, liars, thieves, and others who are not of His Righteousness and Kingdom. Christ Jesus bears witness of this in His Testimony given to Him by His Father;

"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true." John 5:31.
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me [*the Spirit of God beareth witness of Me with Me]." John 8:17-18.
"And in your law also it has been written, that of two men the witness is true. I am who bears witness concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness concerning Me." John 8:17-18. [Berry].

Note again, no sacred name used.

Would God our Father witness one not His son to be His Son? Would God our Father, bear witness of a liar? Would He bear witness and seal the witness of one wilfully withholding the Truth?

Additionally, a mere name can give no recognition, for it merely describes, has no Life in itself and gives no life. But God our Father can, and does;

"as the Father hath life in Himself; so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself;" John 5:26.

Another approach we take to this question of "the sacred name" for God involves the following manifestation at Calvary, which was also called Golgotha or "the place of the skull." This has tremendous impact in Law and in fact which we will show here. This seems to have been overlooked by those who demand that others partake of their private truth of using "the" sacred name only. Let us now read the testimony of the Glad Tidings given by the Spirit and recorded by Brother Matthew:

"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;" Matthew 27:51. See also Ezekiel 37.

Notice what was destroyed at the temple by the act performed at Golgotha, or "the place of the skull." The veil of necrotic dogma that existed in the minds of men was rent from top to bottom and men now had access to their Father through Christ Jesus. We read thus,

"By a new and living way [*not mere words sans Execution in Him], which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" Hebrews 10:20.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." John 14:6.
"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures [*images, or shadows] of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:" Hebrews 9:24.

Note that there is no access to God by a mere name for Him; but, to God our Father through Christ Jesus, the Son Whom the Father declared from before the foundation of the world. A mere name is insufficient in Law for establishing the inheritance in and of the son from the Father. It must be witnessed by the Father, and we have not found such a witness.

The next thing we will mention here is the following Testimony of Christ concerning His Lawful execution of our Father's Will;

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17.
"Think not that I am come to abolish the Law, or the prophets: I come not to abolish, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17. [Berry]

Note very carefully the testimony given. Christ Jesus did not come to destroy (or abolish) the Law, for in Him is the Law and the Law is His Image, not the image of a so-called sacred name. If He came to destroy it, it would have meant suicide. He came not to abolish or destroy the prophets, for that would have made them and the Spirit of our Father who spoke through them liars. The Scripture has been written from the beginning, and for Him to have destroyed the Law and the prophets would have made the Word of God of none effect--impotent--instead of Omnipotent. Could He be an obedient Son and destroy the Law of our Father's House? So let us look to the word of the prophets for why Christ Jesus always called God, Father (or in Aramaic, Abba), and commanded us to do the same:

"Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD [*see Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 37]: neither shall it come to mind [*see Hebrews 8:6] neither shall they remember it [*see Luke 17:20]; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more [*types and shadows of ceremony are removed when Christ Jesus comes into the heart--see Hebrews 4:10, 7:22, 9:12 & 24]. At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination [marg. ref., stubbornness] of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers. But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call Me, My father; and shalt not turn away from Me." Jeremiah 3:14-19.

Note carefully the bolded words. All the sacred names for God, all types and shadows, are contained in the Law and the Prophets. Note that what was mere shadow or type, i.e., a sacred name for God, will not be remembered any more because it was replaced with substance--by, in and through Christ Jesus:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Galatians 3:24-25.

Did or has God, our Father, being our Lawgiver, establish(ed) that relation between us and Him through Christ Jesus? For Christ Jesus to have called God any name other than Abba--Father--would have meant He turned away from Him, an act of disobedience, for He would have violated the above command in Jeremiah 3:19. But He did not at any time turn away. If He had turned away, He could never have borne Witness of the Spirit in the prophets or executed the Law and Judgment written from the beginning; and, we would be the most miserable creatures, without hope, destitute of salvation, condemned forever. Note Christ's testimony directing us what to call God our Father:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name." Matthew 6:9.

When do we become a son joined to our Father? The answer is found in two places, first the Holy Spirit through Brother John declares;

"But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12-13.

and then through Brother Paul declares;

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" Romans 8:16.

Therefore, claims that one "is saved" are frivolous without the witness of the Spirit of God. Do we join Him at our pleasure by our power or authority? Clearly the above Witnesses of the Spirit are contrary to such a flawed human doctrine. Do we become joined to our Father by use of a "sacred name" for Him known only to some? Again, clearly the contrary is witnessed by the Spirit. We are without any authority or power within ourselves to force God to do any thing for us. Only if the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit is it said we are the sons of God--not our own claims or the claims of others for us.

Those that claim we must use a sacred name for God claim to have knowledge unknown or unrevealed to and in Christ, thereby bringing damnation upon themselves because they believe not the Testimony of our Father through and about His Son;

"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape. And ye have not [marg. ref., not honored] His word abiding in you: for Whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not." John 5:36-38.
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16.
"Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me." John 12:44.
"Then said Jesus again unto them, I go My way [*the Way of Truth and Life], and ye shall seek Me [*in your darkness because you know not Me nor the Scriptures about Me], and shall die in your sins [*being filled with your own ungodliness]: whither I go, ye cannot come [*the gulf separating Life and Light from death and darkness is too great].I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins [*because ye believe Me not--note Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and Ezekiel 3:18]." John 8:21 & 24.

The Spirit, speaking through Solomon, also bearing witness;

"Turn you at My reproof [*"Repent: for the Kingdom of God is at hand"]: behold, I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out My hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all My counsel, and would none of My reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you. Then shall they call upon Me, but I will not answer; they shall seek Me early, but they shall not find Me: For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD: They would none of My counsel: they despised all My reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices." Proverbs 1:23-31.
"Behold, I will bring forth to you the utterance of My breath, and I will instruct you in My speech. Since I called, and ye did not hearken; and I spoke at length, and ye gave no heed; but ye set at nought My counsels, and disregarded My reproofs; therefore I also will laugh at your destruction; and I will rejoice against you when ruin comes upon you; yea when dismay suddenly comes upon you, and your overthrow shall arrive like a tempest; and when tribulation and distress shall come upon you, or when ruin shall come upon you. For it shall be that when ye call upon Me, I will not hearken to you: wicked men shall seek Me, but shall not find Me. For they hated wisdom, and did not choose the word of the Lord: niether would they attend to My counsels, but derided My reproofs. Therefore shall they eat the fruits of their own way, and shall be filled with their own ungodliness." Proverbs 1:23-31 (LXX).

The use of a sacred name for God is not a commandment given by God through Christ Jesus; but, is a doctrine of self-aggrandizing men who have not the corroborating Witness of the Spirit of God--Judaizers--who;

"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law." Romans 2:17-20
"Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness [*type or shadow (morphosis)], but deny the power thereof." 2 Timothy 3:4-5.

and in the same passage by the Spirit we are counselled;

"from such turn away."

Remain in fullness of faith in and to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for He bears Witness;

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16.

And, by the Grace of God, our Father, all called by Him will hearken to His Name, Amen.

Divide et Impere

The Doctrine of Modern Fascism

Part Two

(continued from Issue the Forty-fourth)

written solely by the Grace of God in and through

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

Because these creeds, covenants, confessions, and articles of faith are judged by the Word of God, they are not of Christ Jesus nor of God our Father. Pick up a Strong's or Cruden's Concordance and you will not find any of these terms except covenant. But the covenant spoken of is with God through Christ Jesus, not through a higher'archy (higher anarchy) of men. Have you Peace with God through creeds, covenants, confessions, and articles of faith that are judged by God? Does God our Father second-guess His own Work? It is written,

"For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4.
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Numbers 23:19.
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." 1 Samuel 15:29.

If not originating in Him, they are condemned:

"But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." Matthew 15:13.

We can see they do not originate in Him from the following, because they are written on paper that has not corroboration of and by the Spirit of God:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33.

The bondmen of Christ then do not look to these counterfeit covenants of men that appeal to the "old man" of the flesh possessing a living soul:

"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]." Isaiah 17:7-8.

Because his mind is renewed in the knowledge of God our Father;

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God [*not creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]." Romans 12:2.
"And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God [*not creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] is created in righteousness and true holiness." Ephesians 4:23-24.
"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him [*not the makers of creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] that created him:" Colossians 3:10.

and he is conformed to the image of His Maker:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son [*not creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." Romans 8:28-29.

having been quickened by His Spirit,

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Colossians 2:13.
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit;" 1 Peter 3:18.

for the works of men, i.e., creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith quicken no one and save no souls from hell:

"It is the spirit [*not creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] that quickeneth; the flesh [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life [*not the words of men dead to Christ]." John 6:63.

and from this they know that:

"For from Israel was it also: the workman made it [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces."Hosea 8:6.

So that he, being "instant in season," always bears good fruit for his Master:

"Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD [*not in dead creeds, confessions, covenants, or articles of faith], and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit." Jeremiah 17:7-8.

Trusting in such creeds, confessions, covenants or articles of faith prevents one from bearing good fruit for Christ, for he is like the dead things he trusts, for he receives not the things, i.e. Life, of the Spirit of God:

"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands [*the molten images of creeds, confessions, covenants, articles of faith]. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 115:1-8.
"For the LORD will judge his people, and He will repent Himself concerning his servants. The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands [*the molten images of creeds, confessions, covenants, articles of faith]. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 135:14-18.

In addition, the bondmen of Christ know that:

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], and love the other [*Christ Jesus]; or else he will hold to the one [*Christ Jesus], and despise the other [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]." Matthew 6:24.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], and love the other [*Christ Jesus]; or else he will hold to the one [*Christ Jesus], and despise the other [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [*creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]." Luke 16:13.

Further, the Word of God testifies against these dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith:

"...we are debtors, not to the flesh [*dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], to live after the flesh [*dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]. For if ye live after the flesh [*dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God [*not dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage [*to dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:12-17.
"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ [*not dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]. For He is our peace [*not dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith], who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances [*not dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh." Ephesians 2:13-17.
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [*dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ [*not dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith]." Colossians 2:13-17.

For those that have, by their "free will," chosen to look to creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith for any thing, evidence that they have no thing in or with Him or His Lawful assembly:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16.

By the Grace and Will of God in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, stand we in bondage to Christ, abiding, living, moving and having our being in Him, receiving and having Liberty in and from Him alone (2 Corinthians 3:17), with God our Father, and dwelling in His House forever; rather than be the slaves of the natural man, bastards of his dead creeds, covenants, confessions, or articles of faith of his dead religious society and his religions founded by those condemned of old by the righteous Judgment of God by Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour:

"He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30.
"He that is not with Me is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth." Luke 11:23.

Those who are not with Him are against Him, and therefore evidence they are of the spirit of anti-Christ, for theology itself is of anti-Christ:

"Let us recapitulate the chief elements of the scientific method, as described so far. There are ten of them:
"1. A problem [*to the natural man God or His Will is the problem--see 1 Corinthians 2:14] to be solved [*by His pathetic creatures!?!?!?] which bothers somebody [*the anti-Christ or those of him], maybe cosmic rays, may be juvenile delinquency.
"2. Gathering the available facts about it [*to the theologian God is a thing], searching the literature [*Scripture--this is why textual/historical criticism is important to the anti-Christ theologian so if Scripture does not "conform" to his own image and likeness, he can throw it out as "corrupted" text.]
"3. A theory [*lie--no Truth, morphosis] to explain the problem, a pattern sketched [*of Him Whose shape no man has seen].
"4. Rigorous verification of the theory [*lie] by other scientists [*theologians]. Emotion and bias ruled out [*except when we must re-define in our own image who our god is].
"5. A stubborn atmosphere of doubt [*of whether God exists or not]. The cheerful ability to say, 'I was wrong.'
"6. Prediction [*of His behavior--prognostication] in terms of probabilities [*no Truth], not absolutes.
"7. Thinking [*by a seared conscience] more in terms of process than of linear cause and effect.
"8. Thinking [*by a seared conscience] in terms of structure [*systematization--morphosis]. How things are related [*though we can re-define the relation as we re-define God] to one another; the order in which they come--the structure of a skyscraper, a corporation, a community, a conference, an argument, an agenda.
"9. No closed solutions; room always allowed for new data which may give a closer fit. [*Leave room for molding our god in our image of ourselves as our moods change by our self-estimation--morphosis.]
"10. No secrets, no monopolies, no payoffs. The storehouse open to all men everywhere [*but it is none the less a private storehouse]." Stuart Chase, The Proper Study of Mankind (1954), p. 17.

Those who look to the theories of the natural man and not to the Truth evidence that they are not His, for they exchange His Testimony in and of Truth, for a lie:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33

Office Found/Abatement

Nota Bona: The Footnotes/endnotes are for your edification, and are not to appear in served abatement.

Locus ecclesia sigilii

[Put no box or rope or other appendage around the seal, because this limits the seal to matters inside them. This box is to show here the Lawful assembly's seal should appear.
Case numbers are not a requirement, for the Lawful assembly has knowledge in Christ Jesus of the action. The Cause is in Law for His Lawful assembly is in Him Who sanctified Himself from the world that all His bondmen may remain in Law, and not in the world.]

superior court,

San Mateo county, California

His Lawful assembly at San Mateo,

Demandant

against

Gregory Jones and Robert Foreman,

idolators and natural persons,

Defendants.

( Cause in Law:

)

( Part One.

) Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found:

( Answers within ten days to Declarations of Law

) and Fact Ordered.

(

)

Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found:

By His Lawful assembly at San Mateo:

In the accusation and maltreatment of our Brothers: William Michael and William Eugene, our Brothers in and of His Lawful assembly through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ:

Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come, and May Concern:

Introduction

Comes Now, His Lawful assembly at San Mateo, grateful to Almighty God for His Son, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and our Liberty in Him, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and ourselves by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Cause, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Writ, revealed both in His Testament and Glad Tidings written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him:

By Authority of all Power in heaven and earth being given unto our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus{1}, Who died and rose again that He might be Lord both of the dead and living{2}; and, all things having been delivered of God our Father to Him{3}; all Power over all flesh having been given unto Him{4}; all Judgment having been committed unto Him by God our Father{5} for the Kingdom is the LORD's: and He is the governor among the nations{6}, all Lawful Government is upon His shoulder and of the increase of His Government there is no end{7} for His Kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His dominion endureth throughout all generations{8}; and by His sanctification{9}, and sending His bondmen in Lawful assembly in the world to bear Witness of Him to the world{10}, and delegating all who sojourn in and serve Him power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all power of the enemy{11}, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus by and through His Lawful assembly at San Mateo proclaims{12}:

Declaration of Law:

This Non-Statutory Abatement is issued by and under the Ministerial Power and Authority vested solely in and appertaining to the Ministerial Office of Christ in His Lawful assembly at San Mateo, established from everlasting{13} and forever in Truth{14} by the Grace of God through Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus{15}, the Christ, Who is the Foundation of Law{16}, in and among all those sojourning bondmen in and of Him, being co-heirs and anointed co-Executors of His Testament by His Delegation of Authority{17} governing His Creation brought into being by His original Act sworn to by Him in His Testament{18} in and from the beginning{19}, and in Lawful execution of His Judgments against Gregory Jones and Robert Foreman, idolatrous, natural persons, who have received not the things of the Spirit of God{20}, and that are enemies of, and strangers to, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus for Whom we minister and serve{21}, for we are commanded by Him to bear fruit at all times in and for Him{22}, and it is an honour of His Lawful assembly to execute upon them the judgment written{23} because to obey is better than sacrifice{24} for it is written, to wit, Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field{25}. Said Defendants are attempting to plunder and usurp His Authority in His Lawful assembly contrary to Law, for it is written, to wit: In their setting of their threshold by My thresholds, and their post by My posts, and the wall between Me and them; and, Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! because they have cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel{26} Who is the Word.{27} The aforesaid acts are outlawed by and in Him, and in His Lawful assembly at San Mateo, for it is written, to wit: ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the Law; ye have corrupted the covenant{28} thereby making the Word of God of none effect{29} for Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him{30}; and, because they disturb His Peace that He bestowed upon His Lawful assembly at San Mateo{31}, and it conflicts with His Law He put in our inward parts for it is written, this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people{32}for the covenant is in and through Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour through Whom flows all Law, Righteousness and Truth, for it is written, to wit, I in them, and thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me{33}; and it is written, to wit, At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves, or the images{34}, i.e. UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF SAN MATEO, for it is written, to wit, the workman made them, therefore they are not God{35} because there is no other God, for it is written, to wit, Is there a God beside Me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any{36} and we know not any, for it is written, to wit, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him{37}; and, it conflicts with the law of the land for it is written, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth{38} And Christ Jesus is before all things, and by Him all things consist.{39} Wherefore, it is written, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.{40} Therefore the Law He put on our inward parts, known by all men to be the lex non scripta, is the jus publicum and lex et consuetudo regni in His Lawful assembly at San Mateo, all pretensions to the contrary not with standing, because what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder{41} for that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them, so that they are without excuse{42}, and for it is written, For where two or three are gathered together in My NAME, there AM I in the midst of them{43} and it is written, Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me{44}:

Declaration of Facts:

At, on, or about the eighth hour of the thirtieth day of the ninth month in the nineteen hundred and ninety-ninth Year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, our Brothers in and of this Lawful assembly at San Mateo through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, were sent by our our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in His Name and by His Authority, to inquire of the county clerk, one Gregory Jones, by and through exercise of the Ministerial Power of Visitation delegated to them by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. After being informed our Brothers were waiting patiently for him, Gregory Jones, did wilfully, without Warrant in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, refuse to see, hear, or acknowledge our Brothers sent by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, thereby attempting to frustrate the Lawful exercise and execution of His Ministerial Power delegated to His Lawful assembly by hiding behind thresholds and posts next to but outside the Word of God{45}, and bearing witness against himself, to wit, They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service{46}; and, has had his conscience seared with a hot iron47, and is not circumcised in heart{48}; having not received the things of the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus for they are foolishness unto him{49}; and proclaiming that he is an enemy of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for it is written, to wit: He that is not with Me is against Me{50}; and, He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me{51}; He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me{52}; If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him{53} for whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God{54}; thereby evidencing his love for death over Life, for it is written, to wit, he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate Me love death{55}; Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him{56}; and,

Our Brothers were shamefully treated, being wilfully accused of being dangerous by one Robert Foreman, who bore no True witness of the evil of our Brothers because the Witness of God our Father is greater{57}, Who did not corroborate his witness, for it is written, to wit, Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not{58}. On the contrary, God our Father bore witness that his presumption of evil in our Brothers is evidence of the darkness and evil within himself, to wit, whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him{59}; and, that he and his presumption of evil have no thing in Him or His Lawful assembly, for it is written, to wit, Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment{60}, for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again61. This same Robert Foreman later called some other men in the employ of THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a dead corporation without the breath of Life breathed into it by God our Father, thereby showing no evidence of lineage or authority to the Tree of Life{62}, and therefore an idol engraved on their hearts, to escort our Brothers outside the building, where they patiently waited for Gregory Jones, thereby bearing witness against himself that he attempted to frustrate the Lawful exercise and execution of His Ministerial Power delegated to His Lawful assembly, to wit, They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service{63}; and, has had his conscience seared with a hot iron{64}, and is not circumcised in heart{65}; having not received the things of the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus for they are foolishness unto him.{66} In excess of three hours later, the doors on the building were shut to our Brothers and locked against them, never having audience with Gregory Jones, being despised by him and Robert Foreman. By these acts Robert Foreman proclaimed himself to be an enemy of Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for it is written, to wit: He that is not with Me is against Me{67}; and, He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me{68}; He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me{69}; If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him{70} for whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God{71}; thereby evidencing that he loves death over Life, for it is written, to wit, he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate Me love death{72}; and, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him{73}; and,

Now, therefore:

The Law in and of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus righteously Judges, and has righteously Judged, you and and each of you and your acts and each of your acts to have no Warrant in Him and His Lawful assembly at San Mateo; and, to be without Him, without Life, without Law, and without Truth, for it is written, to wit, for without Him ye can do nothing{74} in Law; and, we shall, henceforth, by the Grace of God with and in fulness of faith in and to Christ Jesus our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Lawfully avoid you, you having proven yourselves strange and alien to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, His Law and His Lawful assembly at San Mateo; for Lawful Cause: and are, herewith, abated for being destructive of His Lawful assembly at San Mateo and His Inheritance herein; and your acts to be works of darkness, for it is written, to wit, For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.{75} There are no factors that warrant adjustment of the Abatement and Office Found, for it is written, God divided the light from the darkness{76} and the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not{77} and there is no fellowship between Him or His Lawful assembly at San Mateo and the workers of iniquity{78} or their works of darkness{79}; and,

Ordering Clause:

"Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing,

and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order."

His Lawful assembly, in the Name and by Authority of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, being His express Image and Likeness in and to but not of the world{80}, so orders the said Defendants to answer the above Declarations of Law and Fact within ten days of the ordering of this Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found; or, show Cause in the Law in and of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus why this Abatement should not lie and the Defendants be not found and declared out of Office and in outlawry--assumption, belief, dogma, reason, necessity, presumption, speculation, opinion, morals, morality, moralism, philosophy, sophism, or sciolism not with standing, for all are without Christ and therefore without Law or standing in Law. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and supporting documentation standing in Law. If more time than ten days is needed to respond, it may be granted on written request to His Lawful assembly. Because all are without excuse, failure to obey this Lawful order of and from His Lawful assembly or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in Default and Default Judgment, for it is written, to wit, There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves{81}, for He hast made of a city an heap; of a defenced city a ruin: a palace of strangers to be no city; it shall never be built{82} for His hand shall find out all His enemies: His right hand shall find out those that hate Him{83} and shalt bring down the noise of strangers{84} for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped{85} so that the congregation of hypocrites shall be desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery{86} for the LORD our God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God{87} for the work of a man shall He render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment{88} because His counsels of old are faithfulness and truth{89}. The zeal of the LORD of hosts, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, will perform this{90}; for it is written, to wit, ye cannot serve God and mammon{91}; therefore, Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.{92}.

All remittance, answer, and response to and of this instant Cause shall be given over to His messengers, our Brothers, sent by Him through letter of appointment from us, His Body, ten days hence from the serving of this Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found on the Defendants.

Solely by the Grace of God in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for the next forty days, to edify all our Brothers and fellow bondmen sojourning in, with, and of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus concerning this instant Lawful Cause, a Notice of this Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found and Default Rule day is posted, in the Record, at general post-offices in San Mateo, Foster City, and Belmont, in San Mateo county, California, and in other locations for all our Brothers and fellow bondmen in His Body to Witness, Record, and have Knowledge: for the Comforter has come already{93}, which proceedeth from the Father{94}, Whom He has sent unto us from our Father{95}, even the Spirit of Truth Whom the Defendants cannot receive, because they see or know Him not{96}, He has testified of Him and His Lawful assembly at San Mateo: And we also bear witness, because we have been with Him from the beginning{97}; and, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we in and of His Lawful assembly are the children of God{98} for it is written, to wit, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established{99}.

By the Authority and Power conditionally delegated to us solely the Grace of God by, in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with His Commandments, Precepts, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, and Testimonies in and of His Holy Writ, solely under Direction of His Warrant in Law and by His Will, do we in and of His Body make and issue this Non-Statutory Abatement and Office Found, for it is written, whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it{100}; and, we are the body of Christ, and members in particular{101}; for we are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people{102}; again it is written, to wit, So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another{103}; and, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens{104}; and, therefore we are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone{105}; For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ{106}; because Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it{107} for the prince, principalities, powers, and rulers of this world have been overcome{108}, judged{109}, their goods spoiled{110} their dogma in their pretensions of law crucified and buried{111} but never resurrected by, with or through Him for Him hath God our Father sealed{112} Who knew no sin{113} because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained{114}, and they have been cast out{115} being made His footstool under His feet{116}; and, we being redeemed by Him{117} are heirs according to His promise{118} being graffed in{119} and therefore are partakers in and of His triumphant Victory{120}, all thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus, the Christ{121} for without Him we can do nothing{122}:

sign manual

L.S.

"Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but My people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit." Jeremiah 2:11

Endnotes

{1} Matthew 28:18.

{2} Romans 14:9.

{3} Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22.

{4} John 17:2.

{5} John 5:22; John 5:27.

{6} Psalm 22:28.

{7} Isaiah 9:6-7

{8} Psalm 145:13.

{9} John 17:19.

{10} John 20:21; Matthew 28:19.

{11} Luke 10:19.

{12} Luke 10:16.

{13} Psalm 90:2; Psalm 93:2; Psalm 145:13.

{14} Psalm 119:42, 51.

{15} See John 1:1.

{16} 1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20; Psalm 127:1.

{17} Matthew 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 20:21.

{18} Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 6:17.

{19} Jeremiah 1:4-5; Isaiah 41:4; Hebrews 4:3.

{20} 1 Corinthians 2:14.

{21} See James 4:4.

{22} Genesis 1:22 & 28; Psalm 1:3; Jeremiah 17:8; Hosea 10:1; Matthew 21:19.

{23} Psalm 149:9.

{24} 1 Samuel 15:22.

{25} Isaiah 32:16.

{26} Isaiah 5:21 & 24.

{27} John 1:1.

{28} Malachi 2:8.

{29} Mark 7:13.

{30} John 13:16.

{31} John 14:27.

{32} Jeremiah 31:33.

{33} John 17:23.

{34} Isaiah 17:7-8.

{35} Hosea 8:6.

{36} Isaiah 44:8.

{37} John 13:16.

{38} Genesis 1:1.

{39} Colossians 1:17; John 1:3.

{40} Luke 17:20.

{41} Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9.

{42} Romans 1:20.

{43} Matthew 18:20.

{44} John 14:6.

{45} See Leviticus, the whole book, for in here are the duties of every county clerk.

{46} John 16:2.

{47} 1 Timothy 4:2.

{48} Ezekiel 44:7 & 9; Romans 2:29.

{49} 1 Corinthians 2:14.

{50} Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23.

{51} Luke 10:16.

{52} Matthew 10:40.

{53} 1 John 2:15.

{54} James 4:4.

{55} Proverbs 8:36.

{56} John 13:16.

{57} 1 John 5:9.

{58} 1 John 3:6.

{59} 1 John 3:6.

{60} John 7:24.

{61} Matthew 7:2.

{62} Revelation 22:14.

{63} John 16:2.

{64} 1 Timothy 4:2.

{65} Ezekiel 44:7 & 9; Romans 2:29.

{66} 1 Corinthians 2:14.

{67} Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23.

{68} Luke 10:16.

{69} Matthew 10:40.

{70} 1 John 2:15.

{71} James 4:4.

{72} Proverbs 8:36.

{73} John 13:16.

{74} John 15:5.

{75} John 3:20.

{76} Genesis 1:4.

{77} John 1:5.

{78} Psalm 1:5; Psalm 5:5; Luke 13:27.

{79} John 14:30; Ephesians 5:11.

{80} Romans 8:29.

{81} Job 34:22.

{82} Isaiah 25:2.

{83} Psalm 21:8.

{84} Isaiah 25:5.

{85} Psalm 63:11.

{86} Job 15:34:

{87} Deuteronomy 4:24, 9:3.

{88} Job 34:11-12.

{89} Isaiah 25:1.

{90} Isaiah 9:7.

{91} Matthew 6:24.

{92} Revelation 2:16.

{93} Isaiah 44:3-8; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18.

{94} John 15:26.

{95} John 14:26 & 15:26.

{96} John 14:17.

{97} Isaiah 44:7; John 15:26-27.

{98} Romans 8:16.

{99} 2 Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15.

{100} 1 Corinthians 12:26.

{101} 1 Corinthians 12:27.

{102} 2 Corinthians 6:16; Leviticus 26:12; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:20.

{103} Ephesians 4:25.

{104} 2 Corinthians 5:1.

{105} Ephesians 2:19-20.

{106} 1 Corinthians 3:11.

{107} Psalm 127:1.

{108} John 16:33; Luke 11:22.

{109} John 16:11.

{110} Luke 11:22.

{111} Colossians 2:14-16; Ephesians 2:15-16.

{112} John 6:27.

{113} 2 Corinthians 5:21.

{114} Acts 17:31.

{115} John 12:31.

{116} Psalm 110:1.

{117} Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:18; Revelation 5:9; 1 Corinthians 6:20, 7:23; Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 1:30;
Ephesians 1:7, 14 & 4:30; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12 & 15.

{118} Galatians 3:29.

{119} Romans 11:17.

{120} Romans 8:37; Colossians 2:14-16.

{121} 1 Corinthians 15:57.

{122} John 15:5.

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today

The Pagan Origins of the Modern Days and Months

Transcribed by Randy Lee

"Monday. n. [ME. moneday, monenday, AS. monandæg, i. e., day of the moon, day sacred to the moon; a translation of L. lunae dies; akin to D. maandag, G. montag, OHG. manatag, Icel. manadagr, Dan. mandag, Sw. mandag. See MOON; DAY.] The second day of the week; the day following Sunday." Webster's New International Dict. (1931), page 1395.

"Tuesday. n. [ME. Tewesday AS. Tiwes dæg the day of Tîw the god of war; akin to OHG. Zio, Icel. Tyr, L. Jupiter, Gr. Zeus; cf. OHG. Ziostac Tuesday (G. Dienstag is not exactly the same word), Icel. Tysdag. See DIETY; cf. JOSS an idol, JOVIAL, JUPITER.] The third day of the week, following Monday and preceding Wednesday." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 2212.

"Wednesday. n. [ME. wednesdei, wodnesdei, AS. Wodnes dæg, i. e. , Woden's day (a translation of L. dies Mercurii); from Woden the highest god of the Teutonic peoples, but identified with the Roman god Mercury; akin to OS. Wodan, OHG. Wuotan, Icel. Oðinn, D. woensdag Wednesday, Icel. oðinsdagr, Dan. & Sw. onsdag.] The fourth day of the week; the next day after Tuesday." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 2316.

"Thursday. n. [ME. þursdei, þorsday, AS. þures dæg, fr. the Scand. name Thor + AS. dæg day. Icel. þorr Thor, the god of thunder, is akin to AS. þunor thunder; cf. AS. þunres dæg, lit,, day of thunder; akin to D. Donerdag, Thursday, G. Donnerstag, Icel. þorsdagr, Sw. & Dan. Torsdag. See THOR, THUNDER; DAY.] The fifth day of the week, between Wednesday and Friday." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 2154.

"Friday. n. [AS. frigedæg, from Frig, name of a godess + dæg, day; cf. Icel. Frigg name of the wife of Odin or Wodan, OHG. Fria, D. virjdag Friday, G. freitag, OHG. friatag, Icel. frjadagr. AS. Frig is from the root of E. friend, free, orig. meaning beloved, or loving; cf. Skr. priya wife. See FREE; DAY.] The sixth day of the week, following Thursday and preceding Saturday. It is the Mohammedan sabbath. In the Roman Catholic Church and the churches of the Anglican Communion every Friday, unless it is Christmas, is a day of fasting and abstinence. Friday was long known as hangman's day, because it was the customary day for hangings." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 868.

"Saturday. n. [ME. Saterdai, AS. Sæterdæg, Sæterndæg, Sæternesdæg, lit. Saturn's day, from L. Saturnus Saturn + A. dæg day; cf. L dies Saturni.] The seventh and last day of the week; the day following Friday and preceding Sunday; the day of the Jewish sabbath." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1883.

"Sunday. n. [AS. sunnandæg; sunne, gen. sunnan, the sun + dæg day; akin to D. zondag, G. sonntag; so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun, or to its worship. See SUN; DAY.] The first day of the week, observed by most Christians as a day of rest from secular employments and of religious worship; the Christian Sabbath; the Lord's Day." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 2080.

"Janurary. n. [L. Januarius, from Janus an old Latin diety, the god of the sun and the year, to whom the month of January was sacred; cf. janua a door.] The first month of the year, having 31 days. The beginning of the year was changed in 1752 by English statute from March 25 to January 1, at the same time that the Gregorian calendar was adopted. See CALENDAR." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1156.

"February. n. [L. Februarius, orig., the month of expiation, because on the 15th of this month the great feast of expiation and purification was held, from februa, pl., the Roman festival of purification; akin to februare to purify, expiate.] The second month in the year, said to have been introduced into the Roman calendar by Numa. In common years it now has 28 days; in leap year, 29." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1156.

"March. n. [OF. march, marz, F. mars, from L. Martius (sc. mensis month) of Mars Mars. Cf. MARTIAL.] The third month of the year in the Julian and Gregorian calendars, containing 31 days." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1317.

"May. n. [F. mai, L. Maius; akin to Maia, a godess, daughter of Atlas and mother of Mercury by Jupiter.] The fifth month of the year, containing 31 days." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1333.

"June. n. [L. Junius: cf. F. Juin. So called from Junius, the name of a Roman gens.] The sixth month of the year, containing 30 days." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1172.

"July. n. [L. Julius; -- named from Caius Julius Cæsar, who was born in this month. : cf. F. Juillet.] The seventh month of the year, having 31 days. Among the old Romans it was called Quintillis, or the fifth month, their year beginning with March." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1171.

"August. n. [L. Augustus.] The eighth month of the year, having 31 days; -- so called in honor of Augustus Cæsar. Thje old Roman name was Sextilis, the sixth month from March, the month in which the primitive Roman year began." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 152.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Theology and Theory

"THEOLOGY. 1. A rational interpretation of religious faith, practice, and experience [*all human]; specif.: a branch of systematic theology dealing with God and his relation to the world [*"What fellowship hath light with darkness?"]. 2. a. A theological theory [*no Truth] or system. b. A distinctive body of theological opinion [*no Truth]. 3. A usu. four-year course of specialized religious training [*conscience searing] in a Roman Catholic major seminary." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1967), p. 915.

"THEOLOGY. 1. Rational interpretation of religious faith, practice, and experience: as a: the analysis, application, and presentation [*deceit] of the traditional doctrines of a religion or religious group [*society]--see APOLOGETICS, DOGMATIC THEOLOGY, NATURAL THEOLOGY, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY; compare PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. b. The study of God and his relation to man and the world: a branch of systematic theology dealing with the arguments for the existence of God, the divine nature and attributes, and the doctrines of the Trinity, creation, and Providence--compare CHRISTOLOGY, ESCHATOLOGY, SOTERIOLOGY. c. (1) the analytical and historical study of religious beliefs <historical theology> <exegetical theology> <comparative theology>--compare PATROLOGY, SYMBOLICS. (2) a descriptive study of concepts relating to matters of ultimate concern < a theology of culture>. d. The interpretation of religious beliefs in relation to contemporary thought and life. e. An inquiry that seeks an adequate interpretation of matters of ultimate concern. 2. a. A coherent body of theological doctrine: theological theory or sy stem <a theology of atonement> <the normative status of Thomist theology>; specif. The doctrine of God [*God is now mere doctrine in the eyes of a theologian and His works inadequate to testify of Him to the theologian]. b, (1) a body of theological opinion distinguished by some characteristic emphasis, method or association <the theology of the Word of God [*misnomer for there is no theology in Scripture]> <the theology of paradox> <Calvinist theology>. (2) the group of theologians sharing such a viewpoint <the task of present-day liberal theology>. c. The sum of the beliefs held by an individual or group [*religious society] regarding matters of religious faith or of ultimate concern: the ideational element in religion <the vagueness of the average man's theology>. 3. A course of Roman Catholic seminary study, usu. requiring four years and including Scripture, church history, homiletics, canon law, and moral and dogmatic theology." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1981), vol. III, p. 2371.

"THEORY. 1. Mental view, contemplation-1710. 2. A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed-1597. 3. A scheme [*deceit] or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts [*the Word of God] or phenomena; a. a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or acepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed-1638. b. That department of an art or technical subject which consists in the knowledge or statement of the facts on which it depends, or of its principles or methods, as distinguished from the practice of it-1613. c. A systematic statement of the general principles of some branch of mathematics; a set of theorems forming a connected system. 4. Without article: Systematic conception or statement of the principles of something; abstract knowledge [*esoteric or secret], or the formulation of it: often used as implying more or less unsupported hypothesis: distinguished from or opposite to practice-1624. 5. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about some thing; an individual view or notion-1792." Oxford's Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 2167.

Bits and Pieces

Form

Outward Pretence

morfwsij

"An old word has received a new passive sense (external shape) in place of its active meaning hitherto (a shaping).

"In secular Greek morphosis was a rare word, perhaps a Stoic term for 'education' (MM). Theophrastus, however, joins it with schematismos (configuration) in referring to the 'schematismos and morphosis (bringing into shape) of plants.' The compound diamorphosis, used by Plutarch, concerns the 'shaping' of wood. Hence, its secular meaning is active, and intrinsic influence or vital impulse, working outwards. But the meaning fails to suit Christian contexts, where morphosis is a soulless and dead shell revealing, as St Chrysostom observes, only schema (outward show), tupos (impression), and hupokrisis (playing a part).

"St. Paul demonstrates that the Jew, for all his pretensions regarding the Law of Moses, had no more than the morphosis (outward pretence) of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:20). It is a shape received, not from within, but from the outside. Unlike the secular meaning, this is passive. Later, St. Paul foretells that heretics in the last times will have only the outward pretence of godliness (2 Timothy 3:5)--the species of piety (Vulgate, Claromontanus). Secular writers would no doubt have resorted to morphoma, for morphosis had for them an active meaning. Ellicott observed that in the NT there is a tendency to replace the verbal nouns in -ma by the corresponding nouns in -sis. The Jerusalem Bible has the 'outward appearance' of religion, Moffat and RSV, 'form', and Knox and NEB 'the outward form' of religion, and all point to the word's new meaning." Nigel Turner, Christian Words (1981), p. 303.

"3446. MORPHOSIS. Form (Noun). 'a form or outline,' denotes, in the NT, 'an image or impress, an outward semblance,' Rom. 2:20, of knowledge of the truth; 2 Tim. 3:5, of godliness. It is thus to be distinguished from morphe (No. 1); it is used in almost the same sense as schema, 'fashion' (which see), but is not so purely the outward 'form' as schema is." Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words.

THE JUSTICE AND HIS ACCUSER

"An eminent Justice of the Supreme Court of Gowk was accused of having obtained his appointment by fraud.

"'You wander,' he said to the Accuser; 'it is of little importance how I obtained my power; it is only important how I have used them.'

"'I confess,' said the Accuser, 'that in comparison with the rascally way in which you have conducted yourself on the Bench the rascally way in which you got there does seem rather a trifle.'" Ambrose Bierce, Collected Writings of Ambrose Bierce (1952), p. 605.

Highwayman AND Traveler

"A Highwayman confronted a Traveler, and covering him with a firearm, shouted: 'Your money or your life!'

"'My good friend,' said the Traveler, 'according to the terms of your demand my money will save my life, my life my money; you imply that you will take one or the other, but not both. If that is what you mean please be good enough to take my life.'

"'That is not what I mean,' said the Highwayman; 'you cannot save your money by giving up your life.'

"'Then take it anyhow,' the Traveler said. 'If it will not save my money it is good for nothing.'

"The Highwayman was so pleased with the Traveler's philosophy and wit that he took him into partnership and with this splendid combination of talent started a newspaper." Ambrose Bierce, Collected Writings of Ambrose Bierce, p. 606.

The Evolutionary Natural Man

"As, from the evolution point of view, human life must be regarded as a further development of sub-human life, it follows that from this same point of view, human justice must be a further development of sub-human justice. For convenience the two are separately treated, but they are essentially the same nature, and form parts of a continuous whole.

"Of man, as of all inferior creatures, the law by conformity to which the species is preserved, is that among adults the individuals least adapted to the conditions of their existence shall prosper most, and that individuals least adapted to the conditions of their existence shall prosper least--a law which, if uninterfered with, entails survival of the fittest, and spread of the most adapted varieties." Herbert Spencer, Synthetic Philosphy (1892), part IV, p. 17.

Society's Evolutionary Morality

"Being a naturalist Darwin was sparing of philosophical speculation and devoted himself primarily to working out a theory of evolution based on the available empirical evidence. He did indeed interpret morality as evolving out of the purposiveness of animal instinct and as developing through changes in social standards which confer survival value on societies." Copleston, A History of Philosophy (1965), p. 123. A survival value is a moral value.

The Molten State

"It is tacitly assumed by nearly all that there is but one right conception of the State; whereas, if, recognizing the truth that societies evolve, we learn the lessons which evolution at large teaches, we shall infer that probably the State has, in different places and times, essentially different natures [*a molten image]. The agreement between inference and fact will soon become manifest." Herbert Spencer, Synthetic Philosphy (1892), part IV, pp. 181-182.

Change of Mailing Location

The new mailing location for written fellowship and requests for available materials has been changed. Please make out the envelope with no other designations on the outside, and upper and lower case letters as follows:

the church at California
general post-office
Piru, California

Any postal money orders sent can be made out to Randy Lee.

The telephone number for fellowship and other information remains the same at 818-347-7080.

Issue the Forty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Elusive Sabbath-rest of the bondman in Christ, Part One...

The Simplicity in Christ, Part Two -- the general post-office...

Letter of Appointment for the general post-office ...

Romans 13: Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom? Part One...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The "Elusive" Sabbath-rest

of the Bondman in Christ

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our

Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee, His mere bondmen

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are located at the end of this article)

Much conjecture and speculation has muddied this subject-matter and clouded it so that it is no longer recognizable as part of and in the Christ, but of the religions of the world. Such has never been the case; and, in Truth the reverse is true. The Sabbath-rest of the natural man's religions are the mimic in the flesh of that which is and always has been in Spirit. Arguments over the correct Sabbath day, i.e. Saturday v. Sunday, are pointless and fruitless in the Christ. Neither position is correct; and, most importantly, neither bears fruit for His Glory. We will not be going into the historical evidence for this statement in this work. we are solely concerned with what the Word of God declares the Sabbath-rest of His bondmen is and how it is entered.

Many times we have sat silent in the congregations of the Sunday social clubs to listen to the preaching of their god's "word," their god being a powerless and dead conjuration of seminary theology (see Divide et Impere); but, never the Word of God revealed to us in the Christ on this most vital and important subject. It is as though there were a shroud of mystery over this subject; and, that if you knew what it was, in Truth, the scheme of hunting and hounding the flock of Christ and making merchandise of them, the Christ and His Word would come to an end. So be it, for the Spirit of God speaking through Brothers Peter and Paul witnesses against these workers of iniquity,

"Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre{1}, but of a ready mind;" 1 Peter 5:2.
"shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not by constraint, but willingly; not for base gain, but readily" 1 Peter 5:2 (Berry).
"For a bishop [*careful here--this is a static position of man] must be blameless{2}, as the steward of God; not self-willed {3}, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre{4};For there are many unruly{5) and vain talkers{6} and deceivers{7}, specially they of the circumcision [*of the flesh--Judaizers]: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert{8} whole houses{9}, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy{10} lucre's sake." Titus 1:7, 10 & 11.
"For it behoves the overseer [*this is not a static position but a living executor in and of the Christ] unimpeachable to be, as God's steward; not self-willed, not passionate, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of base gain,For there are many and insubordinate vain talkers and mind-deceivers, especially those of circumcision, whom it is necessary to stop the mouths of, who whole houses overthrow [*undermining and subversion], teaching things which ought not, for sake of base gain." Titus 1:7, 10 & 11 (Berry).

This work is not and cannot be the result of any theological works if it is to be true to Him Who called all generations from the beginning. See Isaiah 41:4. However, to fully understand His Word, the Spirit witnesses and instructs us that we must,

"Study{11} to shew{12} [*evidence-- John 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; James 2:22] thyself approved{13} [*see Psalm 12:6 & 33:4; Romans 2:29; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Galatians 2:8] unto God, a workman{14} that needeth not to be ashamed{15} , rightly dividing{16} the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.
"Be diligent to present thyself approved to God, a workman not ashamed, straightly cutting the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 (Berry).

Without exercising diligence in moving forward in Christ and in His Name, one is backsliding through heresy to apostasy.

This work is not a license to use our Liberty in the Christ for aggrandizing ourselves, enlarging our pleasures, increasing our wants, or doing the same for others, the Spirit witnessing;

"For, brethren{17}, ye have been called{18} unto liberty{19} [*Romans 8:2, 5, 23; 1 Corinthians 12:7; 2 Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 4:3] ; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh{20} [*see Romans 14:23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Galatians 3:12, 5:19-21, 6:8; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Hebrews 13:4; Revelation 21:8, 22:15], but by love{21} [*Galatians 5:22-23] serve{22} [*not service -- whoredom] one another{23}." Galatians 5:13.

[*Note that this is the original charge given to Adam in Genesis 2:17--Romans 13:8--there is no natural equity (morality) of man in agapao].

To begin this discourse, we will call witnesses to bring forth their testimony having relevance to this very issue. The Spirit of God through Brother John gave us a list of witnesses to call:

"This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth{24} [*not dead and powerless conjurations of theology]. For there are three that bear record{25} in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one{26}. And there are three that bear witness{27} in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood [*see Acts 17:26]: and these three agree{28} in one{29}." 1 John 5:6-8.
"This is He Who came by water and blood, Jesus the Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit it is that bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. Because three there are who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three one are. And three there are who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and three to the one are." 1 John 5:6-8 (Berry).

These are the only Witnesses in Truth capable of testifying to and about the subject-matter of this present work. Above are a total of four witnesses--three are One in Truth; and, the other three being one bear witness that the Truth is One. This is seen from the following, the Spirit bearing Witness:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit [*not only mere words from the mouth but in Truth evidenced in works of obedient fullness of faith] that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not [*not only mere words from the mouth but evidenced in Truth in works of disobedience{30}] that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John 4:2-3.
"By this ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh{31}, of God is; and every spirit which confesses not Jesus Christ come in flesh not of God is; and this{32} is that of the antichrist{33}which ye heard that it comes, and now in the world is it already." 1 John 4:2-3 (Berry).
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 2 John 1:7.

In substance and in truth, those that preach a one-day Sabbath or that mere words are sufficient for salvation are of this kind.

"Because many deceivers entered into the world{34}, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh--this is the deceiver and the antichrist." 2 John 1:7 (Berry).

Antichrist is a spirit manifesting himself in a system manipulating men through the deceit of a dead to the Christ moral feminized society{35}; and not a singular specific man in the flesh.

Note that the Spirit is both a Witness in heaven against ungodly men and their doctrines, speculations, dogma, conjectures, opinions and imaginations; and, a Witness for God in Christ Jesus to all men, regardless of race, religion, creed, ad nauseam none of which are in the Christ, nor can they trace their authority to Him. We will be consulting these Witnesses for their Testimony in this present work, for from them do we hear the Truth; and, not from the hermeneutically sealed works of men, i.e., creeds, confessions, covenants, and articles of faith, and other codes, rules and regulations of the world. See pamphlet entitled Divide et Impere concerning that particular matter. The Spirit of God...

"now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience{36} of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." Romans 16:26-27.
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;" Ephesians 3:5.
"which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as now it was revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit," Ephesians 3:5 (Berry).
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," Hebrews 1:1.
"In many parts and in many ways of old God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets," Hebrews 1:1 (Berry).

Note that the testimony of the New Testament corroborates the testimony of the Old Testament for the Spirit of God changes not at any time:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?" Numbers 23:19.
"God is not as man to waver nor as the son of man to be threatened; shall He say and not perform? shall He speak and not keep to His word?" Numbers 23:19 (LXX).
"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that He should repent." 1 Samuel 15:29.
"and God will not turn nor repent, for He is not as a man to repent." 1 Samuel 15:29 (LXX).
"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3:6.
"For I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed." Malachi 3:6 (LXX). See also Revelation 19:10.

Therefore, it is impossible for man to Lawfully separate or put asunder what God has joined together by and in Himself through the Christ. So we will be consulting the writings of the prophets for the Witness of the Spirit of God in looking toward the coming of the Christ; and, we will be consulting the writings of the prophets of the New Testament for the Witness of the Spirit of God in looking back to the Christ, for both are one being united in and to Him, because these are the places we are to look:

"There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest." Joshua 1:5-9.
"Not a man shall stand against you all the days of thy life; and as I was with Moses, so will I also be with thee, and I will not fail thee, or neglect thee. Be thou strong and quit thyself like a man, for thou shalt divide the land to this people which I sware to give to your fathers. Be strong, therefore, and quit thyself like a man, to observe and do as Moses My servant commanded thee; and thou shalt not turn therefrom to the right hand or to the left [*walking in Truth with an upright heart], that thou mayest be wise in whatsoever thou mayest do [*no theology]. And the book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth, and thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest know how to do all the things [*the Truth] that are written in it [*see Matthew 6:33]; then shalt thou prosper, and make thy ways prosperous, and then thou shalt be wise [*not in theology or theory, but in Truth]. Lo! I have commanded thee: be strong and courageous, be not cowardly nor fearful, for the Lord thy God is with thee in all places whither thou goest." Joshua 1:5-9 (LXX).

We have been led by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to fully answer what the Sabbath-rest of the bondman in and of Christ is , not by the wisdom of the world; but by the Power of His Word, that may be summed up by the Spirit as follows:

"In the beginning was the Word{37}, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:1 & 2.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." John 1:1 & 2 (Berry).

The Christ's own Testimony, displaying the simplicity of His Glad Tidings, and corroborating the Spirit's Testimony is,

"I and My Father are one{38} John 10:30.
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30 (Berry).

From the above testimony, we will begin our work in looking at the Sabbath-rest of the bondman in and of the Christ. Because the Christ and our Father are one, there is a level of direct and intimate knowledge of the Sabbath-rest known specifically to Him alone that was not shown to Moses directly, nor did Moses reveal more than he was commanded by Him in the Old Testament. We will not be using the dead theological word of the world "christian"{39} to describe either ourselves or those who truly belong to and labor for Him (not labor on Him or for the world), but will be using the term to distinguish those of the Christian religion from the bondman in and of the Christ. In the Will of God, we will begin this discussion from the beginning in Part Two for further discourse on this Matter concerning His Lawful assembly.

Endnotes

{1} "2771. KERDOS. Of uncertain affinity; gain (pecuniary or genitive case):--gain, lucre." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"aiscrwkerdwj, for the sake of dishonourable gain." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 471.

{2} "410. ANEGKLETOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 1458; unaccused, i.e. (by implication) irreproachable:--blameless." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{3} "829. AUTHADES. From 846 and the base of 2237; self-pleasing, i.e. arrogant:--self-willed." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"829. AUTHADES. 'Self-pleasing' (autos, 'self,' hedomai, 'to please'), denotes one who, dominated by self-interest, and inconsiderate of others, arrogantly asserts his own will, 'self-willed,' Titus 1:7; 2 Pet. 2:10 (the opposite of epieikes, 'gentle,' e.g., 1 Tim. 3:3), 'one so far overvaluing any determination at which he has himself once arrived that he will not be removed from it' (Trench, who compares and contrasts philautos, 'loving self, selfish'; Syn. xciii). In the Sept., Gen. 49:3, 7; Prov. 21:24." W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, vol III, p. 343.

"829. AUTHADES. Gen. authadous, masc.-fem., neut. authades, adj. From autos (846), himself, and hedomai (n.f.) to please. One who is pleased with himself and despises others, insolent, surly, the contrast of courteous or affable. A person who obstinately maintains his own opinion or asserts his own rights but is reckless of the rights, feelings, and interests of others. He regulates his life with no respect to others [*not even our Sovereign] (Titus 1:7; 2 Pet 2:10; Sept.: Gen 49:3, 7; Prov 21:24).

"Syn. Philautos (5367), loving self, selfish; propetes (4312), precipitous, headlong, heady, rash; hubristes (5197), an insulter.

"Ant. Semnos (4586), venerable, honorable; epiekes (1933), appropriate, gentle, tolerant; eugenes (2104), noble; chrestos (5543), gracious." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament (1994), p. 287.

"auqadhj (autoj, self, and hdomai, to satisfy) self-complacent; and hence, assuming, presumptuous, self-willed, (lxx for ]i, Genesis 49:3, 7; ryty, Proverbs 21:24.)" E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 680. [*See also Deuteronomy 18:20-22].

{4} "aiscrokerdhj, eager even for dishonourable gain." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 471.

{5} "506. ANUPOTAKTOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of 5293; unsubdued, i.e. insubordinate (in fact or temper):--disobedient, that is not put under, unruly." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{6} "3151. MATAIOLOGOS. From 3152 and 3004; an idle (i.e. senseless or mischievous) talker, i.e. a wrangler:--vain talker." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*These are those who cause dissension in the Body of Christ].

{7} "5423. PHRENAPATES. From 5424 and 539; a mind-misleader, i.e. seducer:-- deceiver." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*These are the seed of the serpent in Genesis 3:24].

"frenapathj, a mind-deceiver, i.e. deceivers of men's minds." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 209. [*Bullinger then refers the reader to another definition of "deceive" that corresponds to this noun;

"frenapataw, (No. 1 with frhn, the mind, prefixed,) to deceive the mind of any one; implying a self-originating and subjective deception." ibid., at p. 208.

{8} "396. ANATREPO. From 303 and the base of 5157; to overturn (figuratively):-- overthrow, subvert." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{9} "3624. OIKOS. Of uncertain affinity; a dwelling (more or less extensive, literal or figurative); by implication a family (more or less related, literal or figuratively):--home, house(-hold), temple." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*Remember you are the temple of the Holy Spirit--1 Corinthians 6:19].

{10} "150. AISCHROS. From the same as 153; shameful, i.e. base (specially, venal):--filthy." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{11} "4704. SPOUDAZO. From 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"STUDY. Notes: For philotimeomai, 'study,' 1 Thess. 4:11, see AIM. For spoudazo, 2 Tim. 2:15, KJV, see DILIGENCE, B, No. 1." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"4704. DILIGENCE, DILIGENT, DILIGENTLY. Verb. Spoudazo. Has meanings corresponding to A, No. 2; it signifies 'to hasten to do a thing, to exert oneself, endeavor, give diligence'; in Gal. 2:10, of remembering the poor, KJV, 'was forward,' RV, 'was zealous'; in Eph. 4:3, of keeping the unity of the Spirit, KJV 'endeavoring,' RV, 'giving diligence'; in 1 Thess. 2:17, of going to see friends, 'endeavored'; in 2 Tim. 4:9; 4:21, 'do thy diligence'; in the following the RV uses the verb 'to give diligence': 2 Tim. 2:15, KJV, 'study'; Titus 3:12, KJV, 'be diligent'; Heb. 4:11, of keeping continuous Sabbath rest, KJV, 'let us labor'; in 2 Pet. 1:10, of making our calling and election sure; in 2 Pet. 1:15, of enabling believers to call Scripture truth to remembrance, KJV, 'endeavour'; in 2 Pet. 3:14, of being found in peace without fault and blameless, when the Lord comes, KJV, 'be diligent.' See ENDEAVOR, FORWARD, LABOR, STUDY, ZEALOUS." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{12} "3936. PARISTEMI. Or prolonged paristano {par-is-tan'-o}; from 3844 and 2476; to stand beside, i.e. (transitively) to exhibit, proffer, (specifically) recommend, (figuratively) substantiate; or (intransitively) to be at hand (or ready), aid:--assist, bring before, command, commend, give presently, present, prove [*by evidence], provide, shew, stand (before, by, here, up, with), yield." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{13} "1384 DOKIMOS. From 1380; properly, acceptable (current after assayal), i.e. approved:--approved, tried." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"1384. APPROVE, APPROVED. Adjective. Dokimos. Akin to dechomai, 'to receive,' always signifies 'approved'; so the RV everywhere, e.g., in Jas. 1:12 for KJV, 'when he is tried.' The word is used of coins and metals in the Sept.; in Gen. 23:16, 'four hundred didrachms of silver approved with merchants'; in Zech. 11:13, in regard to the 30 pieces of silver, 'Cast them into a furnace and I will see if it is good (approved) metal.'" W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. [*One is approved by God when he is tried and found True to Him alone].

{14} "2040. ERGATES. From 2041; a toiler; figuratively, a teacher:--labourer, worker(-men)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{15} "422. ANEPAISCHUNTOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of a compound of 1909 and 153; not ashamed, i.e. irreprehensible: that needeth not to be ashamed." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anepaiscuntoj, (a priv. and epaiscunw), (Vulg. inconfusibilis), having no cause to be ashamed. Unused in Greek writings." Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 44.

{16} "3718. ORTHOTOMEO. From a compound of 3717 and the base of 5114, to make a straight cut, i.e. (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message):--rightly divide." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{17} "80. ADEPHOS. From 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote [much like 1]:--brother." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{18} "2564. KALEO. Akin to the base of 2753; to 'call' (properly, aloud, but used in a variety of applications, dir. or otherwise):--bid, call (forth), (whose, whose sur-)name (was [called])." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*Note: the Greek is eklhqhte which means that God is the Caller Who calls one out of the world. See Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (1896), p. 321.]

{19} "1657. ELEUTHERIA. From 1658; freedom (legitimate or licentious, chiefly moral or ceremonial):--liberty." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{20} "4561. SARX. Probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): --carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh([-ly]). PROBABLY from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): --carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh([-ly])." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{21} "26. AGAPE. From 25; love, i.e. affection or benevolence; specially (plural) a love-feast:--(feast of) charity([-ably]), dear, love." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{22} "1398. DOULEUO. From 1401; to be a slave to (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary):--be in bondage, (do) serve(-ice)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{23} "240. ALLELON. Gen. plural from 243 reduplicated; one another:--each other, mutual, one another, (the other), (them-, your-)selves, (selves) together [sometimes with 3326 or 4314]." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{24} "alhqeia, truth, as the revealed reality lying at the basis of, and agreeing with, an appearance; the manifested, veritable essence of a matter; hence, the reality appertaining to an appearance or manifestation, truth." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 823.

"225. ALETHEIA. From 227; truth:--true, X truly, truth, verity." Strong's Greek Dictionary,

"225. TRUE, TRULY, TRUTH. Noun. ALETHEIA. 'Truth,' is used (a) objectively, signifying 'the reality lying at the basis of an appearance; the manifested, veritable essence of a matter' (Cremer), e.g., Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 11:10; especially of Christian doctrine, e.g., Gal. 2:5, where 'the truth of the Gospel'è denotes the 'true' teaching of the Gospel, in contrast to perversions of it; Rom. 1:25, where 'the truth of God' may be 'the truth concerning God' or 'God whose existence is a verity'; but in Rom 15:8 'the truth of God' is indicative of His faithfulness in the fulfillment of His promises as exhibited in Christ; the word has an absolute force in John 14:6; 17:17; 18:37, 38; in Eph. 4:21, where the RV, 'even as truth is in Jesus,' gives the correct rendering, the meaning is not merely ethical 'truth,' but 'truth' in all its fullness and scope, as embodied in Him; He was the perfect expression of the truth; this is virtually equivalent to His statement in John 14:6; (b) subjectively, 'truthfulness,' 'truth,' not merely verbal, but sincerity and integrity of character, John 8:44; 3 John 3, RV; © in phrases, e.g., 'in truth' (epi, 'on the basis of'), Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21; with en, 'in,' 2 Cor. 6:7; Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 2:7, RV (KJV, 'inverity'); 1 John 3:18; 2 John 1, 3, 4. Note: In Matt. 15:27, KJV, nai, 'yea' (RV), is translated 'truth.'" W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. [*Note carefully nothing is True without the Witness of God declaring the Truth of that which is seen or heard].

{25} "marturew, to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to attest to any thing that one knows, and therefore to state with a certain degree of authority, usually for something, and hence, to confirm or prove." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 629.

"3140. MARTUREO. From 3144; to be witness, i.e. testify (literally or figuratively):--charge, give [evidence], bear record, have (obtain, of) good (honest) report, be well reported of, testify, give (have) testimony, (be, bear, give, obtain) witness." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"3140. WITNESS. Verb. MARTUREO. Denotes (I) 'to be a martus' (see A, No. 1), or 'to bear witness to, 'sometimes rendered 'to testify' (see TESTIFY, No. 1); it is used of the 'witness' (a) of God the Father to Christ, John 5:32, 37; 8:18 (2nd part); 1 John 5:9, 10; to others, Acts 13:22; 15:8; Heb. 11:2, 4 (twice), 5, 39; (b) of Christ, John 3:11, 32; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18 (1st part); 13:21; 18:37; Acts 14:3; 1 Tim. 6:13; Rev. 22:18, 20; of the Holy Spirit, to Christ, John 15:26; Heb. 10:15; 1 John 5:7, 8, RV, which rightly omits the latter part of v. 7 (it was a marginal gloss which crept into the original text: see THREE); it finds no support in Scripture; © of the Scriptures, to Christ, John 5:39; Heb. 7:8, 17; (d) of the works of Christ, to Himself, and of the circumstances connected with His death, John 5:36; 10:25; 1 John 5:8; (e) of prophets and apostles, to the righteousness of God, Rom. 3:21; to Christ, John 1:7, 8, 15, 32, 34; 3:26; 5:33, RV; 15:27; 19:35; 21:24; Acts 10:43; 23:11; 1 Cor. 15:15; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; Rev. 1:2; to doctrine, è Acts 26:22 (in some texts, so KJV; see No. 2); to the Word of God, Rev. 1:2; (f) of others, concerning Christ, Luke 4:22; John 4:39; 12:17; (g) of believers to one another, John 3:28; 2 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:15; Col. 4:13; 1 Thess. 2:11 (in some texts: see No. 2); 3 John 3, 6, 12 (2nd part); (h) of the apostle Paul concerning Israel, Rom. 10:2; (I) of an angel, to the churches, Rev. 22:16; (j) of unbelievers concerning themselves, Matt. 23:31; concerning Christ, John 18:23; concerning others, John 2:25; Acts 22:5; 26:5; (II) 'to give a good report, to approve of,' Acts 6:3; 10:22; 16:2; 22:12; 1 Tim. 5:10; 3 John 12 (1st part); some would put Luke 4:22 here." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{26} "eij (fem., eia, neut., en) one, the first cardinal numeral; emphatic, one, even one, single." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 553.

{27} See footnote 3.

{28} "eimi, to be, with." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 37.

{29} See footnote 4.

[30} [*And this is the work of a Judaizer under various names: patriot, patriolator, christian, citizen, pagan, civilian, and other ilk of self--those having feminine personality in the image and likeness of Eve; and, concerned with the affairs of the world--remember Lot's wife. Those who espouse the doctrines of "personal sovereignty" are of the aforementioned ilk, for there is no such thing--man cannot divorce himself from the dominion of God our Father using his lies, i.e. legal personality, for: One, God is no respecter of persons; Two, there is only one Master, Christ Jesus; Three, everything a man needs in this life is given him by the mouth of God; and therefore they are not for Him but against Him].

{31} "3. Is come in the flesh. Omit. Render, confesseth not Jesus. So Rev. An ancient reading is luei ton ûIhsoun annulleth or destroyeth Jesus." The simple Jesus emphasizes the human form of our Lord considered in itself. See Romans 3:26; 10:9; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Ephesians 4:21; Hebrews 2:9." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, p. 1171.

{32} "This (touto). Not this spirit, but this non-confession, summed up in all its manifestations." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, p. 1171.

{33} "500. ANTICHRISTOS. Antichrist. Can mean either 'against Christ' or 'instead of Christ,' or perhaps, combining the two, 'oneè who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ' (Westcott). The word is found only in John's epistles, (a) of the many 'antichrists' who are forerunners of the 'Antichrists' himself, 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John 7; (b) of the evil power which already operates anticipatively of the 'Antichrist,' 1 John 4:3. What the apostle says of him so closely resembles what he says of the first beast in Rev. 13, and what the apostle Paul says of the Man of Sin in 2 Thess. 2, that the same person seems to be in view in all these passages, rather than the second beast in Rev. 13, the false prophet; for the latter supports the former in all his Antichristian assumptions. Note: The term pseudochristos, 'a false Christ,' is to be distinguished from the above; it is found in Matt. 24:24 and Mark 13:22. The false Christ does not deny the existence of Christ, he trades upon the expectation of His appearance, affirming that he is the Christ. The Antichrist denies the existence of the true God (Trench, Syn. XXX)." W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Vol. I, p. 61-62.

"Antichrist. Peculiar to John in the New Testament. The absence of the article shows its currency as a proper name. It may mean one who stands against Christ, or one who stands instead of Christ; just as antistrathgoj may mean either one who stands in the place of a strathgoj praetor, a propraetor (see Introd. to Luke, vol. 1, p. 246, and note on Acts 16:20), or an opposing general. John never uses the word yeudocristoj false Christ (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22). While the false Christ is merely a pretender to the Messianic office, the Antichrist "assails Christ by proposing to do or to preserve what he did, while denying Him." Antichrist, then, is one who opposes Christ in the guise of Christ [*usurpation and deceit]. Westcott's remark is very important, that John's sense of Antichrist is determined by the full Christian conception of Christ, and not by the Jewish conception of the promised Savior." Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. II, p. 1153.

"antixristoj, opponent of Christ; that which sets itself in the place of Christ, which appears as Christ in opposition to Christ, (as distinct from yeudoxristoj, which means rather a false hypocritical representative of Christ than an opponent of Him.) The many Antichrists must be regarded not only as forerunners of the actual Antichrist, but as attempts to realize it." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 56.

{34} "2889. KOSMOS. Probably from the base of 2865; orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]):--adorning, world." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"kosmoj, order, i.e. regular disposition and arrangement; hence, ornament, decoration; (lxx. for ydi, Exodus 33:4, 5, 6; Isaiah 49:18; Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 7:20; and tlapt, Prov. 20:29; Isaiah 3:18), (prob. from the root kad, as it occurs e.g. in kainumai, to polish. The same is found in the Hebrew word arb, create, which means literally to cut, cut out, carve to cut or pare down, to plane and polish. All which implies that the creation was a perfect work, in perfect and beautiful order. Not a chaos as is usually conceived. Genesis 1:1 says, tywarb, in former times, of old, God created (in perfect order) the heavens and the earth. 'And the earth became (hyh being very frequently so translated) confusion and emptiness.' See the epxression in Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:23; but how and when it became so prior to fitting it up for man is not revealed. The lxx. never use kosmoj to denote the world; it is first used in the apocryphal books of Wisdom and 2 Maccabees to denote the universe; and in the New Testament is used with a new force.

"Thus, kosmoj denotes the order of the world, the ordered universe, the ordered entirety of God's creation, but considered as separated from God. Then, the abode of humanity [*in vain and dead philosophies], or that order of things in which humanity moves or of which man is the centre [*Man is the center and origin of all philosophy, morality and legal personality]; then, mankind as it manifests itself in and through such an order [*codes,constitutions, rules, and regulations, edicts, fiats, ad nauseam]; then [*901] that order of things which, in consequence of and since the Fall, is alienated from God, as manifested in and through the human race." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), pp. 900-901.

"2889. WORLD. Kosmos. Primarily 'order, arrangement, ornament, adornment' (1 Pet. 3:3, see ADORN, B), is used to denote (a) the 'earth,' e.g., Matt. 13;35; John 21:25; Acts 17:24; Rom. 1:20 (probably here the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to the order observable in it); 1 Tim. 6:7; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; (b) the 'earth' in contrast with è Heaven, 1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Rom. 4:13); (c) by metonymy, the 'human race, mankind,' e.g., Matt. 5:14; John 1:9 [here 'that cometh (RV, 'coming') into the world' is said of Christ, not of 'every man'; by His coming into the world He was the light for all men]; v. 10; 3:16, 17 (thrice), 19; 4:42, and frequently in Rom. 1 Cor. and 1 John; (d) 'Gentiles' as distinguished from Jews, e.g., Rom. 11:12, 15, where the meaning is that all who will may be reconciled (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19); (e) the 'present condition of human affairs,' in alienation from and opposition to God, e.g., John 7:7; 8:23; 14:30; 1 Cor. 2:12; Gal. 4:3; 6:14; Col. 2:8; Jas. 1:27; 1 John 4:5 (thrice); 5:19; (f) the 'sum of temporal possessions,' Matt. 16:26; 1 Cor. 7:31 (1st part); (g) metaphorically, of the 'tongue' as 'a world (of iniquity),' Jas. 3:6; expressive of magnitude and variety." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. [*The world is the habitation of the unregenerate natural man, i.e. human beings. Note carefully the following:

"HUMAN BEING. See MONSTER." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 389.

"MONSTER. A human-being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal [*psuche--soul having not received the things of the Spirit of God]." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 540.

{35} "A century and a half ago Edwin Burke said, 'Civilization is a contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn'--'A contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn.' I want to talk to you very briefly this afternoon, my brethren, if I may, about the thing we are trying to do here in America. You and I wanted something to do and engaged in the business of trying law suits for clients, in order that we may make a living, but back of and bigger than it all, you and I--whether or not we know it and whether or not we are wholly conscious of it--are engaged in the most extraordinary thing the world has ever seen. We are helping to build, maintain, and hand to future ages the contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn." F. F. Faville, "The Great Contract," 15 Nebraska Law Bulletin 88 (1935). [*Partaking of the spirit of morals and society is joining the dead--Adam's sin in the Garden. See also Psalm 115:1-8, 135:15-18].

{36} "upakoh, a hearing attentively, or listening; hence, obedience, as the result of attentive hearing." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 540.

"5218. HUPAKOE. From 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by implication) compliance or submission:--obedience, (make) obedient, obey(-ing)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5218. OBEDIENCE, OBEDIENT, OBEY. Noun. HUPAKOE. 'Obedience' (hupo, 'under,' akouo, 'to hear'), is used (a) in general, Rom. 6:16 (1st part), RV, '(unto) obedience,' KJV, '(to) obey'; here 'obedience' is not personified, as in the next part of the verse, 'servants... of obedience' [see (c)], but is simply shown to be the effect of the presentation mentioned; (b) of the fulfillment of apostolic counsels, 2 Cor. 7:15; 10:6; Philem. 21; © of the fulfillment of God's claims or commands, Rom. 1:5 and 16:26, 'obedience of faith,' which grammatically might be objective, to the faith (marg.), or subjective, as in the text. Since faith is one of the main subjects of the Epistle, and is the initial act of obedience in the new life, as well as an essential characteristic thereof, the text rendering is to be preferred; Rom. 6:16 (2nd part); 15:18, RV '(for) the obedience,' KJV, '(to make) obedient'; 16:19; 1 Pet. 1:2, 14, RV, '(children of) obedience,' i.e., characterized by 'obedience,' KJV, 'obedient (children)'; v. 22, RV, 'obedience (to the truth),' KJV, 'obeying (the truth)'; (d) of 'obedience' to Christ (objective), 2 Cor. 10:5; (e) of Christ's 'obedience,' Rom. 5:19 (referring to His death; cf. Phil. 2:8); Heb. 5:8, which refers to His delighted experience in constant 'obedience' to the Father's will (not to be understood in the sense that He learned to obey)." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{37} "The meaning of Logos in John

"As Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the Word to the Idea, the word being not merely a name for the Idea, but the Idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word è (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression 'I speak in my heart' for 'I think').

"The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Heb. 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the redemption of the world. Compare Philip. 2:6." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, p. 383.

"Logoj, the word (not in the grammatical sense like No. 2, but) the spoken word; the word, not in its outward form, but as connected with the inward thought; the word, not written, but spoken; the word, not as a part of speech, but as part of what is uttered.

"(a) Hence, used of the second activity of the Godhead, because as the word spoken manifests the invisible thought; so He manifests to us the invisible God and Godhead.

-------------------------

"The Godhead is 'Spirit' (John 4:24) and as Spirit has not likeness to matter, God Himself took some creature form (not human) before He created any thing, in order that creation might have a mediator, or a means of communion with Himself. Hence Christ is said to have been, 'in the beginning,' (John 1:1); 'before all things,' (Colossians 1:17.) 'The first-born of every creature,' (Colossians 1:15) 'the beginning of the creation of God,' (Revelation 3:14); and hence, 'In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,' (Colossians 2:9)." E W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 896. [*Therefore, the Christ had not human nature; but, had human form only].

"John 1:1--Here the subject, 'the Word,' being defined by the article which is prefixed to it, can be placed at the end of two of the clauses: 'In the beginning was the Word, and God the Word was': i.e., in plain cold English, 'The Word was in the beginningand the Word was God.'

"The A.V. preserves the hyperbolation in the first clause, but not in the last, because the English idiom will not bear it. But in each case we are to put the stress on 'the Word.' E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible (1898), p. 694.

{38} "30. One (en). The neuter, not the masculine eiv, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power." Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. I, p. 1016.

"eij (fem., eia, neut., en) one, the first cardinal numeral; emphatic, one, even one, single." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 553. [*God is therefore not a woman as the modern apostates proclaim.

{39} Cristianoj, Christian (a word formal not after the Greek but after the Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), 'The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate,')." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152.

"This name (christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by bondmen of Christ of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early bondmen of Christ called themselves were 'brethren,' 'disciples,' 'believers,' and 'saints.' The presumption is that the name 'christian' was originated by the heathen." Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), p. 567, n. 3.

The Simplicity in Christ:

Part Two - the general post-office

written solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus

by Randy Lee and John Joseph

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are located at the end of this article)

The point was made last month concerning our leaving the Egyptian house of bondage and the Babylonian confusion that reigns therein, to diligently seek the simplicity in Christ. This instant work is to show that we continue to run that race set before us from the chains of servitude binding us to the prince of this world to the arms of our loving Master, to rest in Him and partake of His Peace and Victory over the prince of this world.

First, we admit to all our Brothers and Sisters our errors concerning "general delivery," "General Delivery," "GENERAL DELIVERY SERVICE," and any other derivations of the same. We were deceived about its true nature and only recently learned, through talking to a postmaster to whom we were led, that it is a creation over which, originally, the Post Office Department and, by contract, the U.S. Postal Service has jurisdiction. It is their facsimile of the original station of the "general post-office.

In the recent past, we were denied "general delivery" at Canoga Park. Now this may appear to be the end of the work we do for our Lord concerning postal matters. But, such is not the case. We now know that general delivery has been nothing more than a "stepping-stone" on the path back to where we all belong in fellowshiping through His post.

The Spirit through our Brother Paul, in writing to our Brother Timothy, said:

"Study{1} to shew{2} [*evidence-- John 3:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; James 2:22] thyself approved{3} [*see Psalm 12:6 & 33:4; Romans 2:29; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Galatians 2:8] unto God, a workman{4} that needeth not to be ashamed{5} , rightly dividing{6} the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15.

The Greek word for "study" (philotimeomai) actually reads "be diligent" (spoudazo, spoudason) in the Greek text. The error by the King James "divines" in mistranslating it "study" limits the Word to systematized academics (see footnote {1} below). So we were instructed to "be diligent" to show ourselves a workman of God. How to do this? Exercise diligence in finding the old paths and returning to them. And this is what led us, by His Grace, to the "general post-office."

As many are aware, it was always our impression that the Post Office Department was the original earthly foundation of the current postal system. This impression was formed according to the many writings that have been published over the past 150 years, or so, concerning postal matters in the U.S. and abroad. What was not realized until recently was the fact that the true earthly foundation of the postal system known as 'the general post-office" began to be referred to as "the post-office department" in the early 1800's, not long after the "statutory" general post-office was instituted February 20, 1792, to wit:

Chap. VII.--An Act to establish the Post-Office and Post Roads within the United States.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be established, at the seat of the government of the United States, a general post-office. And there shall be one Postmaster General......"

Note that this 1 page statutory creation by Congress was for the government of the United States, not the United States of America. The general post-office, which already existed, was never designated as being repealed in this Act. Therefore, it still remained in existence, separate from the "governmental business" set up by this Act.

As we stated above, in the early 1800's the general post-office began to be referred to as 'the post-office department," but was not officially created by a 46 page statute until June 8, 1872, to wit:

Chap. CCCXXXV. -- An Act to revise, consolidate, and amend the Statutes relating to the Post-office Department.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be established, at the seat of government of the United States of America, a department to be known as the Post-office Department.

The important part to note in the above statute is that it was established for "the government of the United States of America." At first glance, this would appear to have substance, until you realize that the governments before and after the Civil War were not of the same nature. The one after the Civil War was a commercially "Reconstructed" government through incorporation. This 46 page statute clearly shows that it was established as "a business" of that new government. And again, the original general post-office was not repealed in this statute. It is for this cause that the re-organized service and its employees have no authority over the general post-office--it precedes their creation and has its Source and Origin in God through His Lawful assembly, long before the legal memory of man (1189 A.D.):

"by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him [*and for His Lawful assembly and not for the wills of men]: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:16-18.

The natural man does recognize this in his own maxims of law,

"Prior tempore, potior jure --First in time is stronger in right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2154.

For the natural man, there must be evidence forthcoming that he can witness the change and repentance from the ways of the world, and to remind the natural man that he can do nothing in and of himself, for it is written:

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:14-16

This can be shown in the new wording that should be on the "address label" or written in above he or she to whom it is directed," as follows:

First-Class Matter
posted and moved by the Grace of God
in and through our Lord and Saviour [This is your mailing location]
Jesus the Christ,
for the calling forth by:
_________________________

We have to show that the matter originated with God in Christ Jesus and not with ourselves. This is covered in the first phrases of the above. The matter is a matter posted and moved by His Grace alone, not by the "power" of men.

Reviving the general post-office

Since it is a fact that all mail matter today is moved through The U.S. Postal Service under statutory license and contract, it would appear to be most difficult to revive the station of the general post-office without a bit of resistance from those within the Postal Service who like things just the way they presently are. But we must keep in mind that our Father never leaves us destitute. He always supplies our needs. It is us who through the working of our flesh rebel into the situation of wants, believing that our needs being met are not sufficient--apostasy.

To relate the trial that was set before us concerning the reception of mail matter following denial of general delivery at Canoga Park, we first went to the Word of God and after reading the aforementioned passage of Scripture (Colossians 1:16-18) we began to realize, by Grace of God, that somewhere under the layers and layers of deceit masking the Truth the old paths for His Lawful assembly would be found. We both looked at some old Civil War envelopes photographed by the Post Office Department in some of their philatelic literature. On all of the envelopes were just the name to whom the matter was directed with the city and state. No other lines appeared. Mind you, this is before the creation of the layers of deceit by the lawyers and other such ministers of Satan. Further "digging" through the layers, we found the original general post-office. What we needed to find out was: what is the relation in Law between the general post-office and His Lawful assembly? From Scripture we learn that those who were called out from the world and apostled for the Christ sent their matters with others in and of the Lawful assembly to others in His Body. This is because His assembly is in Law and not of the world. The relation then is that the general post-office is in His Body and is one of several organs of His Body for His Glory. That is why the original general post-office is still found and exists under all of the layers "created" by the natural man.

Of course, having access to the above information does not automatically revive the general post-office. The workmen must still attend to the work set before them. And by the Power and Will of God, it will be accomplished, because His Word does not return to Him void.

To recount the initial steps that we have been led to take, we will begin by telling you that it was a walk of faith in and with Him, for He has told us:

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Matthew 11:29-30

For all of those Lawful assemblies that will be sending their Brothers out two by two to the general post-office through letter of appointment to call forth the First-Class Matter for the Lawful assembly, it is not pertinent to know every step that we took and every word that we spoke, for the Spirit of God will direct them in all things, for it is written:

"Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:14-15

Therefore, the general way to proceed can be as follows:

Send or have others send a First-Class letter (do not send a "signature required" class) to the main post office within the area of the Lawful assembly, directed to that Lawful assembly, such as:

the Christ's assembly at San Diego

general post-office

Bonsall, California

After three or four days, send two or three Brothers with a Letter of Appointment (see below) to call forth the mail matter that was sent. The initial verbal introduction can be: "Greetings, we were sent by the Christ's assembly at San Diego to call forth their First-Class matter. Here is their Letter of Appointment."

Once the mail matter is handed to them, the general post-office is revived. Keep in mind that they may be told that they can only receive "general delivery," etc., but once the mail matter is handed to them, the question is moot, for they have already born witness otherwise.

Endnotes

{1} "4704. SPOUDAZO. From 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"STUDY. Notes: For philotimeomai, 'study,' 1 Thess. 4:11, see AIM. For spoudazo, 2 Tim. 2:15, KJV, see DILIGENCE, B, No. 1." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{2} "3936. PARISTEMI. Or prolonged paristano {par-is-tan'-o}; from 3844 and 2476; to stand beside, i.e. (transitively) to exhibit, proffer, (specifically) recommend, (figuratively) substantiate; or (intransitively) to be at hand (or ready), aid:--assist, bring before, command, commend, give presently, present, prove [*by evidence], provide, shew, stand (before, by, here, up, with), yield." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{3} "1384 DOKIMOS. From 1380; properly, acceptable (current after assayal), i.e. approved:--approved, tried." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"1384. APPROVE, APPROVED. Adjective. Dokimos. Akin to dechomai, 'to receive,' always signifies 'approved'; so the RV everywhere, e.g., in Jas. 1:12 for KJV, 'when he is tried.' The word is used of coins and metals in the Sept.; in Gen. 23:16, 'four hundred didrachms of silver approved with merchants'; in Zech. 11:13, in regard to the 30 pieces of silver, 'Cast them into a furnace and I will see if it is good (approved) metal.'" W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. One is approved by God when he is tried and found True to Him alone.

{4} "2040. ERGATES. From 2041; a toiler; figuratively, a teacher:--labourer, worker(-men)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{5} "422. ANEPAISCHUNTOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of a compound of 1909 and 153; not ashamed, i.e. irreprehensible: that needeth not to be ashamed." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anepaiscuntoj, (a priv. and epaiscunw), (Vulg. inconfusibilis), having no cause to be ashamed. Unused in Greek writings." Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p. 44.

{6} "3718. ORTHOTOMEO. From a compound of 3717 and the base of 5114, to make a straight cut, i.e. (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message):--rightly divide." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Letter of Appointment

for the general post-office

From the Christ's assembly at San Diego to all whom this matter does concern, Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and ourselves

sign manual

L.S.

In Lawful assembly in and through His Name:

Letter of Appointment

On this first day of the eleventh month in the nineteen hundred ninety-ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, solely by the Grace of God in Christ Jesus, His church, in Lawful assembly gathered together in His Blessed Name, by His Authority, and under Lawful Warrant in, of and through Him, calls, appoints, directs, and did call, appoint, and direct our Brothers or Sisters in possession of this appointment, having shown and evidenced to us by the word of their Testimony, and the Witness of God our Father, to be of one Mind, Body, and Spirit with us in the Christ, to:

One, call forth our First-Class mail Matter from the general post-office located at Bonsall, California and return the same to us and each of us; and,

Two, to exercise due diligence, sound Wisdom and Judgment with which God our Father in the Christ has blessed them, in carrying out the duties appertaining to this appointment; and to continue to exercise the duties in and of this appointment until:

One, his or her recall by and return to our Blessed Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; or,

Two, this appointment is withdrawn by us in Lawful assembly in His Name for Cause.

Romans 13:

Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom?

written solely by the Grace of God in and through

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

Part One

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are located at the end of this article)

The title to this particular work tells it all. Today's moderns have been teaching a heresy that makes Romans 13 the most misunderstood chapter in Scripture, although Scripture is consistent, being written by the finger of God through men anointed by Him to record His Testimonies for His Glory and our benefit. Who else is the Author of Truth and Life? No one else--the Spirit and Word bearing witness,

"For the word of the LORD is right [*not theology, theories, speculations, hermeneutics, ad nauseam]; and all His works are done in truth." Psalm 33:4.
"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy name for Thy lovingkindness and for Thy truth: for Thou hast magnified Thy word [*not theology, theories, speculations, hermeneutics, ad nauseam] above all Thy name." Psalm 138:2.
"And I know that His commandment [*not theology, theories, speculations, presumptions, assumptions, conjectures, ad nauseam] is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father [*not theologicians, theologians, theoricians, philosophers, lawyers, legislators, ad nauseam] said unto Me, so I speak." John 12:50.
"and I know His commandment [*not theology, theories, speculations, presumptions, assumptions, conjectures, ad nauseam] life eternal is. What therefore I speak, as has said to Me the Father [*not the theologicians, theologians, theoricians, philosophers, lawyers, legislators, ad nauseam], so I speak." John 12:50 (Berry).

Who wrote His Law on our inward parts with His finger? The same Author--the Spirit and Word bearing witness;

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD [*not Hermes, a.k.a. Mercury, Mercurius, Thoth--pick your marketable deity], I will put My law [*not theology, theory, speculation, conjecture, presuppositions, hermeneutics, ad nauseam] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts [*not on sheets of paper with codes, rules, regulations, covenants, confessions, creeds, and articles of faith]; and will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jeremiah 31:33.
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you [*not on a sheet of paper with codes, rules, regulations, covenants, confessions, creeds, and articles of faith founded on speculative theology based in the art and science of hermeneutics{1}]." Luke 17:21.
"nor shall they say, Lo here, or lo there; for lo the kingdom of God in the midst of you is [*not on a sheet of paper with codes, rules, regulations, covenants, confessions, creeds, and articles of faith founded on speculative theology based in the art and science of hermeneutics]." Luke 17:21 (Berry).

Would the Law from the same Author be different on a written page than what He wrote on our inward parts? The answer is no--the Spirit bearing witness;

"God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33.
"For He is not the God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33 (Berry).

So we see there is a consistency here that has clearly been overlooked and never overcome by the moderns because the Truth is the same no matter what one opines or conjectures.

The context throughout this work is that we are doing the Will of Him Who sent us into the world to bear witness of Him to the world; that is, walking before Him in Truth with a meek (praus not authades) heart able to receive His instruction, and not the conjurings of men through morphosis{2}--hermeneutically/ hermetically sealed systematic education in the ways of the world.

Much of what is said in this work may appear to conflict with the testimony of the Spirit speaking through Brother Peter; but this is groundless, for the Spirit is Truth and Truth is not inconsistent at any time. Let us first learn what the Spirit through Brother Peter wrote for our edification, for much has been said about the following verse:

"Submit{3} yourselves to every ordinance{4} of man{5} for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;" 1 Peter 2:13.
"Be in subjection therefore to every human institution for the sake of the Lord: whether to king as supreme," 1 Peter 2:13 (Berry).

On its face alone, this appears to be saying to submit your spirit to every ordinance of the natural man, who the Spirit witnesses receives not the things of Him. See 1 Corinthians 2:14. But such is not the case. Brother Peter was witness to the best example of executing what the Spirit wrote using him for His instrument. This verse clearly concerns submitting the flesh, not the spirit, to bear witness of the Spirit of God in the bondman to put to shame the wicked, ungodly or foolish man. This is because the ordinances of men are for the tempering of the flesh, but not the spirit. This is known and admitted by the natural man:

"Law [*of the natural man --conjured morality] is concerned with external behavior and not with the inner life of man. It rests in large measure upon compulsion [*physical force--not Law in and of Christ]." Frankfurter, dissenting opinion, West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnette (1943), 319 U.S. 624.

And this is why Christ's Lawful assembly must execute His Testament to curb the compulsive or impulsive appetites of the moral man, a.k.a. the natural man of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The accounts given by the Spirit through Brothers Matthew and John testify to this fact. See Matthew 26:50-57 and John 18:7-13 of Christ executing His Precept. By the Christ executing His Precept, the Spirit in and through Brothers Peter and John executed the same in Acts 4:1-21 and Acts 5:17-40, thus manifesting the Truth to us in this passage. There is no account of Brothers Peter and John doing any physical harm or making any threats of doing physical harm in the heat of anger or passion to those sent to arrest them, the Spirit bearing witness through them and Brother Paul that;

"the weapons{6} of our warfare{7} are not carnal{8}, but mighty through God to the pulling down{9} of strong holds{10}; Casting down imaginations{11} [*theology, theories, speculations, conceits, conjectures, reasonings, religion of men, opinions, ad nauseam], and every high thing [*philosophy, sophisms, sophistry, sciolism, ad nauseam] that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity [*things captured are conquered and overcome] every thought [*or system of thought] to the obedience of Christ [*Dominion and Rest]; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Cor. 10:4-6.

And neither is there any account that they spoke not the Truth before the council of the Judaizers, for they did cast down the vain imaginations of those of the council, the Word and Spirit bearing witness, that

"I will give you a mouth{12} and wisdom{13}, which all your adversaries{14} shall not be able to gainsay{15} nor resist{16}." Luke 21:15.
"Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard [*which did not and does not include theologies, religions, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, hermeneutics, codes, rules, and regulations. Note also John 3:31-32; 5:37; 8:38; 14:9; 15:24]." Acts 4:19-20.

This is witnessing the Truth of God in Christ Jesus to the world in the same manner we have been shown by Christ Jesus Himself:

"Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men [*and their theologies, religions, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, hermeneutics, codes, rules, and regulations]." Acts 5:29.

Note that the apostles were of one mind in Christ and never raised any ecclesiastical, theological, hermeneutical or religious argument--all those things being dead without Law.

Thus, they executed and showed us what Christ showed us, and the Spirit bears witness;

"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn [*with My word and Judgments and not with theology, theories, conjecture, opinion, supposition, science, ad nauseam]. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of Me, saith the LORD [*not of systematic theologicians, philosophers, sciolists, sophists, opinionists, legislators, speculators, pollsters, ad nauseam]." Isaiah 54:17.

The Spirit by, in and through Brother Peter bears witness of the sole purpose of this verse for us, to wit;

"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." 1 Peter 2:14-16.

Clearly then, it is the will of God that we bear witness of Him to the gods of the "people," to put them to shame that:

"your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:16. See also Genesis 1:28 and note the word "multiply."

This glorifies God, for the Spirit witnesses:

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:9-10.
"For even Christ pleased not Himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on Me." Romans 15:3.
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will." Proverbs 21:1.

Now we know there will be those who may be thinking that we are saying "obey all government authority," relying solely on what Brother Paul wrote in Romans 13:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Romans 13:1.
"Let every soul be subject to authorities{17} above{18} [*Note Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31]. For there is no authority except from God; and those that are authorities, by God have been appointed." Romans 13:1 (Berry).

...and not taking into account the whole counsel of God; or worse, relying on the new putrid pretensions to the Word of God. We agree that we should obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne. This statement, and all that is said herein, pre-supposes that we are doing His Will (walking meekly in Truth before Him in execution of His Will expressed in Genesis 1:28 and revealed in Christ Jesus) and not our "will." In no case are we advocating doing our desires and trying to find support on a dogmatic moral reed bending in every direction of personal opinion, or a fig-leaf cover through convoluted and reasonable theological sin-thesis--the covering of the pit to the lower world through which many have fallen. A few passages from Scripture will suffice in this regard:

"Then brought He me the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face. And the LORD said unto me, Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the LORD, and all the laws thereof; and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going forth of the sanctuary. And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into My sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to pollute it, even My house, when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken My covenant because of all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of Mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of My charge in My sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel." Ezekiel 44:4-9.
"They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off." Hosea 8:4.

We can see then that what God sanctified by and through His Word was polluted by strangers, not by their physical presence, but by the doctrine they preached and executed. The strangers mentioned above are those who are not circumcised in heart by the Word of God and for that cause have not His Seal, for the cutting of the old man away from the new man is necessary for the Seal to be written into the new heart--see Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-38. Therefore, God does not recognize them, they have no authority or power from Him, and they are not the higher powers; but are usurpers (TYRANNUS) of His Authority and Power and pretenders to His Throne, when they attempt to wield these powers belonging to God our Father against those called by Him executing His Will:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master [*Christ Jesus--Matthew 23:8 & 10; Isaiah 54:16-17] he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."John 10:1.
"5181. TURANNOS. A provincial form of the derivative of the base of 2962; a 'tyrant'; Tyrannus, an Ephesian:--Tyrannus." Strong's Greek Dictionary.
"2962. KURIOS. From kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful title):--God, Lord, master, Sir." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*This would probably be equivalent to "Baal" in the Old Testament].
"TYRANNUS. I, m.=turannosz. I. Gen. A monarch, ruler, sovereign. king: Virg.; Hor. II. Esp. A cruel or severe ruler; a despot, tyrant: Cic. Hence, Fr. tyran." White, Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 625.
"DESPOT. princeps or rex, cujus arbitrium pro legibus est, or cujus libido pro legibus habetur (a sovereign whose will is law; after Just., 1, 1, 2; 2, 7, 3); tyrannus, or in pure Latin, dominus (a usurper who has obtained absolute power in a free state): rex importunus (opposed to rex clemens)." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 198.
"USURPER. Tyrannus (i.e., one who has made himself sovereign of a free state); by circumlocution." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 673.

It is necessary to draw the distinction between those who exercise Godly Power in Lawful Execution of God's Will from those who exercise a moral "power" (that other threshold outside the Word of God written about in Ezekiel above) for their own private purposes or aggrandizement and claim to be doing God's service, but do not prove such by the testimony of their works; and, to show Who is the Source and Holder of all Lawful Power being separate from the one who exercises it unlawfully. I use the words "moral power" meaning the same subtlety of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. If it were said that men in their natural unregenerate state were the source and holder of all power, the quoted verse would not read the way it does and the verse of Brother Paul then would conflict with Brother Ezekiel's. This is the Duty of every bondman in Christ. In a past issue of this work there appeared a sample "Abatement and Office Found" which is used for this very purpose--separate the Law from the moral chaff--and in that separation to sift the the bondman in Christ from the natural man.

Their souls, as ours, are subject to the higher powers of God in Christ Jesus, for all souls are His and all Lawful Authorities and Powers originate in and flow from God through Him, the Word and the Spirit bearing witness:

"All souls are Mine [*not the man's, the State's, or the men using the artifice of the State by speaking through its various masks--legislative, judicial, executive, administrative, and media, ad nauseam]; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die."Ezekiel 18:4.
"Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD [*not men or their theology--Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4] be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity [*theology, philosophy, sophistry, sciolism, or theory] with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons [*the State, its instrumentalities, religion, theology, employees, agents, administrators, masks, ad nauseam], nor taking of gifts [*bribes inhibiting or interfering with His execution of His Judgments]." 2 Chronicles 19:7.
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth{19} I perceive{20} that God is no respecter of persons{21} [*theologicians, theoricians, theologians, legislators, lawyers, ad nauseam]: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 10:34.
"And Peter opening mouth said, Of a truth I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears Him and works righteousness, acceptable to Him is." Acts 10:34 (Berry).
"Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD [*not theologicians, theoricians, theologians, legislators, lawyers, ad nauseam], the first, and with the last; I am He." Isaiah 41:4.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life [*not theologicians, theoricians, theologians, legislators, lawyers, ad nauseam]: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me [*the Word or Logos of God--not the word of conjured morality or theology "discovered" by the natural man's reason called "the scientific method"]." John 14:6.
"Jesus says to him, I am the way, the truth and the life [*not theologicians, theoricians, theologians, legislators, lawyers, ad nauseam]. No one comes to the Father but by Me [*the Word or Logos of God -- not the word of conjured morality or theology "discovered" by the natural man's reason called "the scientific method"]."John 14:6 (Berry).

From the above, no soul is separated from Him by a constitution, statute, code, rule, or regulation. These qualify the phrase "Let every soul be subject." There is and indeed cannot be any "limited liability" which would limit the operation and execution of God's Word upon all in His creation. The artifices of men do not divorce or remove them from God's creation--they are vain words that appear to do so in the minds of them who create them and those who give them their credence. This is the testimony of the dead. See Ecclesiastes 9:5 concerning the testimony of the dead. And because He called the generations from the beginning He knew all souls before they were brought into being by His Word. But "many are called but few are chosen."

Next, let us look at Who is the Higher Power or Authority to Whom all souls are subject, the Spirit and the Word bearing witness:

"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me [*not to un-Godly men who are not of My Spirit, i.e. the world's politicians, theologicians, philosophers, sciolists, ad nauseam], and every tongue shall confess to God [*not to the world's theologicians, philosophers, legislators, lawyers, ad nauseam]. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God [*not to the State or men using the artifice of theology and other Spirit-less and vain conjurings of those that knowingly or unknowingly minister for Satan]." Romans 14:11-12.
"For it has been written, I live says the Lord, to Me [*not to un-Godly men who are not of My Spirit] shall bow every knee, and every tongue shall confess, to God. So then each of us concerning himself account shall give to God [*not to the State or men using the artifice of theology and other Spirit-less and vain conjurings of those that knowingly or unknowingly minister for Satan]." Romans 14:11-12 (Berry).
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name: That at the Name of Jesus [*not the President, governor, or the State] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [*not the State, theology, or men using the artifice of the State] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11. [*Plain and simple there is no command in the Word of God to confess the State to the glory of the State].
"Let this mind be in you which also in Christ Jesus was; Who, in the form of God subsisting, esteemed it not rapine to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, having taken a bondman's form, in the likeness of men having become; and in figure having been found as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore also God Him highly exalted and granted to Him a Name which is above every name, that at the Name of Jesus [*not the President, governor, or the State] every knee should bow of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [*not the State or men men using the artifice of the State] is Lord to the Glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11 (Berry).
"All things are delivered{22} unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and He to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Matthew 11:27.
"All things to Me were [*past tense--the work was finished before the foundation of the world] delivered by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father; nor the Father does any one know except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son may will to reveal Him." Matthew 11:27 (Berry).
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power{23} is given{24} unto Me in heaven and in earth." Matthew 28:18.
"And having come to them Jesus spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given [*past tense--from the beginning] unto Me in heaven and on earth." Matthew 28:18 (Berry).
"All things are delivered{25} to Me of My Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." Luke 10:22.
"All things were delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows Who is the Son except the Father, and Who is the Father, except the Son, and He to whomsoever the Son may will to reveal Him." Luke 10:22 (Berry).
"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living." Romans 14:9.
"For, for this Christ both died and rose and lived again that both the dead and living He might rule over." Romans 14:9 (Berry).
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee: As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given Him." John 17:1-2.
"For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man." John 5:22 & 27. Note now John 20:21.
"for the Father judges no one, but all judgment has given to the Son,and authority gave to Him also judgment to execute, because Son of man He is." John 5:22 & 27 (Berry).
"For the kingdom is the LORD's: and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28.
"For the kingdom is the LORD's; and He is the governor of the nations." Psalm 21 (22):28 (LXX).
"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9:6-7.
"For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder: and His name is called the Messenger of Great Counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of His peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this." Isaiah 9:6-7 (LXX).
"All Thy works shall praise Thee, O LORD; and Thy saints shall bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power; To make known to the sons of men His mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of His kingdom. Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13.
"Let all Thy works, O Lord, give thanks to Thee; and let Thy saints bless Thee. They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy dominion; to make known to the sons of men Thy power, and the glorious majesty of Thy kingdom. Thy kingdom endures through all generations. The Lord is faithful in His words, and holy in all His works." Psalm 145:10-13 (LXX).
"And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through Thy Name." Luke 10:17.
"by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him [*not for self-willed men]: And He is before all things [*powers], and by Him all things [*powers] consist{26}. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:16-18.

When we continue these Matters next month, by His Grace, we will look further into the Logos of God and see Who the "higher powers" of Romans 13 truly are.

Endnotes

{1} "HERMENEUTICS. (Greek, to interpret). The art [*deception] and science [*falsifiable statements], or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

{2} "Morphosis- morfwsij -Outward Pretence

"An old word that has received a new passive sense (external shape) in place of its è active meaning hitherto (a shaping).

"In secular Greek morphosis was a rare word, perhaps a Stoic term for 'education' (MM). Theophrastus, however, joins it with schematismos (configuration) in referring to the 'schematismos and morphosis (bringing into shape) of plants.' The compound diamorphosis, used by Plutarch, concerns the 'shaping' of wood. Hence, its secular meaning is active, and intrinsic influence or vital impulse, working outwards. But the meaning fails to suit Christian contexts, where morphosis is a soulless and dead shell revealing, as Chrysostom observes, only schema (outward show), tupos (impression), and hupokrisis (playing a part).

"Paul demonstrates that the Jew, for all his pretensions regarding the Law of Moses, had no more than the morphosis (outward pretence) of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:20). It is a shape received, not from within, but from the outside. Unlike the secular meaning, this is passive. Later, Paul foretells that heretics in the last times will have only the outward pretence of godliness (2 Timothy 3:5)--the species of piety (Vulgate, Claromontanus). Secular writers would no doubt have resorted to morphoma, for morphosis had for them an active meaning. Ellicott observed that in the NT there is a tendency to replace the verbal nouns in -ma by the corresponding nouns in -sis. The Jerusalem Bible has the 'outward appearance' of religion, Moffat and RSV, 'form', and Knox and NEB 'the outward form' of religion, and all point to the word's new meaning." Nigel Turner, Christian Words (1981), p. 303. [*Morphosis is the fruit of systematic theology].

{3} "5293. HUPOTASSO. From 5259 and 5021; to subordinate; reflexively, to obey:--be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{4} "2937. KTISIS. From 2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):--building, creation, creature, ordinance." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{5} "442. ANTHROPINOS. From 444; human:--human, common to man, man[-kind], [man-]kind, men's, after the manner of men." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{6} "3696. HOPLON. Probably from a primary hepo (to be busy about); an implement or utensil or tool (literally or figuratively, especially offensive for war):--armour, instrument, weapon." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{7} "4752. STRATEIA. From 4754; military service, i.e. (figuratively) the apostolic career (as one of hardship and danger):--warfare." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{8} "4559. SARKIKOS. From 4561; pertaining to flesh, i.e. (by extension) bodily, temporal, or (by implication) animal, unregenerate:--carnal, fleshly." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{9} "2507. KATHAIREO. From 2596 and 138 (including its alternate); to lower (or with violence) demolish (literally or figuratively):--cast (pull, put, take) down, destroy." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{10} "3794. OCHUROMA. From a remote derivative of 2192 (meaning to fortify, through the idea of holding safely); a castle (figuratively, argument):--stronghold." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{11} "3053. LOGISMOS. From 3049; computation, i.e. (figuratively) reasoning (conscience, conceit): --imagination, thought." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{12} "4750. STOMA. Probably strengthened from a presumed derivative of the base of 5114; the mouth (as if a gash in the face); by implication, language (and its relations); figuratively, an opening (in the earth); specifically, the front or edge (of a weapon):--edge, face, mouth." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{13} "4678. SOPHIA. From 4680; wisdom (higher or lower, worldly or spiritual):--wisdom." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{14} "480. ANTIKEIMAI. From 473 and 2749; to lie opposite, i.e. be adverse (figuratively, repugnant) to:--adversary, be contrary, oppose." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{15} "471. ANTEPO. From 473 and 2036; to refute or deny:--gainsay, say against." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{16} "436. ANTHISTEMI. From 473 and 2476; to stand against, i.e. oppose:--resist, withstand." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{17} "1849 EXOUSIA. From 1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:--authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength." Strong's Greek Dictionary. Note that the power is a delegated power, not an inherent power. Therefore, all Powers are of God, and are not inherent in the man exercising them.

"EXOUSIA; denotes freedom of action, right to act; used of God, it is absolute, unrestricted, e.g., Luke 12:5 (R.V. marg., "authority"); in Acts 1:7 'right of disposal' is what is indicated; used of men, authority is delegated. Angelic beings are called "powers" in Eph. 3:10 (cp. 1:21); 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15 (cp. 2:10). See AUTHORITY, No. 1, se also PRINCIPALITY." W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 878.

{18} "5242. HUPERECHO. From 5228 and 2192; to hold oneself above, i.e. (figuratively) to excel; participle (as adjective, or neuter as noun) superior, superiority:--better, excellency, higher, pass, supreme." Strong's.

{19} "225 ALETHEIA. From 227; truth:--true, X truly, truth, verity." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{20} "2638. KATALAMBANO. From 2596 and 2983; to take eagerly, i.e. seize, possess, etc. (literally or figuratively):--apprehend, attain, come upon, comprehend, find, obtain, perceive, (over-)take." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{21} "4381. PROSOPOLEPTES. From 4383 and 2983; an accepter of a face (individual), i.e. (specifically) one exhibiting partiality:--respecter of persons." Strong's Greek Dictionary. The phrase "accepter of a face" can also mean "accepter of a mask."

{22} 27. Are delivered (paredo1h). More lit., were delivered, as of a single act at a given time, as in this case, where the Son was sent forth by the Father, and clothed with authority. Compare 28:18." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 89.

{23} "Power (exousia). Better, authority, as Rev." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 176.

{24} "Is given (ejdoqh). Lit., was given, by the divine decree." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 176.

{25} "22. Are delivered (paredozh). See on Matthew 11:27." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 386.

{26} "Consist (sunesthken). Cohere, in mutual dependence. Compare Acts 27:28; Hebrews 1:3. For other meanings of the verb, see on Romans 3:5. Christ not only creates, but maintains in continuous stability and productiveness. 'He, the All-powerful, All-holy Word of the Father, spreads His power over all things everywhere, enlightening things seen and unseen, holding and binding all together in Himself. Nothing is left empty of His presence, but to all things and through all, severally and collectively, He is the giver and sustainer of life.... He, the Wisdom of God, holds the universe in tune together. He it is who, binding all with each, and ordering all things by His will and pleasure, produces the perfect unity of [*creation] and the harmonious reign of law. While He abides unmoved forever with the Father, He yet moves all things by His own appointment according to the Father's will' (Athanasius)." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, p. 512.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Hermeneutics and its god

"HERMENEUTICS. (Greek, to interpret). The art and science, or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. (Francis) Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

"Hermeneutics, n. The science of interpretation and explanation; esp. that branch of theology which defines the laws whereby the meaning of the Scriptures is to be ascertained; distinguished from exegesis, which is the concrete interpretation according to hermeneutical principals." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1008.

Synonymous Terms for the Science of Interpretation

"522. Interpretation 5. n. (science of interpretation) exegetics, exegetic; hermeneutics, hermeneutic; sympomatology, semeiology, semeiotics; diagnotics, prognostics; physionomics, physionomy; metoposcopy; oneirology, oneirocritics, oneirocriticism; astrology, chiromancy, palmistry, etc. (divination)." Roget's Thesaurus (1959), page 356.

The god of the Science of Interpretation

"Hermes, n. Greek Religion. An Olympian god, son of Zeus and Maia, -- identified by the Romans with Mercury. His chief character was that of herald and messenger (interpreter) of the gods, but he was also prominent as giver of increase to herds and as guardian of boundaries and of roads and their commerce. He was further god of science and invention, of eloquence, of cunning, trickery, and theft, of luck and treasure-trove, of youth and gymnastic exercises, while as psychopompos he was conductor of the dead to Hades. Hermes is usually represented as a slightly draped, beardless youth with the talaria, caduceus, and petasus as attributes." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1008.

"The study of the principals of interpretation--both the grammaticohistorical interpretation and the practical application [*spiritless Kantian pragmatism] of that interpretation in the pulpit--is called hermeneutics." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984), page 565.

"Hermeneutical. a. Unfolding the signification; interpretative; as hermeneutical theology." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1008.

Bits and Pieces

The Many Bondmen in Christ

"In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2.

The modern apostate use of this Scripture verse is to support their doctrines of denominationalism--polytheism based on the natural man's theories of God.

"In the house of My Father many abodes there are; otherwise I would have told you; I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2 (Berry).

"If ye love Me, keep My commandments.If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him." John:14:15 & 23.

"mouh (mone), an abiding place, a mansion, a habitation." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 19. Note John 14:2.

"3438. MONE. From 3306; a staying, i.e. residence (the act or the place):--abode, mansion." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"3438. MANSIONS. MONE. Primarily 'a staying, abiding' (akin to meno, 'to abide'), denotes an 'abode' (Eng., 'manor,' 'manse,' etc.), translated 'mansions' in John 14:2; 'abode' in v. 23. There is nothing in the word to indicate separate compartments in heaven; neither does it suggest temporary resting places on the road." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"3438. ABIDE, ABODE. Noun. MONE. 'An abode' (akin to No. 1), is found in John 14:2, 'mansions' (RV marg., 'abiding places'), and 14:23, 'abode.'" Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

No Human Nature

"The Godhead is 'Spirit' (John 4:24) and as Spirit has not likeness to matter, God Himself took some creature form (not human) before He created any thing, in order that creation might have a mediator, or a means of communion with Himself. Hence Christ is said to have been, 'in the beginning,' (John 1:1); 'before all things,' (Colossians 1:17.) 'The first-born of every creature,' (Colossians 1:15) 'the beginning of the creation of God,' (Revelation 3:14); and hence, 'In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,' (Colossians 2:9)." E W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 896. [*Therefore, the Christ had not human nature; but, had human form only].

Theology's Scientific Conjurings

For working purposes, social scientists [*judges, politicians, theologians, etc.], generally regarded as a fact as 'a particular ordering of reality in terms of a theoretical interest.' Such a statement means that any thing identified as a fact must be seen to have tied to it particular interests the observer brings to the study of the phenomenon....

The term 'truth' is red meat for philosophers, and they are welcome to it. Science [*hermeneutics, etc.] prefers to operate in the less lofty region of falsifiable statements that can be checked by someone else. Every good scientific proposition or generalization is stated in such a way that subsequent observations may provide either supporting evidence or evidence that raises questions about the accuracy of the proposition. By making the degree of verification [*probability] a permanent consideration in science, a good many rash conclusions can be avoided.

'What, then, are we to believe in?' might be the response to this noncommittal attitude toward fact and truth. If you want something absolute to believe in, it must be found outside of science [*theology, political science, the theory of law, etc.]. Science is a working procedure for answering questions by the refinement of experience. [*"Systems of taxation are not framed, nor is it possible to frame them, with perfect distribution of benefit and burden. Their authors must be satisfied with a rough and ready form of justice. This is true in special measure while the workings of a novel method are untested by a rich experience. There must be advance by trial and error." Cardozo, J., in Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee (1933), 288 U.S. 517, 586.] Scientists [*theologians, politicians, judges, etc.] may develop theories of awe-inspiring power, but the way in which such theories meet our very human needs for personal matter separate from the meaning for inquiry. To 'believe in science' means no more nor less than to be committed to judgments based on reality testing [*calling God a liar thereby tempting God] rather than on some other kind of evidence or mental process [*philosophical conjurings]." Kenneth R. Hoover, The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking (1980), pp. 48-49.

The "Living" Bible of Death

"Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power.

So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

For the policeman does not frighten people who are doing right; but those doing evil will always fear him. So if you don't want to be afraid, keep the laws and you will get along well.

The policeman is sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for he will have you punished. He is sent by God for that very purpose.

Obey the laws, then, for two reasons: first, to keep from being punished, and second, just because you know you should.

Pay your taxes too, for these same two reasons. For government workers need to be paid so that they can keep on doing God's work, serving you.

Pay everyone whatever he ought to have: pay your taxes and import duties gladly, obey those over you, and give honor and respect to all those to whom it is due." Romans 13:1-7 {The Living Bible).

Issue the Forty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part One...

The "Elusive" Sabbath-rest of the bondman in Christ, Part Two...

Romans 13: Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom?, Part Two...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Spiritually Dead

and the tools of their trade

Part One

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

We all must note that the above verses clearly show that man's wisdom--or "human" wisdom--the wisdom of the world, cannot be looked to for truth by the bondman in Christ. The natural man's love for the wisdom of the world, better known as philosophy, is the main subject of this multi-part discourse and word study, and will include many of the sub-categories of it, i.e., the spiritually dead philosophical sciences known as ethics, morals, hermeneutics, theology, and other sophistry of seminary morphosis.

The Spirit bears witness, to wit;

"For ye see your calling{1}, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base{2} things of the world, and things which are despised{3}, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh{4} should glory in His presence." 1 Corinthians 1:26-29.

Who are these that challenge the ways of God through their dead philosophies attempting to engrave an image of truth upon the heart of the ignorant through their vain babblings? Those that either have not received His Spirit, having received another spirit; or, who rebel against His Ways, the Spirit and the Word bearing witness, to wit;

"To the law{5} and to the testimony{6}: if they speak{7} not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.

The natural man has restated Isaiah 8:20 as follows:

"Nihil tam proprium imperio quam legibus vivere --Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2148.
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." 1 John 4:5.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37.

The Spirit--not morals, ethics, theology, hermeneutics, or seminary morphosis--is the Truth and sole Authority, for it is written, the Spirit bearing witness through Brother John, to wit,

"This is He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit [*not hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis] that beareth witness [*because hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis being merely opinions of men are not a witness in Law], because the Spirit is truth [*not opinions, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis]." 1 John 5:6.

It is the Truth, the pneuma of God, that drives out the lie, for no conjurations of man can withstand the Truth of God in and of the Christ, the Word bears witness, to wit;

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." John 3:20-21.

...and the Truth, the pneuma of God, separates life from death, the Spirit bearing witness to wit;

"For the word of God is quick{8}, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow [*note Ezekiel 37], and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Hebrews 4:12-13.

And it is in Truth and in Spirit, both in the Christ, that God our Father must be worshipped by and through doing His work appointed to us; and, not by, in or through outward pretence conjured by hermeneutically "sound" theology, the Word bearing witness, to wit;

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth [*and not by outward pretence--note Luke 17:20]." John 4:23-24.

It is not possible to worship God in Truth by, in, or through the ways of the world--gathering in the high places (i.e. corporations, religious associations and societies) or groves (i.e. denominations). Is the Christ's testimony true or not? See also Amos 5:21-24.

It is important to note and remember that the philosophies of hermeneutics, theology and the resulting seminary morphosis are not witness in Law of any type, kind character, or description, because they are opinion, speculation, presupposition, assumption, conjecture, and theory of the dead in Law proposer or conjurer of them, for they create confusion, and bear not the Truth in and of the Spirit of God. For this cause, they are meaningless to the bondmen in Christ, for the dead have no standing. Note 1 John 5:6 and Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Further, the Spirit bears witness that,

"All Scripture is given by inspiration{9} of God [*not hermeneutically systemized, constructed and schemed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture{10} is of any private{11} interpretation{12} [*by hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphism]. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake{13} as they were moved{14} by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21.
"this first knowing, that not any prophecy of scripture is of its own interpretation, for not by will of man was prophecy brought at any time, but, by Holy Spirit being borne, spoke the holy men of God." 2 Peter 1:20-21 (Berry).

The True context of Scripture, then, is always in the Spirit of God because it is given by His inspiration when He moved men called and chosen by Him to write His words about His Word; and, not by, in or through the letter of man-made dead hermeneutics, logic, reason, ethics, morals and other vain babblings of theology or seminary morphosis. Note that Brother Peter is not talking about dead hermeneutics, but is relating what Christ had told us--that the Spirit will guide us to all Truth (John 16:13), not opinions, speculations, conjectures, presumptions, ad nauseam.

In Part Two next month, we will continue this discourse and word study.

Endnotes

{1} "Calling (klhsin). Not condition of life, but your calling by God; not depending on wisdom, power, or lineage." M. R Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies.

{2} "Base. Greek agenes. Literally without family, or descent. Only here. The opposite of eugenes [*noble] verse 26." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1698.

{3} "Despised (exov1enhmena) Literally, set at nought. Not merely despised, but expressly branded with contempt. See Luke 23:11." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies.

{4} "4561. SARX. Probably from the base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physically or morally] and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh([-ly])." Strong's Greek Dictionary. To be carnally minded is not just lustful, but includes coming to God on your terms conjured by hermeneutically sound theology; and, not through His Christ Whom He has sealed. Note Genesis 4:1-5.

{5} "8451. TOWRAH. From 3384; a precept or statute, especially the Decalogue or Pentateuch:--law." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary

{6} "8584. T`UWDAH. From 5749; attestation, i.e. a precept, usage:--testimony." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{7} "1696. DABAR. A primitive root; perhaps properly, to arrange; but used figuratively (of words), to speak; rarely (in a destructive sense) to subdue:-answer, appoint, bid, command, commune, declare, destroy, give, name, promise, pronounce, rehearse, say, speak, be spokesman, subdue, talk, teach, tell, think, use [entreaties], utter, X well, X work." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{8} "2198. ZAO. A primary verb; to live (literally or figuratively):--life(-time), (a-)live(-ly), quick." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"zaw, to live, to have life. Here, the participle, living." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 618.

{9} "2315 THEOPNEUSTOS. From 2316 and a presumed derivative of 4154; divinely breathed in:--given by inspiration of God." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"qeopneustoj, God breathed, God-inspired." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 414.

{10} "1124. GRAPHE. A document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it):--scripture." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{11} "2398. IDIOS. Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, i.e. one's own; by implication, private or separate:--X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private(-ly), proper, severally, their (own)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{12} "1955. EPILUSIS. From 1956; explanation, i.e. application:--interpretation." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{13} "2980. LALEO. A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; to talk, i.e. utter words:--preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. Compare 3004." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"lalew, to speak, to emply the organ of utterance, to utter words of any language, independently of any reason why they are uttered (not, to speak inconsiderately or imprudently), to use the human voice with words; hence, to talk; and with another, to hold colloquy." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 663.

{14} "5342. PHERO. A primary verb (for which other and apparently not cognate ones are used in certain tenses only; namely, oio {oy'-o}; and enegko {en-eng'-ko); to "bear" or carry (in a very wide application, literally and figuratively, as follows):--be, bear, bring (forth), carry, come, + let her drive, be driven, endure, go on, lay, lead, move, reach, rushing, uphold." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"ferw, to bear, carry, bear along." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 510.

The "Elusive" Sabbath-rest

of the Bondman in Christ

Part Two

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our

Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee, His mere bondmen

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

The Spirit of God declares for six days God created and...

"on the seventh day God ended{1} His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Genesis 2:2-3.

The first thing to note in the above verse of Scripture is that on the seventh day God rested, and He blessed and sanctified it. In other words, God's creating ended, but His Work was not finished. What was left? The first blessing given to man by God as we have received it. This blessing given by the Word of God is familiar to most if not all of us, the Spirit declaring:

"And God blessed{2} them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful{3} [*execution of, doing, or living by and in His Word is the fruit of His Word--see Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 5:16, 21:19-21; Mark 4:7; Luke 8:14; John 7:17, 10:10, 15:2, 5 & 8; Romans 7:4-6; Galatians 5:22], and multiply{4} [*bring up others in His nurture and admonition to Execute His Testimony--see Matthew 5:16, 7:29; Luke 4:32], and replenish{5} the earth [*with His Word by sowing it--see Matthew 5:16, 7:29; 13:3-43; Luke 4:32], and subdue{6} it [*by and with the Power in and of His Word--Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2; Psalm 149; Genesis 3:22-24; Luke 10:19]: and have dominion{7} [*not by the natural man's theological confusion conjured by a scientific method, a.k.a. Christian Reconstruction, which are nothing more than vain babblings--but solely by and through My Word: see Matthew 28:18; John 5:22, 16:33] over the fish{8} of the sea{9}, and over the fowl{10} of the air{11}, and over every living thing{12} that moveth{13} upon the earth{14} [*those of the earth--Genesis 3:15; Psalm 91:13; Psalm 149; Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:19]." Genesis 1:28.

By the Christ executing the commands given by God, all was restored to those doing the same in His Name; while those who are still in unbelief continue to languish under the chastisements of the Law. See Revelation 22:14. And it is here that we have authority in and through His Name to judge even the fallen angels. See 1 Corinthians 6:3.

This is the first blessing given in Scripture to man by God our Father. It is not given to any one else but man and as we progress through this work we will see that when God rested, man's entry in to His Rest is done through execution of His Word--not sitting on the hands and watching the depraved and blasphemous religious entertainment and games of the world. To show this Truth, we will consult the Word, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who it is recorded for us said,

"Jesus saith unto them, My meat{15} is to do the will{16} of Him that sent Me [*praus not authades], and to finish{17} His work{18}." John 4:34.
"Jesus says to them, My meat is that I should do the will of Him Who sent Me, and should finish His work." John 4:34 (Berry).

Note the difference between the passages of quoted Scripture. The first separates God's Will from Him ("that" refers to an object); the second maintains the unity in Christ of doing God's Will proceeding from His Mind ("Who" refers to a subject).

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law{19}, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.{20} Matthew 5:17.
"Think not that I came to abolish the law or the prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfil." Matthew 5:17 (Berry).

The above two passages in Scripture are very important, for it is commonly taught that the Law originated with Moses. But in point of fact it originated earlier, as we saw in Genesis 1:28, because Law and Truth originate with the Lawgiver. Also early in Genesis, we read the following:

"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21.

Note that Adam and Eve clothed themselves in fig leaves (Genesis 3:7) of deceit--self-righteousness--no shedding of blood and no remission of sin. Note also Revelation 13:8.

God's Law concerning salvation was in work even this early, the Spirit bearing witness,

"And almost all things are by the law purged{21} with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22.

...but His righteous Judgments must be executed, and so He removed them from His presence, the Paradise of God; but not without having prepared the Way to and in the Truth and Life in the Christ to be revealed in His time. See Revelation 22:14.

In Genesis we also read God ended His creating--but did not finish--His Creation. It also never states that He ended execution of His Word in and over His Creation. In Truth, the testimony of the Spirit is,

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.

And the Spirit also bears witness of the Christ;

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put My words in His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which He shall speak in My name{22}, I will require it of him." Deuteronomy 18:18-19
"I will raise up to them a prophet of their brethren, like thee; and I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them as I shall command Him. And whatever man shall not hearken to whatsoever words that prophet shall speak in My name, I will take vengeance on him." Deuteronomy 18:18-19 (LXX).
"Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Isaiah 55:4.
"Behold, I have made Him a testimony among the Gentiles, a prince and a commander to the Gentiles." Isaiah 55:4 (LXX).

A leader and a commander testifies or bears witness of He Who sent Him to execute His will. The Word of the Leader or Commander is the Word of He Who sent Him. The Word bears witness,

"Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but He that sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John 8:25-26, 28.
"And I know that His commandment is life everlasting [*corroborated by the Spirit through Peter--see John 6:68]: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:50.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John 14:10.
"He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.
"He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, Who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:8.

Thus, the Word that the Leader or Commander will execute will not return void, but will be executed with all diligence and efficiency for the glory of Him Who spoke the Word and sent our Leader.

Further, God's Word is not limited to just the planets, the animals, plants and other things of His Creation. It includes man who is powerless to divorce himself from God's Creation, for the Word and the Spirit witness that,

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7.
"And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." Deuteronomy 8:3.
"But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4.

And all souls are subject to the Word of God, the Spirit witnessing:

"Behold, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is Mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4.

Realize now, that from the above testimony of the Spirit, that the modern teaching of Romans 13 is apostasy, for the Scripture cannot be broken and must be interpreted with other Scripture in pari materia. It may appear to conflict with the testimony of the Spirit speaking through Brother Peter; but this is groundless, for the Spirit is Truth, and Truth is not inconsistent at any time. We digress for the moment here, for much has been said about the following verse;

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;" 1 Peter 2:13.

On its face alone, this verse appears to be saying to submit your spirit to every ordinance of the natural man, who the Spirit witnesses receives not the things of the Spirit of God. See 1 Corinthians 2:14. But such is not the case. Brother Peter was witness to the best example of executing what the Spirit wrote using him for His instrument. This verse clearly concerns submitting the flesh to bear witness of the Spirit of God in the bondman to put to shame the wicked, ungodly or foolish man. The accounts given by the Spirit through Brothers Matthew and John testify to this very issue. See Matthew 26:50-57 and John 18:7-13. By the Christ executing His very precept, the Spirit in and through Brothers Peter and John executed the same in Acts 4:1-21 and Acts 5:17-40, thus manifesting the Truth to us in this passage. The Spirit by, in and through Brother Peter bears witness of the sole purpose of this verse for us, to wit;

"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." 1 Peter 2:14-16.

All this is laying the groundwork for what we will be declaring in this work: That the Sabbath-rest of the bondman in the Christ is doing the Will of Him to Whom he is bonded, the Spirit witnessing;

"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:20.

...and that he enters into that Sabbath-rest of His Master when he is faithful to Him, the Word bearing Witness:

"His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant{23}: thou hast been faithful{24} over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy{25} of thy lord." Matthew 25:21.

Note that the bondman or servant must do one thing: walk meekly in Truth in fulness of faith before his Master by Whom he is called out of the world and sent into the world to bear witness of his Master. For by so doing, the battle is not with the servant but with the Master of the servant. This is seen again, the Spirit and the Word bearing witness:

"keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself; That the LORD may continue His word which He spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel." 1 Kings 2:3-4.
"and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep the commandments and the ordinances and the judgments which are written in the law of Moses; that thou mayest understand what thou shalt do in all things that I command thee: that the Lord may confirm His word which He spoke, saying, If thy children shall take heed to their way to walk before Me in truth with all their heart, I promise thee, saying, there shall not fail a man on the throne of Israel." 1 Kings 2:3-4 (LXX). See also 3 John 1:4.
"He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.
"He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:8.
"So then he that sets aside, sets not man aside, but God, Who also gave His Holy Spirit to us." 1 Thessalonians 4:8 (Berry).
"though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge{26} all disobedience{27}, when your obedience{28} is fulfilled{29} [*executed or accomplished--the same word used in Matthew 5:17]." 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.

Christ Jesus attained to this joy of God our Father, having fulfilled or executed His obedience to our Father, and it is to Him we look for our example the Spirit bearing witness;

"And being found in fashion{30} as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient{31} unto death{32}, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8.
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Hebrews 12:2.

We will now be looking more closely at the commandment in Genesis 1:28 and taking careful note of how the Christ executed and accomplished each and every one of them in the works that He did. This is truly following Him, not as the world blindly follows its leaders who bear witness of their father and have not the testimonial witness of our Father; but, following Him Who has borne witness of God our Father in Him, and God our Father having borne witness of Him through the Law and the Prophets confirmed through His works. Further, it is here we will find our rest, not as the world finds its rest in decay. We find our rest in Life,

"Take My yoke{33} upon you, and learn{34} of Me; [*see Psalm 119:5, 8, 12, 16, 23, 26, 33, 48, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112, 117, 118, 124, 135, 145, 171] for I am meek{35} and lowly{36} in heart [*walking in Truth before God our Father]: and ye shall find{37} rest{38} unto your souls{39}. For My yoke is easy{40}, and My burden{41} [*by the singular obligation of living testamentary execution] is light{42} [*meet or fit for you because it is written on your inward parts (soul)--see Jeremiah 31:33]." Matthew 11:29-30.
"Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for meek I am and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest to your souls. For My yoke easy and My burden light is." Matthew 11:29-30 (Berry).

Note that the rest is not a pleasure feast for the flesh; but a rest for our souls for we are not ourselves, but His. See Ezekiel 18:4. Christ bears witness of this;

"Peace{43} [*rest by reconciliation to God our Father through Me] I leave with you, My peace [*rest by reconciliation to God our Father through Me] I give unto you: not as the world giveth [*no human morality attached or controlling for the world has only tribulation], give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." John 14:27.

As a consequence of this, we cease from our will and doing our labours to do His Will with the labour with which He blesses us. We, His bondmen reconciled to Him, must follow the Leader and Commander Whom God our Father declares us to follow, the Word witnessing that;

"The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord." Matthew 10:24.
"The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master." Luke 6:40.

The Spirit then bears also this witness that;

"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." 1 Corinthians 7:23.

This is corroborated by the words of the Christ;

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24.
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13.

We can serve only one Master Whom God our Father has declared and Sealed, and we ourselves are not our masters, nor the masters of any yoke-fellows or Brothers, the Word bearing witness that,

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." Matthew 23:8.

Because we love Him over the world we can do only His Will and not our own to remain in His love and His Peace, the Word bearing witness;

"If ye love{44} Me, keep My commandments{45}.He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest{46} Myself to him." John 14:15 & 21.
"If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love." John 15:10.

Note carefully the following: One, that the love the Christ speaks of is not love as the world understands and uses the term; Two, that the commandments of Christ are of authoritative weight above and beyond those moralisms of or from the world, the Spirit bearing witness;

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:18-21.

The natural man knows this and bears witness of this:

"No more immoral advice could be given in our time than the not infrequently uttered exhortation of some popular preachers that morality would be a sham unless God exists. Naturalists, like any other persons, might well grant that morality might be in some respects revised if the existence of God were known. If God exists, his will is either in accord with what is right for men to do on grounds independent of his existence [*man's "free will" is always right to those of Eve], or it is not in accord. In the former case, knowledge of his existence would have no bearing on the content of moral principles, but would add, at least for many people, certain religious sanctions. In the latter case, knowledge of his existence would change the content of moral principles; but to what extent and in what ways, it is useless to consider until both his existence and his will come to be known [*both revealed in His creation, Scripture, and our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ]. Meanwhile, men continually have to act, and they may act rightly or wrongly [*by whose fixed Righteous Law?], from sound ideals or from spurious ideals. To tell them that life has no meaning without belief in the existence of God, or to tell them that ideals are futile in a world in which God does not exist, is to throw away moral certainties ["Certainties" may be a word that jars on the ears of many empiricists and naturalists. If so, it may be said that it is here used to mean the conclusions that are so well "tested" that they seem to be settled [*according to reasonable conjurations].] and moral probabilities [*a crap shoot] in order to try by that absurd means to inveigle people into accepting a theology for which there is no evidence [*but there is a mountain of history and evidence that human civilizations crumble and fail when God is neglected or forgotten.] Morality, in its vital matters, is much more certain and much more basic than any theological doctrine, true or false. [*How can a man know himself without knowing God?] We may remain uncommitted on the theory of the existence of God, without being in any way troubled about many important values and aims of human life." Sterling P. Lamprecht, "Naturalism and Religion," in Naturalism and the Human Spirit (1944), pp. 30-37.

Our Father's commandments in Genesis 1:28 were never repealed or replaced by Moses, or any act that Christ performed in fulfilling the Law;

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:29-31.

In fact, at every turn He fulfilled those five commands given in the one commandment. The Word and Spirit bearing witness that;

"The thief{47} cometh not, but for to steal{48}, and to kill{49}, and to destroy{50): am come that they might have life{51} [*see Psalm 23], and that they might have it more abundantly{52}." John 10:10.
"And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." John 1:16-17.

It is in His Rest and Peace that the bondman of His finds his rest and his peace. If the Master is at Peace, so are His obedient bondmen. Those who are disobedient bondmen, have not His Peace, for they are chastised by Him to drive them through repentance to obedience, the Spirit witnessing that;

"And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. [*Quoting Proverbs 3:11-12 from the Septuagint] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but He for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby." Hebrews 12:5-11.

Those that are not His bondman have not His Peace either here or hereafter, the Spirit bearing witness:

"Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes." Psalm 119:155.
"Salvation is far from sinners: for they have not searched out thine ordinances." Psalm 118 (119):155 (LXX).
"Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways [*see Isaiah 55:9; Ezekiel 18:25, 29]. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.'But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." Hebrews 3:10-12, 17-19.
"Wherefore I was indignant with that generation, and said, Always they err in heart; and they did not know My ways [*see Isaiah 55:9; Ezekiel 18:25, 29]; so I swore in My wrath, If they shall enter into My rest. Take heed brethren, lest perhaps shall be in any one of you a wicked heat of unbelief in departing from living God.And with whom was He indignant with forty years? Not with those who sinned, of whom the carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom swore he shall not enter in to His rest except to those who disobeyed? And we see that they were not able to enter in on account of unbelief." Hebrews 3:10-12, 17-19 (Berry).
"Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish." Psalm 1:5-6.
"Therefore the ungodly shall not rise in judgment, nor sinners in the counsel of the just. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish." Psalm 1:5-6 (LXX).

The lot of the wicked then is manifested to us in the following:

"Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers are as widows. We have drunken our water for money; our wood is sold unto us. Our necks are under persecution: we labour, and have no rest. We have given the [*right] hand [*of life and power] to the Egyptians [*slave holders--note Revelation 13], and to the Assyrians [*commercial men], to be satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities. Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand. We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness." Lamentations 5:2-8.

For a more in depth study, there is currently a multipage pamphlet on this subject available on request through the Christ's assembly at California.

Endnotes

{1} "3615. KALAH. A primitive root; to end, whether intransitive (to cease, be finished, perish) or transitived (to complete, prepare, consume): -accomplish, cease, consume (away), determine, destroy (utterly), be (when were) done, (be an) end (of), expire, (cause to) fail, faint, finish, fulfil, X fully, X have, leave (off), long, bring to pass, wholly reap, make clean riddance, spend, quite take away, waste." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{2} "1288. BARAK. A primitive root; to kneel; by implication to bless God (as an act of adoration), and (vice-versa) man (as a benefit); also (by euphemism) to curse (God or the king, as treason):--X abundantly, X altogether, X at all, blaspheme, bless, congratulate, curse, X greatly, X indeed, kneel (down), praise, salute, X still, thank." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{3} "6509. PARAH. A primitive root; to bear fruit (literally or figuratively):--bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{4} "7235. RABAH. A primitive root; to increase (in whatever respect):--[bring in] abundance (X -antly), + archer [by mistake for 7232], be in authority [*note Matthew 7:29 and Luke 4:32], bring up, X continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding(-ly), be full of, (be, make) great(-er, -ly, X -ness), grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), (ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty(-eous), X process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{5} "4390. MALE'. Or malae (Esth. 7:5) {maw-law'}; a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil [*note Matthew 5:17], (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full(-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-]flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-]full, + have wholly." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{6} "3533. KABASH. A primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard; positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate: - bring into bondage, force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{7} "7287. RADAH. A primitive root; to tread down, i.e. subjugate; specifically, to crumble off:--(come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign, (bear, make to) rule,(-r, over), take." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{8} "1710. DAGAH. Feminine of 1709, and meaning the same:--fish." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{9} "3220. YAM From an unused root meaning to roar; a sea (as breaking in noisy surf) or large body of water; specifically (with the article), the Mediterranean Sea; sometimes a large river, or an artificial basin; locally, the west, or (rarely) the south: -sea (X -faring man, [-shore]), south, west (-ern, side, -ward)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{10} "5775. `OWPH. From 5774; a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collectively:--bird, that flieth, flying, fowl." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldeeè Dictionary.

{11} "8064. SHAMAYIM. Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):--air, X astrologer, heaven(-s)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{12} "2416 CHAY. From 2421; alive; hence, raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: -+ age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company [*includes all dead soul-less legal entities], congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop [*military]." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{13} "7430. RAMAS. A primitive root; properly, to glide swiftly, i.e. to crawl or move with short steps; by analogy to swarm:--creep, move." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{14} "772 'ARA`. (Aramaic) corresponding to 776; the earth; by implication (figuratively) low:--earth, interior." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{15} 1033. BROMA. From the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals." Strong's è Greek Dictionary.

"broma, whatever is eaten, solid food, as opposed to milk, etc." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 401.

{16} "2307. THELEMA. From the prolonged form of 2309; a determination (properly, the thing), i.e. (actively) choice (specially, purpose, decree; abstractly, volition) or (passively) inclination:--desire, pleasure, will." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{17} "teleiow, to make perfect, consummate. (This word is used of inaugurating as king, to confirm the kingdom, and so, of the consummation of the martyrs and glorification of the saints." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 287.

{18} "2041. ERGON. From a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication, an act:--deed, doing, labour, work." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{19} "3551. NOMOS. From a primary nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle):--law." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{20} "4137. PLEROO. From 4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, è perfect, supply." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"plhrow, to make full, fill; then, to fulfill, perform fully, complete, accomplish." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 311.

"plhrow, universally and absolutely, to fulfill, i.e. to cause God's will (made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment: Matthew 5:17." Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (1896), p. 518."

{21} "251. KATHARIZO. From 2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively):--(make) clean(-se), purge, purify." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{22} "8034. SHEM. A primitive word [perhaps rather from 7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; compare 8064]; an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character: --+ base, [in-]fame[-ous], named (-d), renown, report." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{23} "1401. DOULOS. From 1210; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):--bond(-man), servant." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{24} "4103. PISTOS. From 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believeè (-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{25} "5479. CHARA. From 5463; cheerfulness, i.e. calm delight:--gladness, X greatly, (X be exceeding) joy(-ful, -fully, -fulness, -ous)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5479 JOY (Noun and Verb), JOYFULNESS, JOYFULLY, JOYOUS. Noun. Chara. 'joy, delight' (akin to chairo, 'to rejoice'), is found frequently in Matthew and Luke, and especially in John, once in Mark (4:16, RV, 'joy,' KJV, 'gladness'); it is absent from 1 Cor. (though the verb is used three times), but is frequent in 2 Cor., where the noun is used five times (for 7:4, RV, see Note below), and the verb eight times, suggestive of the apostle's relief in comparison with the circumstances of the 1st Epistle; in Col. 1:11, KJV, 'joyfulness,' RV, 'joy.' The word is sometimes used, by metonymy, of the occasion or cause of 'joy,' Luke 2:10 (lit., 'I announce to you a great joy'); in 2 Cor. 1:15, in some mss., for charis, 'benefit'; Phil. 4:1, where the readers are called the apostle's 'joy'; so 1 Thess. 2:19, 20; Heb. 12:2, of the object of Christ's 'joy'; Jas. 1:2, where it is connected with falling into trials; perhaps also in Matt. 25:21, 23, where some regard it as signifying, concretely, the circumstances attending cooperation in the authority of the Lord. See also the Note following No. 3. Note: In Heb. 12:11, 'joyous' represents the phrase meta, 'with,' followed by chara, lit., 'with joy.' So in 10:34, 'joyfully'; in 2 Cor. 7:4 the noun is used with the middle voice of huperperisseuo, 'to abound more exceedingly,' and translated '(I overflow) with joy,' RV (KJV, 'I am exceeding joyful')." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{26} "1556. EKDIKEO. From 1558; to vindicate, retaliate, punish:--a (re-)venge." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{27} "3876. PARAKOE. From 3878; inattention, i.e. (by implication) disobedience:--disobedience." Strong's Greek Dictionary. Inattention is the opposite of diligence in 2 Timothy 2:15.

{28} "5218. HUPAKOE. From 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by implication) compliance or submission:--obedience, (make) obedient, obey(-ing)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{29} "4137. PLEROO. From 4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"plhrow, to make full, fill; then, to fulfill, perform fully, complete, accomplish." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 311.

{30} "4976. SCHEMA. From the alternate of 2192; a figure (as a mode or circumstance), i.e. (by implication) external condition:--fashion." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"schma, outward figure, shape, mien." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 276.

Fashion (schmati). That which is purely outward and appeals to the senses. The form of a servant is concerned with the fact that the manifestation as a servant corresponded with the real fact that Christ came as the servant of mankind. In the phrase in the likeness of men the thought is still linked with that of His essential nature which rendered possible a likeness to men, but not an absolute identity with men. In being found in fashion as a man the thought is confined to the outward guise as it appealed to the sense of mankind. Likeness states the fact of real resemblance to men in mode of existence: fashion defines the outward mode and form. As a man. Not being found a man not what He was recognized to be, but as a man, keeping up the idea of semblance expressed in likeness." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. III, pp. 475-476.

{31} "5255. HUPEKOOS. From 5219; attentively listening, i.e. (by implication) submissive:--obedient." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{32} Became obedient unto death (genomenoj--mecri). Became, compare Revelation 1:18. Unto. The Rev. very judiciously inserts even; for the A.V. is open to the interpretation that Christ rendered obedience to death. Unto is up to the point of. Christ's obedience to God was rendered to the extent of laying down His life." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. III, p. 476.

{33} "2218. YOKE, YOKED. Noun. Zugos. 'A yoke,' serving to couple two things together, is used (1) metaphorically, (a) of submission to authority, Matt. 11:29, 30, of Christ's 'yoke,' not simply imparted by Him but shared with Him; (b) of bondage, Acts 15:10 and Gal. 5:1, of bondage to the Law as a supposed means of salvation; (c) of bondservice to masters, 1 Tim. 6:1; (2) to denote 'a balance,' Rev. 6:5. See BALANCE." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. [*The yoke binds three ways: One, the bondman to Christ; Two, the bondman to God our Father through Christ; Three, God our Father to Christ. And only in this manner can it ever be said that the Spirit of God our Father bears witness with our spirit, for if one is against Christ, Christ and the Father being one (see 1 John 5:7) are against the one opposing Christ].

{34} "3129. MANTHANO. Prolongation from a primary verb, another form of which, matheo, is used as an alternate in certain tenses; to learn (in any way):--learn, understand." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"3129. LEARN, LEARNED (be). Verb. Manthano. Denotes (a) 'to learn' (akin to mathetes, 'a disciple'), 'to increase one's knowledge,' or 'be increased in knowledge,' frequently 'to learn by inquiry, or observation,' e.g., Matt. 9:13; 11:29; 24:32; Mark 13:28; John 7:15; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 4:6; 14:35; Phil. 4:9; 2 Tim. 3:14; Rev. 14:3; said of 'learning' Christ, Eph. 4:20, not simply the doctrine of Christ, but Christ Himself, a process not merely of getting to know the Christ but of so applying the knowledge as to walk differently from the rest of the Gentiles; (b) 'to ascertain,' Acts 23:27, RV, 'learned' (KJV, 'understood'); è Gal. 3:2, 'This only would I learn from you,' perhaps with a tinge of irony in the enquiry, the answer to which would settle the question of the validity of the new Judaistic gospel they were receiving; (c) 'to learn by use and practice, to acquire the habit of, be accustomed to,' e.g., Phil. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:4, 13; Titus 3:14; Heb. 5:8. See UNDERSTAND." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"manqanw, to learn, intellectually from others, or from study and observation, to be informed, to understand." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 447.

{35} "PRAUS or PRAOS denotes gentle, mild, meek; for its significance see the corresponding noun, below, B. Christ uses it of His own disposition, Matt. 11:29; He gives it in the third of His Beatitudes, 5:5; it is said of Him as the King Messiah, 21:5, from Zech. 9:9; it is an adornment of the Christian profession, 1 Pet. 3:4; Cp. epios, gentle, of a soothing disposition, 1 Thess. 2:7; 2 Tim. 2:24." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940), vol. III, pp. 55-56.

"4239. PRAUS; meek (Matt. 5:5; 21:5; 1 Pet. 3:4) or, praos (4235), meek, lowly (Matt. 11:29). See prautes (4240), meekness.

"4240. PRAUTES; meekness, expressed not in man's outward behavior only nor in his relations to his fellow man or his mere natural disposition, but expressed rather as an inwrought grace of the soul, first and chiefly directed toward God (James 1:21). That attitude of spirit in which we accept God's dealings with us as good and do not dispute or resist. Prautes, according to Aristotle, is the middle course in being angry, standing between two extremes, getting angry without reason (orgulotes), and not getting angry at all (aorgesia). Therefore, prautes is getting angry at the right time, in the right measure, and for the right reason [*cause--note the Christ's anger in banishing the moneychangers from the temple]. Prautes is not readily expressed in Eng. since the term 'meekness' suggests weakness, but prautes is a condition of mind and heart which demonstrates gentleness not in weakness but power. It is a virtue born in strength of character." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament, King James Version (1994), p. 932.

{36} "5011. TAPEINOS. Of uncertain derivation; depressed, i.e. (figuratively) humiliated (in circumstances or disposition):--base, cast down, humble, of low degree (estate), lowly." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5011. HUMBLE. (Adjective and Verb). Adjective. Tapeinos. Primarily signifies 'low-lying.' It is used always in a good sense in the NT, metaphorically, to denote (a) 'of è low degree, brought low,' Luke 1:52; Rom. 12:16, KJV, '(men) of low estate,' RV, '(things that are) lowly' (i.e., of low degree); 2 Cor. 7:6, KJV, 'cast down,' RV, 'lowly'; the preceding context shows that this occurrence belongs to (a); Jas. 1:9, 'of low degree'; (b) humble in spirit, Matt. 11:29; 2 Cor. 10:1, RV, 'lowly,' KJV 'base'; Jas. 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5. See BASE, CAST, Note (7), DEGREE (Note), LOWLY." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{37} "2147. HEURISKO. A prolonged form of a primary heuro {hyoo'-ro}; which (together with another cognate form heureo {hyoo-reh'-o}) is used for it in all the tenses except the present and imperfect; to find (literally or figuratively):--find, get, obtain, perceive, see." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"euriskw, to find, as without seeking, meet with, light upon. Also, to find as by searching, hence, find out, discover." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 286.

{38} "373. ANAPANO. From 303 and 3973; (reflexively) to repose (literally or figuratively [be exempt], remain); by implication, to refresh:--take ease, refresh, (give, take) rest." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anapanw, Here, mid., to rest one's self, i.e. to take rest, enjoy rest, the idea of previous toil or suffering being included." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 642.

{39} PSUCHE, see Etymologicum Anglicanum on page ten. We should note here that the word at Ezekiel 18:4 in the Septuagint is psuchai the plural form of psuche, the word used by Brother Paul in Romans 13:1. This is reading Scripture in pari materia (same subject-matter) which tells us that the modern interpretation or opinion of the natural man wearing the title pastor (wolf in sheep's clothing) on this particular verse in Scripture (Romans 13:1) is apostasy. The Spirit directing Brother Paul's discourse in Romans 13 squares fully with the Spirit directing Brother Ezekiel. There is no inconsistency between the two, for the Spirit is one.

{40} "5543. CHRESTOS. From 5530; employed, i.e. (by implication) useful (in manner or morals):--better, easy, good(-ness), gracious, kind." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5543. EASY, EASIER, EASILY. Chrestos. Primarily signifies 'fit for use, able to be used' (akin to chraomai, 'to use'), hence, 'good, virtuous, mild, pleasant' (in contrast to what is hard, harsh, sharp, bitter). It is said (a) of the character of God as 'kind, gracious,' Luke 6:35; 1 Pet. 2:3; 'good,' Rom. 2:4, where the neuter of the adjective is used as a noun, 'the goodness' (cf. the corresponding noun chrestotes, 'goodness,' in the same verse); of the yoke of Christ, Matt. 11:30, 'easy' (a è suitable rendering would be 'kindly'); (c) of believers, Eph. 4:32; (d) of things, as wine, Luke 5:39, RV, 'good,' for KJV, 'better' (cf. Jer. 24:3, 5, of figs); (e) ethically, of manners, 1 Cor. 15:33. See GOOD, GRACIOUS, KIND." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{41} "5413. PHORTION. Diminutive of 5414; an invoice (as part of freight), i.e. (figuratively) a task or service:--burden." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"fortion, is a specific load; the freight or lading that has to be borne." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 120.

{42} "1645. ELAPHROS. Probably akin to 1643 and the base of 1640; light, i.e. easy:--light." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"1645. LIGHT, LIGHTEN (as to weight). Adjective. Elaphros. 'light in weight, easy to bear,' is used of the burden imparted by Christ, Matt. 11:30; of affliction, 2 Cor. 4:17." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{43} "1515. EIRENE. Probably from a primary verb eiro (to join); peace (literally or figuratively); by implication, prosperity:--one, peace, quietness, rest, + set at one again [*reconciled to God in Christ through Christ]." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"1515. PEACE, PEACEABLE, PEACEABLY. Noun. Eirene. 'occurs in each of the books of the NT, save 1 John and save in Acts 7:26['(at) one again'] it is translated 'peace' in the RV. It describes (f) the harmonized relationships between God and man, accomplished through the Glad Tidings in and of Christ, Acts 10:36; Eph. 2:17; (g) the sense of rest and contentment consequent thereon, Matt. 10:13; Mark 5:34; Luke 1:79; 2:29; John 14:27; Rom. 1:7; 3:17; 8:6; in certain passages this idea is not distinguishable from the last, Rom. 5:1." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{44} "25. AGAPAO. Perhaps from agan (much) [or compare 5689]; to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-)love(-ed). Compare 5368." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{45} "1785. ENTOLE. From 1781; injunction, i.e. an authoritative prescription:--commandment, precept." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{46} "1718. EMPHANIZO. From 1717; to exhibit (in person) or disclose (by words): --appear, declare (plainly), inform, (will) manifest, shew, signify." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{47} "2812. KLEPTES. From 2813; a stealer (literally or figuratively):--thief. Compare 3027." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"klepthj, a thief, one who steals by fraud or in secret." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 787. [*Larceny is theft done in deceit or secret].

{48} "2813. KLEPTO. A primary verb; to filch:--steal." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"kleptw, to steal, take by stealth, (not to rob by violence.)" E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 735.

{49} "2380. THUO. A primary verb; properly, to rush (breathe hard, blow, smoke), i.e. (by implication) to sacrifice (properly, by fire, but genitive case); by extension to immolate (slaughter for any purpose):--kill, (do) sacrifice, slay." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"quw, to sacrifice, to kill and offer in sacrifice, or to kill animals for a feast." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 481.

{50} "2673. KATARGEO. From 2596 and 691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"katargew, to render inactive, idle; especially of land to spoil, make unclean, void, abolish, make without effect." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 220.

{51} "2222. ZOE. From 2198; life (literally or figuratively):--life(-time). Compare 5590." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{52} "4053. PERISSOS. From 4012 (in the sense of beyond); superabundant (in quantity) or superior (in quality); by implication, excessive; adverbially (with 1537) violently; neuter (as noun) preeminence:--exceeding abundantly above, more abundantly, advantage, exceedingly, very highly, beyond measure, more, superfluous, vehement[-ly]." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Romans 13:

Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom?

Part Two

written solely by the Grace of God in and through

our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

(continued from Issue the Forty-sixth)

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

"For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Romans 11:36.

Therefore the Law applies to them and to us in accordance with the Word of God;

"He is the LORD our God: His judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant He made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, He reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm." Psalm 105:7-15. See also 2 Chronicles 16:14-22.
"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." Acts 5:34-40.

Note the time for rejoicing, singing and celebration--after having engaged the enemy not before or never engaging the enemy!!! This the condition of today's modern masquerade.

"Ask of Me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Psalm 2:8.

This has all to do with Who and What the Christ is. In the Glad Tidings given by the Spirit to Brother John we read He is the Word and is God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:1-2.

Note here that the Word is not theology, theory, conjecture, opinion, or any reasonably conjured synonym. Did Brother John write as directed by the Spirit or not?

The word for "Word" in the Greek is "Logos." And it is in and of the Logos of God where we find the Authority and Power in and of Christ. We must understand the Logos of God in Christ to righteously discern the Truth from a lie and to Lawfully execute His Will, for His Word is the Sword for the use of His Elect, and He is the Lord of the Sword Who fights the war. It is in the Logos{1} of God where all Authority or Warrant in Law is found:

"To Me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me." Deuteronomy 32:35, 41. See also John 5:22 & 27.
"But the LORD is the true God, He is the Living God, and an everlasting King: at His wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide His indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by His Power, He hath established the world by His Wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by His discretion. When He uttereth His voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; He maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of His treasures." Jeremiah 10:10-13.
"Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know Mine hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is The LORD." Jeremiah 16:20-21.

Christ gives us His Testimony of the Logos of God in Him, and how we, His bondmen, have been delegated that same authority by and through Him:

"Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father [*he that hath seen His assembly Lawfully execute Law in Him hath seen Him and the Father--see Matthew 10:40]; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:8-9.
"And the glory which thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved Me." John 17:22-23.
"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you." John 20:21.

For Christ is the express Image of God, a Perfect Reflection of Who He is, and so are His bondmen and His Lawful assembly His very Image and Likeness, a Perfect Reflection of Who He is, in the world (see John 17:9-11, 21; Philippians 2:7); and not the image and likeness of the world and his theology (see John 15:19), for they are not of the world and are not conformed to his image. See Romans 8:29, 12:2, 13:14; John 17:6, 8, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, & 26; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:4; Ephesians 2:10, 4:24; Colossians 3:10.

And just as Christ evidenced Oneness with and in the Father by confessing the Father to the world, so His bondmen (see Philippians 2:7 for Who is our example) show their oneness with and in Him by confessing Christ, the Logos of God, to the world, not with mere lip service, but in the Life and Power of His Word:

"Whosoever therefore shall confess{2} Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32-33.

They possess and execute His Word and not the word, a.k.a. theology, of the world:

"For I have given unto them the words [*note Deuteronomy 18:18] which thou gavest Me [*never was heard a theological, ecclesiastical, or religious word]; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that thou didst send Me.I have given them Thy word [*not theology, theories, sciolism, conjecture, opinion, hypothesis, rationale, supposition, ad nauseam]; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:8, 14.

The world does not know the bondmen in Christ by any name because they, the bondmen assembled by Him, and their Life are hid from the world;

"For ye are dead [*to the world], and your life is hid with Christ in God." Colossians 3:3.
"Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not Thy peace, and be not still, O God. For, lo, Thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate Thee have lifted up the head. They have taken crafty counsel against Thy people, and consulted against Thy hidden ones." Psalm 83:1-3.

And this is even known and acknowledged by the natural man{3}.

Thus, a continuous uninterruptable flowing river of Law and Righteousness having its Source, Cause and Origin in and from God, flows through Christ, into each of His bondmen in and of His House. See Proverbs 1:23; Joel 2:28-29. This is to know who you are and to Whom you belong. The Logos of God is the Seal of the Holy Spirit impressed upon a humble heart able to receive it. Those who bear this Logos are hid from the world, for it is only Christ in them that the world sees and not them, because they seek not their own will, but the Will of Him Who sanctified them from, and sent them into, the world. This is the difference between the invisible Lawful assembly and the visible Assembly. This is also the difference between the "christian"{4} (illusion) and the bondman in Christ (Truth). Christ is visible to the world; the Assembly and those in and of Him are invisible:

"The right church then is not the whole multitude of the people whether good or bad, that join together in an outward form or way of worship.And therefore I shall not speak of this church. But the church I shall speak of is the true church of the New Testament, which, I say, is not any outward or visible society, gathered together into the consent or use of outward things, forms, ceremonies, worship, as the churches of men are; neither is it known by seeing or feeling, or the help of any outward sense, as the society of mercers or drapers, or the like; but it is a spiritual and invisible fellowship, gathered together in the unity of faith, hope, and love, and so into the unity of the Son, and of the Father by the Spirit; wherefore it is wholly hid from carnal eyes, neither hath the world any knowledge or judgment of it.
"This true Church is the communion of Saints, which is the communion believers have with one another; not in the things of the world, nor in the things of man, but in the things of God. For as believers have their union in the Son, and in the Father, so in them also they have their communion; and the communion they have with one another in God cannot be in their own things, but in God's things, even in His light, life, righteousness, wisdom, truth, love, power, peace, joy, &c. This is the true communion of Saints, and this communion of Saints is the true Church of God." William Dell, "The Way of True Peace and Unity" (1649), cited in Woodhouse, Puritanism and Liberty (1965), pp 303-304.

Being washed in, sanctified (separated) from the world and protected by His Word;

"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." John 15:3.
"When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." Isaiah 43:2.

God's restriction of the acts of the heathen against His Inheritance in His Assembly applies to each and every bondman of His:

"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." Romans 6:20.
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." 1 Corinthians 7:23.
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto{5} [*with, by or through theology, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, religion, codes, rules, and regulations]." Galatians 3:15.
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:16{6}.
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:26-29.
"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 1 Corinthians 1:20-22.

And He has delegated to His Assembly and those serving Him and whom He has anointed with His Spirit the same Authority that flows through Him to His Assembly from the Father:

"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions [*things that move upon the earth], and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luke 10:19. Note Genesis 1:28.
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19.
"Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." Isaiah 40:28-31.

Note who kept, and now tries to keep, the key of knowledge of God and His Kingdom away from those entering in:

"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge [*of God]: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." Luke 11:52.

The very ones who profit by having the heresy that the artifice of the State--the dead--is the "higher power" preached from the pulpits of death. How is the thing that is dead the "higher power?" The Word and Spirit bear witness;

"For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces." Hosea 8:6.
"He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err." Mark 12:27.

The natural man admits that the State is dead and is not the higher power;

"'They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicate, for they have no souls.'--10 Rep. 32 b." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 67.
"There is an idiom in truth which falsehood never can imitate. [Lord Chancellor Napier in Low v. Holmes, Drury Cases in Chanc. Temp. Napier, 323.]." Heard, Curiosities of the Law Reporters (1876), p. 20.

Verily, they are the usurpers of the Authority and Power Christ delegated to His Lawful Assembly, the heretics told to us in Scripture who attempt to join the living to the dead:

"airetikos (hairetikos), eterokidaskalo (heterodidaskalo) and airesis (hairesis), if they have not yet become, are rapidly becoming Christian terms.
"Heretical. In secular Greek the meaning of the rare adjective, airetikos (hairetikos), was 'capable of choosing', 'careful to avoid'. It is found in Pseudo-Plato, and also in Hierocles.
"Titus should reject, after two warnings, 'a man that is an heretick' (Titus 3:10), and the context explains that such a teacher transgrresses the church's norm of doctrine because of his 'foolish questions', his debates, his reversion to Judaism [*socialism with its morals and opinions of men] with its emphasis on 'genealogies.' The adjective has this meauing quite consistently in ecclesiastical Greek and is notably applied to Arius, the heresiarch.
"To teach heresy. The second word, the verb eterokidaskalo (heterodidaskalo), is a coinage from existing words, literally 'to teach otherwise,' that is, contrary to the church. It is exclusively Christian (Bauer). Timothy's task in Ephesus was to forbid the dissemination of heresy--to prevent doctrine that was at variance with the church's wholesome accepted tradition as St. Paul had delivered it to him, including, in one specific instance, the directions about servants (1 Timothy 1:3, 6:3). St. Ignatius wrote to St. Polycarp, 'Let not those who seem to be plausible and yet teach heresy eterokidaskalo (heterodidaskalo) dismay you. Stand firm, like a smitten anvil.' (I Polycarp 3:1).
"Heresy. The third word, airesis (hairesis), had in secular Greek indicated a philosophical tendency, a school or party. Nowhere perhaps in the N.T. does airesis (hairesis) have the later meaning of 'heresy', that is, teaching which is opposed to the doctrine of the church as a whole. Nevertheless airesis (hairesis) stands listed among the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:20) and elsewhere St. Paul uses it in a bad sense, (1 Corinthians 11:9), recognizing the incompatibility of airesis (hairesis) with church (ekklhsian). 'There must be heresies among you,' if only to show up those who are 'approved' the dokimoi (dokimoi). It is despising the church of God, this harboring of heresies, for they harm the church. Moreover, heresies are 'damnable' [*mistranslation--see George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament] and deny the Lord (2 Peter 2:1). Heresy in the N.T. seems to be 'obstinate persistence in self-opinionated views contrary to revealed Truth.'
"Because airesij (hairesis) appears without explanation in the midst of a catalogue of vices, Dibelius assumed that the pejorative sense was not first created by St. Paul. Such a sense is not suggested by the LXX [*Septuagint], where it means 'free will' and 'choice', but if the pejorative sense was not coined by St. Paul it may well have been devised by other elements within the church at a very early time. In 2 Peter 2:1 airesis (hairesis) means false opinion, not mere schism (Spitta, von Soden, Weiss, Mayor, Bigg). Bigg observed that as early as 1 Corinthians 11:18f airesis (hairesis) and schisma were the same were the same thing, and possibly St. Paul was quoting a saying of our Lord (p. 272). 'Now airesis (hairesis) is changing its meaning with the change of circumstances.' No longer mere schism, it is hardening into the 'denial of the fundamental articles of the Christian creed.' It is a denial of the Lord and a bringing upon oneself swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1). For St. Ignatius, airesis (hairesis) is 'a rank weed' to be avoided; it is 'poison' mixed with Jesus Christ, a deadly drug (I. Trall. 6:1), and he praises the Ephesians because no 'heresy' has a home among them--that is, 'aught else save concerning Jesus Christ in Truth' (I. Eph. 6:2). 'Heresy' is the equivalent of 'evil teaching' (I. Eph. 9). Simon of Samaria was the first heresiarch, according to St. Justin (Apol. 26)." Nigel Turner, Christian Words (1981), pp. 211-212.
"A century and a half ago Edwin Burke said, Civilization is a contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn--A contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn. I want to talk to you very briefly this afternoon, my brethren, if I may, about the thing we are trying to do here in America. You and I wanted something to do and engaged in the business of trying law suits for clients, in order that we may make a living, but back of and bigger than it all, you and I-whether or not we know it and whether or not we are wholly conscious of it-are engaged in the most extraordinary thing the world has ever seen. We are helping to build, maintain, and hand to future ages the contract between the great dead, the living and the unborn....And with the band of American lawyers consecrating themselves to that great patriotic duty, we will hand to the ages untarnished the great contract between the dead, the living and the unborn." F. F. Faville, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa, The Great Contract (1935), 15 Nebraska Law Bulletin 88.

Still believe you have, are, or can be, a lawyer and at the same time a bondman in Christ?

Those that join themselves to the heresy that the dead is or are the higher power are revealed in Scripture, the Spirit bearing witness;

"Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands [*see Hosea 8:6]. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 115:4-8.
"The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands [*see Hosea 8:6]. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 135:15-18.

But by and through Him all His bondmen have overcome and conquered the prince of this world, the world, and its theologies, religions, sciences, dogma, opinions, speculations, assumptions, ad nauseam, the Spirit bearing witness;

"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us." Romans 8:37.
"But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57.

....and have Right and Authority through Him to the Tree of Life in the midst of the paradise of God to judge the nations of the world with Him:

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:35-39.
"I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one." 1 John 2:13-14.
"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." 1 John 4:4.
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" 1 John 5:4.
"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." Revelation 2:7.
"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:" Revelation 2:26.
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation 3:21.
"he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:15-16.
"These [*theologicians, lawyers, scientists, legislators, ad nauseam] shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." Revelation 17:14.
"He that overcometh [*by the Sword of the Word] shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son [*not those who partake of the things of the dead, a.k.a. theology, religion, arts, sciences]." Revelation 21:7.
"Blessed are they that do His commandments [*not the rituals of philosophy, theology, religion, arts or sciences--outward pretence or show--see Luke 17:20], that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Revelation 22:14.

For a more indepth study, there is currently a multipage pamphlet on this subject available on request through the Christ's assembly at California.

Endnotes

{1} "The Meaning of Logos in John

"As Logos has the double meaning of thought and speech, so Christ is related to God as the Word to the Idea, the word being not merely a name for the Idea, but the Idea itself expressed. The thought is the inward word (Dr. Schaff compares the Hebrew expression 'I speak in my heart' for 'I think').

{2} "32. Confess me (omologhsei en emoi). A peculiar but very significant expression. Lit., 'Confess in me.' The idea is that of confessing Christ out of a state of oneness with him. 'Abide in me, and being in me, confess me.' It implies identification of the confessor with the confessed, and thus takes confession out of the category of mere formal or verbal acknowledgment. [*"I just love Jesus"] 'Not every one that saith unto me 'Lord! Lord!' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.' The true confessor of Christ is one whose faith rests in Him. Observe that this gives great force to the corresponding clause, in which Christ places himself in a similar relation with those whom he confesses. "I will confess in him." It shall be as if I spoke abiding in him. 'I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved Me" (John 17:23)." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 1, p. 84. See also Matthew 12:34 and Luke 6:45.

{3} "Omnis persona est homo, sed non vicissim --Every person is a man, but not every man a person [*no legal personality, note, mark, or symbol]." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2152. [*Bondmen or slaves have no legal personality outside or separate from their Master].

"Quicquid acquiritur servo acquiritur domino --Whatever is acquired by the servant is acquired for the master." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1415.

"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams, Adm'r, (1867), 5 Coldw.(Tenn.) 202. [See also University v. Cambreling, 6 Yer.(Tenn.) 84; Fletcher v. The State, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 256; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Hum.(Tenn.) 299; Hite v. The State, 9 Yer.(Tenn.), 207.] [*Bondmen of Christ are slaves of Jesus Christ, and therefore are bound by the same Law, His Law].

"SLAVE. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster; Anderson v. Salant, 38 R.I. 463, 96 A. 425, 428, L.R.A.1916D, 651.

"One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do any thing, but what must belong to his master. Civ.Code La. 1838, art. 35." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1559. See all of Brother Paul's, James, and John's epistles and note the words "bondservant," "bondman" --never did they call themselves a "christian."

"1401. DOULOS. From 1210; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):--bond(-man), servant." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"1401. BONDMAN, BONDMAID. Doulos. From deo, 'to bind,' 'a slave,' originally the lowest term in the scale of servitude, came also to mean 'one who gives himself up to the will of another,' e.g., 1 Cor. 7:23; Rom. 6:17, 20, and became the most common and general word for 'servant,' as in Matt. 8:9, without any idea of bondage. In calling himself, however, a 'bondslave of Jesus Christ,' e.g., Rom. 1:1, the apostle Paul intimates (1) that he had been formerly a 'bondslave' of Satan, and (2) that, having been bought by Christ, he was now a willing slave, bound to his new Master. See SERVANT. The feminine, doule, signifies 'a handmaid,' Luke 1:38, 48; Acts 2:18." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dict. of New Testament Words.

{4} "This name (christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were 'brethren,' 'disciples,' 'believers,'and 'saints.' The presumption is that the name 'christian' was originated by the heathen." Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), p. 567, n. 3. [*Note that although Doane is a pagan, he recognizes the difference in venue, jurisdiction and language].

"Cristianoj, Christian (a word formal not after the Greek but after the Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), 'The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate,')." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152.

{5} "Addeth thereto (ejpidiatassetai). N.T. Adds new specifications or conditions to the original covenant, which is contrary to law. Comp. ejpidiaqhkh a second will or codicil, Joseph B. J. 2:2, 3; Ant. 17:9, 4. The doctrine of the Judaisers, while virtually annulling the promise, was apparently only the imposing of new conditions. In either case it was a violation of the covenant." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. 4, p. 697.

{6} "16. The course of thought is as follows. The main point is that the promises to Abraham continue to hold for Christian believers (verse 17). It might be objected that the law made these promises void. After stating that a human covenant is not invalidated or added to by any one, he would argue from this analogy that a covenant of God is not annulled by the law which came afterwards. But before reaching this point, he must call attention to the fact that the promises were given, not to Abraham only, but to his descendants. Hence it follows that the covenant was not a mere temporary contract, made to last only up to the time of the law. Even a man's covenant remains uncancelled and without additions. Similarly, God's covenant-promises to Abraham remain valid; and this is made certain by the fact that the promises were given not only to Abraham but to his seed; and since the singular, seed, is used, and not seeds, it is evident that Christ is meant." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol 4, p. 698.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Soul

"5590 PSUCHE. From 5594; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from 4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from 2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew 5315, 7307 and 2416):--heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5590. SOUL. Psuche. Denotes 'the breath, the breath of life,' [*Adam--the flesh] then 'the soul,' in its various meanings. The NT uses 'may be analyzed approximately as follows: (a) the natural life of the body, Matt. 2:20; Luke 12:22; Acts 20:10; Rev. 8:9; 12:11; cf. Lev. 17:11; 2 Sam. 14:7; Esth. 8:11; (b) the immaterial, invisible part of man, Matt. 10:28; Acts 2:27; cf. 1 Kings 17:21; (c) the disembodied (or 'unclothed' or 'naked,' 2 Cor. 5:3, 4) man, Rev. 6:9; (d) the seat of personality, Luke 9:24, explained as = 'own self,' v. 25; Heb. 6:19; 10:39; cf. Isa. 53:10 with 1 Tim. 2:6; (e) the seat of the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires, Matt. 11:29; Luke 1:46; 2:35; Acts 14:2, 22; cf. Ps. 84:2; 139:14; Isa. 26:9; (f) the seat of will and purpose, Matt. 22:37; Acts 4:32; Eph. 6:6; Phil. 1:27; Heb. 12:3; cf. Num. 21:4; Deut. 11:13; (g) the seat of appetite, Rev. 18:14; cf. Ps. 107:9; Prov. 6:30; Isa. 5:14 ("desire"); 29:8; (h) persons, individuals, Acts 2:41, 43; Rom. 2:9; Jas. 5:20; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:14; cf. Gen. 12:5; 14:21 ('persons'); Lev. 4:2 ('any one'); Ezek. 27:13; of dead bodies, Num. 6:6, lit., 'dead soul'; and of animals, Lev. 24:18, lit., 'soul for soul'; (i) the equivalent of the personal pronoun, used for emphasis and effect:, 1st person, John 10:24 ("us"); Heb. 10:38; cf. Gen. 12:13; Num. 23:10; Jud. 16:30; Ps. 120:2 ('me'); 2nd person, 2 Cor. 12:15; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:9; 2:25; cf. Lev. 17:11; 26:15; 1 Sam. 1:26; 3rd person, 1 Pet. 4:19; 2 Pet. 2:8; cf. Exod. 30:12; Job 32:2, Heb. 'soul,' Sept. 'self'; (j) an animate creature, human or other, 1 Cor. 15:45; Rev. 16:3; cf. Gen. 1:24; 2:7, 19; (k) 'the inward man,' the seat of the new life, Luke 21:19 (cf. Matt. 10:39); 1 Pet. 2:11; 3 John 2. 'With (j) compare a-psuchos, 'soulless, inanimate,' 1 Cor. 14:7. 'With (f) compare di-psuchos, 'two-souled,' Jas. 1:8; 4:8; oligo psuchos, 'feeble-souled,' 1 Thess. 5:14; iso-psuchos, 'like-souled,' Phil. 2:20; sum-psuchos, 'joint-souled' (with. 'one accord'), Phil. 2:2. 'The language of Heb. 4:12 suggests the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between the soul and the spirit, alike in their nature and in their activities. Generally speaking the spirit is the higher, the soul the lower element [*see 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15:45-50 and recognized by the natural man in Ballentine's Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948) under "HUMAN BEING" and "MONSTER."]. The spirit may be recognized as the life principle bestowed on man by God, the soul as the resulting life constituted in the individual, the body being the material organism animated by soul and spirit.'Body and soul are the constituents of the man according to Matt. 6:25; 10:28; Luke 12:20; Acts 20:10; body and spirit according to Luke 8:55; 1 Cor. 5:3; 7:34; Jas. 2:26. In Matt. 26:38 the emotions are associated with the soul, in John 13:21 with the spirit; cf. also Ps. 42:11 with 1 Kings 21:5. In Ps. 35:9 the soul rejoices in God, in Luke 1:47 the spirit. 'Apparently, then, the relationships may be thus summed up 'Soma, body, and pneuma, spirit, may be separated, pneuma and psuche, soul, can only be distinguished' (Cremer).' From notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 205-207." W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Bits and Pieces

YAHWEH Who?

"God, names of: Biblical names include El (occurs in all Semitic languages); Eloah, and, more usually, Elohim; YHVH (the Tetragrammaton, whose original pronunciation was unknown, but scholars have suggested [*203] Yahweh--to avoid pronouncing it, Adonai was substituted, and later Ha-Shem or Adoshem were used); Yah, probably an abbreviation for YHVH; Shaddai ("Almighty"); and more poetical names. Bible criticism discerns two different biblical traditions in the Pentateuch--one using YHVH, the other Elohim. The rabbis said that YHVH was used when referring to the Divine attribute of mercy and Elohim of justice. Rabbinical names for God include Ha-Makom ("The Place"), Ribono shel Olam ("Lord of the Universe"), Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu ("The Holy blessed be He"), and the Shekhinah ("Divine Presence"). Kabbalists added other terms (e.g. Ein Soph, "The Infinite"), and medieval poets also coined many terms and epithets." Cecil Roth, The Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980), pp. 202-203.

The Heathen's Melting Pot

"The Freemasonry ritual, in the lower degrees, is concerned with the recovery of a lost word, presumed to be the name of God. It was supposedly lost through the murder of the architect, Hiram Abiff, during the building of Solomon's Temple. This quest is completed during the ritual of the Royal Arch Degree. It is here the secret name of the deity of Masonry is revealed. That name is Jabbulon. 'Jah' is the short form of the Hebrew name of God, 'Yahweh,' or 'Jehovah.' 'Bul' is a rendering of the name Ba'al. 'On' is the term used in the Babylonian mysteries to call upon the deity 'Osiris.'" Masonic Writings

Spiritless Modern Theology

"Scholasticism was essentially the application of the methods of philosophy to revelation; it was a sustained effort on the part of schoolmen to harmonize reason with faith, an effort in which philosophic inquiry 'was governed by the assumptions of faith [while faith] was supported by the powers of reason.' [Leff, Medieval Thought: St. Augustine to Ockham, p. 92.] Scholasticism comprised many systems of theological philosophy in which philosophy explained and gave rational status to Christian theological doctrines, and theology directed philosophical thinking in its explanations and proofs. Scholasticism was theologized and Christianized knowledge; it was 'knowledge within a dogmatic framework.' [ibid.] It succeeded in harmonizing religion with secular thought for three centuries--the eleventh through the thirteenth [*It remains today].

"Scholasticism was a theologically framed system of knowledge, a method of inquiry and disputation for services of faith, always geared to Christian purposes. By its skilfull methods its practitioner succeeded in applying Greek philosophy--particularly that of Aristotle--to Christian service. These methods were simply means for the reduction of Christian doctrines to logical forms. They also included a method of disputation and discussion, controlled in its use to show the marks of logical reasoning while directing the reasoning in order to arrive at predetermined theological conclusions. Usually such disputations were framed in the form of a question such as 'Is reason in conflict with faith?' Then the technique was to present all arguments for and against (pro and contra--[*thesis and anti-thesis to arrive at a compromise, sin-thesis]) the possibility of conflict and gradually balance them against, or in favor of, each other until the desired [*emotionally determined outcome] conclusion that there was no conflict between reason and faith was reached. The greatest gifts of scholastic discipline were in organization and systemization of knowledge, and in accomodation and reconciliation of old theology with new philosophy. In writing and in classroom lectures, teaching materials were presented under heads and subheads, and further and more detailed subdivisions, always conforming to logic." Mehdi Nakosteen, The History and Philosophy of Education, pp. 180-181.

Oh, the humanity of it all!!

Hebrew Vowels?

"Old Testament Hebrew has twenty-two consonants. However, the written texts did not contain vowels. These vowel points were invented and inserted during the seventh century A.D. The consonants are written always from right to left, just reversed laterally from the English writing." Yates, The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, p. 3.

From the Mind of Men

"SCHOLASTICISM. A form of Christian philosophy[*occult divination] and theology developed by scholars who came to be called schoolmen. It flourished during the medieval period of European history. The heart of scholasticism insisted upon a system that was clear and definitional in tone. The system attempted to synthesize ideas expressed in classical Roman and Greek writings and in Christian Scripture, the writings of the patristic fathers, and other Christian writings preceding the medieval period. Aristotle's views helped give scholasticism a systematic structure, but Platonism also played a large part in the enterprise. Some persons consider scholasticism to have been a boring, dry system emphasizing sheer memorization. However, in many respects it was dynamic, truly seeking to settle questions concerning reality. The Disputed Questions of Thomas Aquinas, rather than his Summa, point out the vibrancy of the system. The philosophical aspects of scholasticism were not dictated strictly by a set of theological dogmas but rather worked with both faith and reason in an attempt to understand reality from the viewpoint of a human being" Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

The Lovers of the World

"PHILOSOPHER. 1. A lover of wisdom; one versed in philosophy or engaged in its study; formerly embracing men learned in physical science as well as those versed in the metaphysical and moral sciences, but now, when unqualified, restricted to the latter. 2. An adept in occult science, as an alchemist, diviner, weather-prophet, etc.-1485. 3. One who regulates his life by the light of philosophy; one who speaks or behaves philosophically-1599.

"PHILOSOPHIST. 1. Philosopher. 2. One who philosophizes erroneously; applied polemically to the French Encyclopedists, and hence to rationalists generally-1798. --Oxford's Shorter English Dictionary (1955), p. 1488.

Issue the Forty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Beginning of the End...

The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part two...

History of the Septuagint...

The Last 12 Verses of Mark's Gospel...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Beginning of the End

by Ethelbert William Bullinger

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

The following is a reprint of the Appendix entitled "The Beginning of the End" from the book "Ten Sermons on the Second Advent," written and published by E. W. Bullinger in 1892.

When you read this short dissertation you will see that specific signs of the times are telling us we are further along, and why, than what the modern "born yesterday" (i.e. raptured but first captured) pasteurs (cleansers of the Word of God) claim and preach from their pull-pits.

Considering the occurrences over the last 100+ years since this was written, we see from the following that Bullinger's lack of "theological training" (he never attended a seminary) freed him from the chains of "tradition" to expound the Word of God, in Truth, as the Spirit of God directed him.

The Beginning of the End

"He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Matt. xvi. 2, 3.

These are the words of the Lord Jesus, when the Pharisees and Sadducees asked for "a sign from heaven." He declared (v. 4) that no such sign should be given; and that nothing should be added to the signs of the prophetic word.

There were then Jews, who did discern these signs of the Word, and were looking and waiting for His first coming.

At Christ's second coming there shall be signs from Heaven, great and terrible, but we have already and now the signs of the "sure word of Prophecy." We desire in this Appendix to show from these signs of the Scriptures, that we are fast approaching the time when there "shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in Heaven."

The Second Advent of Christ

will consist of a series of events of which the visible and personal appearing of Christ will be the great central point. His first coming consisted of many events, and extended over a period of about thirty-three years. A Jew read of this coming in Micah v. 2., "thou Bethlehem Ephratahout of thee SHALL HE COME forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel:" and he also read of this same coming in Zech. ix. 9, "Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter of Zion; shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King COMETH unto thee," &C. But there was nothing in these prophecies to tell him that there were to be more than 30 years between these two events, which were both Christ's coming. So likewise in the prophecies of Christ's second coming, we read, "I will come again and receive you unto myself" (John xiv. 3); and, "The Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee." There is nothing to tell us how long an interval will elapse between the reception of the Saints by Christ, and their coming with Him in glory, though some interval is clearly implied. And so when we read that the saints are to be caught up "to meet the Lord in the air" (I Thess. iv. 17), there is nothing to tell us how long they shall be with Him there, before they return with him in glory; whether it is to be momentary or prolonged. We learn, however, from many Scriptures that at least seven years will run their course, for this period is spoken of several times in its various parts of 1,260 days, 42 months, and 3 years, &C. Whether it will be extended beyond this we are not told. All the events that are recorded in the book of "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" are connected with, and form part of that Revelation, and go to make up the Second Advent; while the personal appearing of Christ will of course form a definite act in that series of events, as definite as the lightning's flash.

If this consideration be borne in mind it will solve many difficulties, and remove many perplexities. So with;

The Return of the Jews.

This will not be accomplished in a day or a week. But as we have seen in Sermon No. viii., there will be a preliminary, or partial, or natural gathering; and there will be also a "second" complete and miraculous gathering. The return from Babylon occupied more than forty years. The re-building of the street and the wall, was to be in "the strait of times" (Dan. ix. 25, margin), t.e. the smaller interval of the two named, viz., in seven weeks, or seven sevens of years, i.e. forty nine years. The dispersion of the Jews likewise was not completed until the destruction of Jerusalem, till forty years after Christ foretold it in Luke xxi. So that we might expect the gathering of the Jews to their City and land to be accomplished gradually in the course of years, and by apparently natural causes: when the Anti-christ shall be revealed in his time, and first by flatteries and deceit, then by violence and persecution shall lead up to his own destruction by the glory of Christ's coming with His Saints-the saints having been previously caught up to meet Him in the air.

In a work by the Rev. Dr. S. H. Kellog, of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., entitled, "The Jews: or Prediction and fulfillment,"{1} there is a mass of evidence, and a collection of facts showing how in the past history of the Jews the most minute predictions have been literally fulfilled, and pointing the most powerful argument to a like literal fulfillment of prophecies in the present, and in the near future. We must refer those who wish to go more deeply into the subject to Dr. Kellog's book, while we give a brief resume of his facts and figures in the following notes.

In showing that predictions as to the future of Israel are already beginning to receive their fulfillment, it is not necessary to assert or to assume that God has begun to deal with the Jews in the proper sense of the term. God has not now two distinct peoples on the earth under two distinct covenants; any more than He had in the early years of the Church when the Jews were being dispersed. In the Acts of the Apostles we see how "the Church of God" was being formed, and side by side with that, "the Jew" was being scattered and dispersed, and his Temple destroyed according to the Word of God. All through this dispensation predictions have been receiving their fulfillment. Prophecies are in the same way being now fulfilled in our own day, and this is fast leading up to the time when God will again put forth His hand to deal with His people Israel and remove His church to be "for ever with the LORD."

In order to appreciate the facts which Dr. Kelly marshals as to this present fulfillment it is necessary to read carefully such prophecies of the past 1800 years as Deut. xxviii. 25, 63, 64, and think of the millions of Jews destroyed in the siege of Jerusalem, and in the revolts of A.D. 116 and 135, &C So also Deut. xxviii. 29 43, 48, all have been literally fulfilled and v. 58, 59 where God said He would make their plagues "wonderful" and "of long continuance," and that the stranger shall get up above thee very high and thou shalt come down very low" (v. 43) For 2000 years God has watched over them to destroy them and now if we see predictions being fulfilled under our eyes it is because God is watching over them to accomplish His word, although He may not yet have actually commenced to deal with them as with His people again.

As to the past fulfillment of Deut. xxviii. we have to remember that under Pagan Rome their lot was harsh, and under Papal Rome it was harder still Constantine began the oppression, and Justinian continued it by expressly excluding the Jews from his code. Ever since then the Jews have been the objects of unreasoning and pitiless hatred; the victims of repeated confiscations, violence, torture, massacres, and banishments. From the time of the Crusades the Jews have been legally plundered, and brief respites have been dearly paid for. In 1290 they were expelled from England, in 1395 from France, and in 1492 from Spain. The Reformation only mitigated their sufferings, for the Protestant Princes subjected the Jews to live in separate quarters; to wear a distinctive dress; to submit to exceptional legislation: while they were the subjects of systematic indignity, insult and oppression.

Hos. iii. 4, Lev. xxvi. 31, Is. lxi. 4, xxxii. 13-15, Mic. iii. 12, have all been literally fulfilled, and so has Lu. xxi. 24, which says that "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Attempts have been made to falsify this prediction. In A.D. 362, Julian the Apostate tried it in vain. In 1799 Napoleon I. tried to settle the Jews there, but he failed. Pagans have held Jerusalem, Christians have held it, Mahommedans have held it, but the Jews never since that word went forth; and will not, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Now look at seven great predictions, which stand in direct contrast to all those we have just named. A contrast so great, that nothing else could explain the facts which we see transpiring before our eyes, or reveal the causes of the marvellous transformation in the condition of the Jews during this present century.

I. The Breaking of the Gentile Yoke.

Jer. xxx. 8. "It shall come to pass in that day{2}, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will break his (i.e. the Gentile's) yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him." When we think of the 1800 years and more during which that heavy yoke has been borne and the bonds with which the Jews have been bound, is it too much to see in recent events the beginning of the end of the oppression of Ages ? Look at the following entirely new facts in the light of that oppression.

1. In 1783 Joseph II. of Austria first abolished the body-tax, removed vexatious restrictions, and opened the schools to the Jews.
2. In 1784 Louis XVI. of France abolished the body-tax.
3. In 1787 Frederick William of Prussia repealed some of the laws which Frederick the Great had made.
4. In 1788 Louis XVI. appointed a commission to re-model the laws respecting the Jews. The Revolution stopped this work, but it included the Jews in its Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
5. In 1805 Alexander I. of Russia revoked the Edict of Exclusion and millions returned there.
6. In 1806 they were made citizens of Italy and Westphalia (as they had been some years before of Holland and Belgium), and were formally recognized by Napoleon I, as a religious body.
7. In 1809, Baden; and 1813, Prussia and Denmark gave the Jews civil liberty.
8. In England, successive Acts in 1830, 1833, and 1835 removed certain restrictions, but it was not till 1858 that the Jews had full equality.
9. In 1870 Bismarck completed the unification of Germany, and made the Jews free all through the Empire.
10. In 1867 Turkey gave the Jews, for the first time, the right to possess land in Palestine.
11. In 1870 with the fall of the temporal power of the Pope, freedom came in Italy.
12. In 1878 The Berlin Congress made the freedom of the Jews in Roumania a special condition.

Is it too much to conclude that in all these things, Jer. xxx. 7, has begun to be fulfilled.

II. Restoration Gradual.

Ezek. xxxvii. 7-14. The restoration is not to be the one work of a moment, but it is marked by successive stages. (I) "a noise," (2) "a shaking," (3) "the bones came together, bone to his bone," (4) "the sinews and flesh came up upon them," (5) "the skin covered them above," (6) "the breath came into them and they lived," and (7) they "stood up upon their feet."

Now as the Restoration of Israel cannot be the work of a moment or a day, or of a mere brief period, Is it too much to ask whether we may not call these present movements, the "noise" and the "shaking," even if not the coming together of bone to bone, for;

1. In 1806 Napoleon summoned the great Sanhedrim for the first time in Europe, and
2. In 1860, "The Alliance Israelite Universelle" was formed in Paris.
3. And in later years many other organizations have been formed which may surely be regarded as similar signs.

III. Transfer of Wealth.

Isa. lx. 6-10. "Surely the Isles shall wait for thee, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them" &c. (v. 6).

So also Isa. xxxiii. I. Speaking to the Gentiles God says "Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with thee; when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee." And as to when this shall take place, we learn from v. 10.

Now we cannot properly appreciate the following facts unless we continually bear in mind the condition of the Jews during the last eighteen centuries. There is no lack of evidence to show the gradual accumulation of capital in Jewish hands.

1. The Rothschilds' loans amount to four millions sterling to England, one to Austria, one to Prussia, two and a half to France, One to Russia, and a quarter to Brazil, Ten millions altogether.
2. The Jews are the money lenders of Europe.
3. In 1869 in Russia 73% of the immovable property had passed into Jewish hands, and a quarter of the Railway property was in the hands of the Russian Railway King, Samuel Solomonowitz de Poliakoff.
4. The official returns of Prussia, 1861, showed that 38,000 Jews out of 71,000 were engaged in commerce, while only 1 Jew in 586 was a day labourer!
5. In 1871 out of 642 Bankers in Prussia all but 92 were Jews. Thus while the Jews were only 2% of the population, 85% of the Bankers were Jews.
6. In 1871 in Berlin, the Jews were only 5% of the population, But the employers of labour were 39% of the Gentiles, and 71% of the Jews. While the Merchants were 55% of the Jews and only 12% of the Gentiles.
7. In Vienna, the Bourse is almost entirely in Jewish hands.
8. In Lower Austria, out of 59,122 returned as Merchants, 30,012 were Jews.
9. In Algiers in 1881 nearly the whole trade was in the hands of the Jews.

IV. A Name and a Praise.

Zeph. iii. 19, 20. "Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every, land where they have been put to shame. At that time will I bring you again even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord." Of course the fulness of this prophecy will be realised only in Millenial days. But whether there be any connection between the present facts and the prophecy, the facts exist, and look very much as though the first drops of that mighty shower of blessing were already beginning to fall upon the Jews.

Fame and a name and a praise do not necessarily follow on emancipation. It has not followed in the case of negroes in the United States; and in the West Indies; nor in the case of the serfs in Russia.

One of the effects of the emancipation of the Jews was their admission to schools and colleges, and we note the following results:

1. In Berlin recently out of 3,609 students 1,302 were Jews.
2. In the High Schools of Vienna lately out of 2,488 students 1,039 were Jews.
3. In Lower Austria recently out of 2,140 advocates 1,024 were Jews.
4. In Germany the Jews are one in 75 of the population but in the German Universities the Jews are one in 10.
5. In Hungary (1878-9) the Jews were 4% of the population, while in many of the Schools they are 75%. In the whole kingdom 18% of the students at the Schools are Jews; 36% at the colleges and 25% of the Faculty of Law!
6. We cannot count the names of Jews who are renowned in the Literary, Educational and Musical worlds.
In Berlin out of 23 newspapers there are only 2 not under Jewish control. At a gathering of Editors lately in Dresden 29 Out of 43 were Jews. And in Austria at the last census, out of 370 persons who returned themselves as Authors 225 were Jews (nearly two-thirds).
7. In England out of 20,000 clergy of the Church of England, 200 are Jews--and thus one in 100 Jews are Clergymen as against one Gentile in 1,300!
8. In the political world, we cannot enumerate the many names of renown, in all countries. While the number of seats held in various parliaments is out of all proportion compared with the smallness of their numbers to the whole population.

V. Increase in Numbers.

Isa. lx. 22. "A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in His time," so also Isa. xxvii. 6: Jer. xxxl. 27 and Ezek. xxxvi, 37. These of course refer to Millenial days: but, when we remember how terribly the number of Jews decreased during seventeen centuries, and contrast the wonderful increase in recent years, it seems almost miraculous, and certainly leads us to reflect whether these prophecies are not beginning to be fulfilled. For 1800 years God has done as He said He would:--"watch over them to destroy and afflict." If this sudden and marvellous change has taken place, has He not ceased to "watch" for this purpose, and begun to "hasten" their increase?

1. In 1708 the Jewish population was estimated at 3,000,000. To day they are not less than 12,000,000.
2. In Germany, as to Births, the proportion of Jews to Gentiles is as 5-5 to 3.8. And as to longevity, at Frankfort (1847-1858) one quarter of the Gentile population died before reaching seven years of age, while one-quarter of all the Jews not till 28 years of age. One-half of all Gentiles born, died before reaching 36 years, while one-half of all Jews born survived to 53 years of age. Three-quarters of all Gentiles born died before 60 years of age, but Jews not before 71.
3. In Prussia (1816-1867) the whole population increased 91%, but the Jews 112%.
4. In Austria-Galicia (1820-1870) the population increased 25%, but the Jews 150%.

VI. Gentile Decline.

In Isa. xxxiii. I; Ii. 22, 23 and Jer. xxx. 10, 11, we read that when God thus takes the cup of trembling out of the hand of the Jew, He will put it into the hand of the Gentile: He will also make a full end of the nations whither the Jews have been driven.

What is the principle that has led to Jewish emancipation? "Equality." What is the principle animating all the present forces of disintegration? Equality! This is the very canker which to day is beginning to eat into the vitals of the Gentile nations. The wedge which when driven home will split up and break up the nations of the world. And

VII. The Jew is to Bring This About

as the Instrument, see Micah v.8, 9 and Zech. xii. 6.

1. The Jews are the fathers of modern Rationalism in the person of Spinoza and Strauss (see Archdeacon Lee on Inspiration, pp.463-6).
2. As to Socialism, Communism, Internationalism, Nihilism, and Anarchy, we read that in 1848, the Jews, Carl Marx and Leibknecht organized the International Working Men's Association. Marx drew up the laws of the present movement in 1864.
3. In Germany, a Jew, Ferdinand Lasalle, in 1863, founded the German Socialist party. And the Text books of Socialism are Marx's Critique of Capital, and Lasalle's System of Acquired rights (i.e. that capital is robbery)!
4. The Russian Nihilists have among them ten times as many Jews as of all others put together.{3}

In conclusion, All these things are new. What we now see, has not been seen before, or till now! It is the beginning of the end! All these facts seem to tell us that many Scriptures are beginning to be fulfilled, and that before long God will remove His heavenly people and deal again, first in judgment, and afterwards in mercy with His earthly people Israel.

Restoration can be the only result of all these combined movements. If the Jews are to repossess Palestine, Turkey must lose it. In 1822 Turkey lost Greece. In our day she has lost Roumania, Servia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, then more of Greece, then Tunis, while Egypt, Armenia and Arabia are on the move.

The Eastern Question

is the one question with which all the newspapers of Europe are filled, all minds are occupied, and to which all eyes are turned. All the nations of Europe are arming themselves for its settlement, but it will never be settled till God takes it up, and how near may be the time when He will do so we, cannot tell. But as we know that summer is near when we see the buds and the leaves, though we know not the day, so we may tell that the time cannot be far distant when GOD will take up the Eastern Question, and with it the Jewish Question{4} and settle both for ever.

Many circumstances point to it.

1. The equal rights of men call for it
2. The principle of restoring nationalities. The cry of Germany for the Germans, Italy for the Italians, Greece for the Greek, &c., &c., demanding Palestine for the Jews.
3. Jewish movements point to it. The Jewish Chronicle (Dec. 17, 1880), says "We are inundated with books on Palestine, and the air is thick with schemes for colonizing the Holy Land once more.
4. "The Palestine Exploration Fund" has turned the eyes and hearts and thoughts, yea and the feet of thousands of God's servants towards the stones and dust of Emmanuel's Land, and caused the words of Ps. cii. 13, 14 to have a new and most solemn and important significance:--
"Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come. For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favour the dust thereof."

As a supplement to the above, the following is from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary (1984) on the topic of "Judaizers," showing to all that have eyes to see and ears to hear that the kosmos has been given over to them as an instrument of His threshing floor, i.e., the separation of the wheat from the chaff, the living from the dead, the Children of Light from the children of darkness, those of the kosmos from those in the aion.

Judaizers

"Those Gentiles who followed certain religious practices and customs of Judaism. The Greek verb Ioudaizo "to judaize" (RSV "live like Jews"; NIV "follow Jewish customs") occurs in the NT only in Gal. 2:14. In this passage Paul relates how he opposed Peter at Antioch because Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles in the church there. By practicing social separation Peter was in effect saying to these Gentile Christians, "Unless you conform to Jewish dietary laws and a Jewish life style we cannot maintain fellowship with you." By his withdrawal Peter was compelling these Gentiles to "judaize."

Christ, however, had already instituted a change in regard to OT regulations on clean and unclean foods (Mark 7:1-23; cf. Lev. 11; Deut. 14). As "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13), Paul was against imposing a strict Jewish dietary code on non-Jews. Such might imply that the belief of Gentile Christians was defective in comparison with that of Jewish Christians; something else (i.e., conformity to Jewish custom) must be added to faith in Christ (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Paul thus was opposed to judaizing. It had the potential to distort salvation by grace alone, divide the body, and be an argument for developing two separate assemblies: one for Jews and one for Gentiles.

The only OT reference to judaizing is found in Esth. 8:17, where the Hebrew yehudi ("Jew") is used to form the Hithpael verb mityahadim, "to become a Jew" or "profess oneself a Jew." The verb refers to those Gentiles in Persia who adopted the Jewish way of life out of fear for Esther's decree, which permitted the Jews to avenge themselves on their enemies (Esth. 8:13). The LXX uses Ioudaizo here and adds that they became circumcised. This normally would imply conversion. In this circumstance, however, they may only have pretended to be Jews in order to save their own lives by identification with the Jewish cause." M. R. WILSON, Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary (1984), page 590.

Bibliography. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians; EJ, X, 398-402; F. V. Filson, IDB, II, 1005-6; E. F. Harrison, ISBE (rev.), II, 1150; C. Moore, Esther, 81-82; W. Gutbrod, TDNT, III, 383.

Endnotes

{1} London, James Nisbet & Co.

{2} i.e. the day of Jacob's trouble, v. 6.

{3} See The Nineteenth Century for January, 1881. "The dawn of the Revolutionary Epoch."

{4} See an important article in The Century Magazine for February, 1883, entitled "The Jew and the Eastern Question."

The Spiritually Dead

and the tools of their trade

Part Two

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

(Footnotes ( {1} ) a found at the end of this article)

This work is not the work of merely one bondman, but is the work of many who have laboured for our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. Especially are we in debt to our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who showed us Lawful execution and Life, and Who first called our Brothers in multiplying Himself that He would be manifest to us in our day. Without His Calling them from the beginning, we would have no one's labours in which to enter.

Do not take any thing said or written here for granted; but search for the Truth being always directed by the Spirit of God and lean not to your own or our understanding. This is the only True Way of knowing any thing of God in the Christ. As has been said,

"strangely enough, people are so much in the habit of supposing that what is printed or said, or even thought, is true, that they incline to believe that some of the most transcendental and far-away fiction, if it be only beautiful or in some manner attractive [*emotionally appealing], is the most real and veracious, 'true in a higher sense,' 'truer than history,' and so on."{1}

One word of caution: there are numerous admissions of the natural man in this work that are verifiable and you are encouraged to seek the sources quoted herein and others for verification of what is said herein. They are not quoted for any other cause than to show that the natural man has made record of his admissions for all to examine. In this work we will not be using the pagan's word "christian"{2} to describe any bondman in Christ, for the two are mutually exclusive. The moniker "christian" is opposed to the Christ and His bondmen as evidenced by the information in footnote {2} and information available elsewhere to all diligent bondmen.

In the past we have been chided by some for "taking Scripture out of context," "mis-handling the Word," somehow being "overly Spiritual," declared "novices of the Word," that "others must come to us for the Truth," and other such convoluted and misleading words by those whom we will answer herein. We know other Brothers have had the same words leveled against them. This paper is for their use against those whose ignorance was made manifest by their baseless accusations and innuendos against the Brethren.

In researching this paper, we were led by our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, to point out some of the more glaring points of history, especially as they relate to the subjects above, so that we can show the time is far past what we have been led to believe by the moderns. Those who have chided us may not be aware of the sandy ground upon which they stand, and so we are not angry with them, but with the spirit that holds the blindness over their eyes. Without apologies to any one, especially to those who have called to chide us; and, others who have chided us in the past using such terms, is this article written by the Spirit of God, for the Spirit bears witness,

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." 1 Pet. 3:15-16.
"but sanctify{3} the Lord God in your hearts, and always ready for a defence{4} to everyone{5} that asks you an account concerning the hope in you, with meekness{6} and fear{7}; having a good conscience, that whereas they may speak against you as evildoers, they may be ashamed who calumniate{8}your good manner of life{9} in Christ." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (Berry).
"Preach{10} the word; be instant{11} in season, out of season; reprove{12}, rebuke{13}, exhort{14} with all longsuffering and doctrine{15}." 2 Timothy 4:2.

And,

"we wrestle not against flesh and blood{16}, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers{17} of the darkness{18} of this world{19}, against spiritual wickedness{20} in high places." Ephesians 6:12.
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war{21} after the flesh{22}: (For the weapons{23} of our warfare{24} are not carnal{25}, but mighty{26} through God to the pulling down{27} of strong holds{28};) Casting down imaginations{29} [*the images, devices or ways of the heathen], and every{30} high thing that exalteth itself{32} against{33} the knowledge{34} of God, [*see also Luke 16:15] and bringing into captivity{35} every thought{36} [*device or way of the heathen--hermeneutics, theology, morphosis] to the obedience{37} of Christ{38}; And having in a readiness{39} to revenge all disobedience{40}, when your obedience{41} is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.

In order to sanctify the Lord in our hearts, we must already know Him by His Revelation of Himself to us--and not by the ways of the world, the Word bearing witness, to wit;

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44.

One does not come to Christ but by revelation--altar calls not with standing. By or through philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis it is impossible to know Him.

Knowing this then, the battle is not: One, ours but our Lord's; Two, against those who hold such views, but against the spirit creating the images of the precepts they hold. We are His bondmen to bear witness of the Truth to those who may be blinded by the world's{42} images of this age. We will now begin.

The Spirit speaking through Brother David witnesses that hermeneutics{43}, theology{44}, or other seminary morphosis{45} are not required to live, understand and execute the Word of God, to wit;

"Out of the mouth of babes{46} and sucklings{47} hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger." Psalm 8:2.
"Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger." Psalm 8:2 (LXX) (see also Matthew 21:16).{48}

And this is confirmed in the Glad Tidings recorded by the Spirit writing through Brothers Mark and John, to wit;

"And He went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow Him. And when the sabbath day was come, He began to teach{49} in the synagogue{50}: and many hearing Him were astonished, saying, From whence{51} hath this man these things? and what wisdom{52} is this which is given unto Him, that even such mighty works{53} are wrought by His hands?" Mark 6:1-2.
"And sabbath being come He began in the synagogue to teach; and many hearing were astonished, saying, Whence to this these things? and what the wisdom that has been given to Him, that even such works of power by His hands are done?" Mark 6:2 (Berry).
"And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters{54}, having never learned{55}?" John 7:15.

In other words, where are we told the Christ, the first born among many brethren, went to learn from, or be morphosed by, the pietatus simulators{56} of His day?

"and the Jews were wondering saying, How knows this one letters, not having learned?" John 7:15 (Berry).

What do babes and sucklings know of philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis? What degree from men do they have? Bear witness if you can. Therefore, the charge that any or all must come to us for the Truth is rebutted by the Spirit of Truth declared through both Brothers David and John, and above.

Further, we are told to receive the Word, not the ways of men, for it is the Word that delivers because it is a True Witness; not the philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphosis of men, the Spirit and Word bearing witness, to wit;

"A true witness [*see John 14:6; Revelation 3:14] delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies." Proverbs 14:25.

Where is the witness of philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphosis delivering souls? and whose witness is it? Note that delivering souls is not soul-winning--a pagan military ritual.

"A faithful witness [*see John 14:6; Revelation 3:14] shall deliver a soul from evil: but a deceitful man kindles falsehoods." Proverbs 14:25 (LXX).
"Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth." John 17:17.

Note also John 16:13; Ephesians 1:13; 5:9; 1 John 5:6. Therefore, only the Word of God in Christ Jesus saves souls.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me." John 14:6.
"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness{57} and superfluity{58} of naughtiness{59} and receive{60} with meekness{61} the engrafted{62} word [*the Christ--the Life], which is able{63} to save your souls [*see Romans 1:16]." James 1:21. [*See also Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 37].
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust{64}, avoiding profane and vain babblings{65}, and oppositions of science{66} falsely so called{67}: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." 1 Timothy 6:20-21.

You are in error when using any philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphosis, because they are not knowledge of or from God, but of or from men.

Note nothing was said of receiving philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphosis. The Spirit expressly excluded them. The cause for this exclusion is told to us by the same Spirit, to wit;

"For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In Whom are hid all the treasures{68} of wisdom and knowledge{69} [*outside Him there is no wisdom or knowledge--reason is not knowledge]. And this I say, lest any man should beguile{70} you with enticing words{71} [*philosophy, sophistry, hermeneutics, theology, ad nauseam]. For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord [*not the vanities of men], so walk ye in Him [*to overcome the world by the Word of Testimony--see Revelation 12:11]]: Rooted and built up in Him [*not philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis], and stablished in the faith [*not philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis], as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil{72} you through philosophy{73} and vain{74} deceit{75}, after the tradition{76} of men [*see also Matthew 15:7-9; Mark 7:6-9], after the rudiments of the world [*see Galatians 4:3-7--leads to bondage, or Egypt--see also Deuteronomy 17:16], and not after Christ. For in Him [*not the vanities of men] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:1-9.

To be continued next month.

Endnotes

{1} G. T. Knight, in The Praise of Hypocrisy: An Essay in Casuistry (1906), p. 15. (The complete essay is available by downloading TPRSOFHP.ZIP from the Library.)

{2} "CHRISTIAN. A follower of the religion of Christ. [*Note carefully the Christ never started a religion.] It is probable that the name Christian, like that of Nazarenes and Galileans, was given to the disciples of our Lord in reproach or contempt. What confirms this opinion is, that the people of Antioch in Syria, Acts 11:26, where they were first called Christians observed by Zosimus, Procopius, and Zonaras, to have been remarkable for their scurrilous jesting. Some have indeed thought that this name was given by the disciples to themselves; others, that it was imposed on them by divine authority; in either of which cases we should have met with it in the subsequent history of the Acts, and in the Apostolic Epistles, all of è which were written some years after; whereas it is found but in two more places in the New Testament, Acts 26:28, where a Jew is the speaker, and in 1 Peter 4:16, where reference appears to be made to the name as imposed them by their enemies. The word used, Acts 11:26, signifies simply to be called or named, and when Doddridge and a few others take to imply a divine appointment, they disregard the usus loquendi [established acceptation of the term] which gives no support to that opinion. The words Tacitus, when speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero, are remarkable, 'vulgus Christianos appellabat,' 'the vulgar call them Christians.' Epiphanius says, that they were called Jesseans, either from Jesse, the father of David, or, which is much more probable, from the name of Jesus, whose disciples they were. They were denominated Christians, A. D. 42 or 43; and though the name was first given reproachfully, they gloried in it, as expressing their adherence to Christ, and they soon generally accepted it." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), p. 233.

"Cristianoj, Christian (a word formal not after the Greek but after the Roman manner, denoting attachment to or adherents to Christ. Only occurs as used by others of them, not by Christians of themselves. Tacitus (A.D. 96) says (Annals 15, 44), 'The vulgar call them Christians. The author or origin of this denomination, Christus, had, in the reign of Tiberius been executed by the procurator, Pontius Pilate,')." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 152.

"This name (christian) occurs but three times in the New Testament, and is never used by Christians of themselves, only as spoken by or coming from those without the church. The general names by which the early Christians called themselves were 'brethren,' 'disciples,' 'believers,' and 'saints.' The presumption is that the name 'christian' was originated by the heathen." Thomas W. Doane, Bible Myths (1882), p. 567, n. 3.

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of SERAPIS (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ." The Emperor Adrian to Servianus, written A. D. 134.

"SERAPIS. In Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythology, a god of the lower world." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (1969), p. 1655.

{3} "37. HAGIAZO. From 40; to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate:--hallow, be holy, sanctify." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*See also "37. SANCTIFICATION, SANCTIFY in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "Kadash" in Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament (1871), p. 175, "6942. QADASH" in Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary, and "6942 Niphal, Pual, and Hiphil in William Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Dict. of the Old Testament (1847), p. 725].

{4} "627. APOLOGIA. From the same as 626; a plea ('apology'):--answer (for self), clearing of self, defence." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"apologia, defence, speech of defence." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 212.

{5} "3956. PAS. Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

paj, all; of one only, all of him; of one in a number, any; of several, every; in plural, all." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 38.

{6} "4240. PRAUTES. From 4239; mildness, i.e. (by implication) humility:--meekness." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{7} "5401. PHOBOS. From a primary phebomai (to be put in fear); alarm or fright:--be afraid, + exceedingly, fear, terror." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"fobos, fear, terror, fright, dismay, hence, flight. It denotes the outward manifestation rather thean the sensation of fear. In a bad sense, it is the effect of the spirit of cowardice; in a good sense the fear of God." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 279.

{8} "1908. EPEREAZO. From a comparative of 1909 and (probably) areia (threats); to insult, slander:--use despitefully, falsely accuse." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"ephreazw, to injure, harrass, insult; as it would seem for the pleasure of insulting." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 26.

{9} "391. ANASTROPHE. From 390; behavior:--conversation." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anastrofe, a turning about; life, as made up of actions; mode of life, conduct, deportment." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 186.

{10} "2784. KERUSSO. Of uncertain affinity; to herald (as a public crier), especially divine truth (the gospel):--preacher(-er), proclaim, publish." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"khrussw, to be a herald, discharge an herald's office, to make proclamation, proclaim, announce publicly, publish announcements." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 596.

{11} "2186. EPHISTEMI. From 1909 and 2476; to stand upon, i.e. be present (in various applications, friendly or otherwise, usually literal);--assault, come (in, to, unto, upon), be at hand (instant), present, stand (before, by, over)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"efisthmi, to place upon or over. In New Testament only intransitive, to stand upon, stand by or near, take one's position." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 414.

{12} "1651. ELEGCHO. Of uncertain affinity; to confute, admonish:--convict, convince, tell a fault, rebuke, reprove." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{13} "2008. EPITIMAO. From 1909 and 5091; to tax upon, i.e. censure or admonish; by implication, forbid: --(straitly) charge, rebuke." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{14} "3870. PARAKALEO. From 3844 and 2564; to call near, i.e. invite, invoke (by imploration, hortation or consolation):--beseech, call for, (be of good) comfort, desire, (give) exhort(-ation), intreat, pray." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{15} "1322. DIDACHE. From 1321; instruction (the act or the matter):--doctrine, hath been taught." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"With all long-suffering and doctrine (en pash makroqumia). Pash|, every possible exhibition of long, suffering, etc. For doctrine Rend. teaching. The combination is Suggestive. Long-suffering is to be maintained against the temptations to anger presented by the obstinacy and perverseness of certain hearers; and such are to be met, not merely with rebuke, but also with sound and reasonable instruction in the truth. So Calvin: "Those who are strong only in fervor and sharpness, but are not fortified with solid doctrine, weary themselves in their vigorous efforts, make a great noise, rave,... make no headway because they build without foundation." Men will not be won to the truth by scolding's. They should understand what they hear, and learn by perceive why they are rebuked" (Bahnsen). Didach teaching, only here and Titus 1:9 in Pastorals. The usual word is didaskalia. Paul uses both." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. IV., p. 875.

{16} "Flesh and Blood=blood and flesh; i.e. human beings, contrasted with the wicked spirits mentioned below." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1770.

{17} "Rulers=world-rulers. Greek kosmokrator; only here." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1770.

{18} "Darkness. The present order of things [*outward pretence]." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1770.

{19} "165 AION. From the same as 104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare 5550." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{20} "Spiritual wickedness. Literally spiritual (hosts) of the wickedness (Greek, poneria). These are the wicked spirits of the evil one (Greek poneros, see 1 John 2:13)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1770.

{21} "War (strateuomeqa). Serve as soldiers: carry on our campaign. See on Luke 3:14; James 4:1." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. III, p. 380.

{22} "After the flesh. Or according to (Rev.). Quite a different thing from being in the flesh." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. III, p. 380.

{23} "3696. HOPLON. Probably from a primary hepo (to be busy about); an implement or utensil or tool (literally or figuratively, especially offensive for war):--armour, instrument, weapon." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{24} "4752. STRATEIA. From 4754; military service, i.e. (figuratively) the apostolic career (as one of hardship and danger):--warfare." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{25} "4559. SARKIKOS. From 4561; pertaining to flesh, i.e. (by extension) bodily, temporal, or (by implication) animal, unregenerate:--carnal, fleshly." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{26} "1415. DUNATOS. From 1410; powerful or capable (literally or figuratively); neuter possible:--able, could, (that is) mighty (man), possible, power, strong." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{27} "2506. KATHAIRESIS. From 2507; demolition; figuratively, extinction: -- destruction, pulling down." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{28} "3794. OCHUROMA. From a remote derivative of 2192 (meaning to fortify, through the idea of holding safely); a castle (figuratively, argument):--stronghold." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"ocurwma, a fastness, fortress, stronghold; (lxx. for rjbm, Joshua 19:29; Isaiah 34:13; nrvjm, 2 Kings 22:2)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 745.

{29} "3053. LOGISMOS. From 3049; computation, i.e. (figuratively) reasoning (conscience, conceit):--imagination, thought." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Imaginations=thoughts or reasonings. Greek logismos. Only here and Romans 2:15." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1742.

"logismoj, reckoning or computing, (especially of arithmetic,) then, calculation, (in the way of reasoning." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 401.

{30} "3956. PAS. Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{31} "5313. HUPSOMA. From 5312; an elevated place or thing, i.e. (abstractly) altitude, or (by implication) a barrier (figuratively):--height, high thing." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{32} "1869. EPAIRO. From 1909 and 142; to raise up (literally or figuratively):--exalt self, poise (lift, take) up." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{33} "2596. KATA. A primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive case, dative case or accusative case] with which it is joined):--about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-]bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-]ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, fromto, godly, in(-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-)on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through(-oughout, -oughout every), è thus, (un-)to(-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where(-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution, or intensity." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{34} "1108. GNOSIS. From 1097; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge:--knowledge, science." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"gnosij, knowing, or recognition, the knowledge or understanding of a thing, the insight which manifests itself in the thorough understanding of the subjects with which it meets and in the conduct determined thereby; gnosij differs from sofia (wisdom) inasmuch as it requires existent objects." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 436.

{35} "163. AICHMALOTIZO. From 164; to make captive:--lead away captive, bring into captivity." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"aicmalwtizw, to make prisoners of war." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 133.

"Bringing into captivity (aijcmalwtizontej). Or leading away captive. The military metaphor is continued; the leading away of the captives after the storming of the stronghold. See on captives, Luke 4:18. The campaign against the Cilician pirates resulted in the reduction of a hundred and twenty strongholds and the capture of more than ten thousand prisoners." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. III, p. 381.

{36} "3540. NOEMA. From 3539; a perception, i.e. purpose, or (by implication) the intellect, disposition, itself:--device, mind, thought." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"nohma, what is thought out, or excogitated; hence, purpose, design, project, or device." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 796.

{37} "5218. HUPAKOE. From 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by implication) compliance or submission: --obedience, (make) obedient, obey(-ing)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"upakoh, a hearing attentively, or listening; hence, obedience as the result of attentive hearing." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 540.

{38} "To the obedience of Christ. In pursuance of the metaphor. The obedience is the new stronghold into which the captives are led. This is indicated by the preposition eij into or unto." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies, vol. III, p. 381.

{39} "2093. HETOIMOS. Adverb from è 2092; in readiness:--ready." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"2092. HETOIMOS. From an old noun heteos (fitness); adjusted, i.e. ready:--prepared, (made) ready(-iness, to our hand)." ibid.

{40} "3876. PARAKOE. From 3878; inattention, i.e. (by implication) disobedience:--disobedience." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{41} "5218. HUPAKOE. From 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by implication) compliance or submission: --obedience, (make) obedient, obey(-ing)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{42} The world (see "2889. Kosmos" in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) is the habitation of the unregenerate natural man, i.e. human beings, those of the earth and written in it--see Jeremiah 17:13. Also note carefully the following:

"HUMAN BEING. in Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 389.

"NATURAL PERSON. Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.

"NATURAL CHILD. The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." Max Radin, ibid. [*Take notice now that Satan has dominion of the natural man, for he is the prince of this world; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of it, i.e., human beings, whom the Spirit tells us is the natural man--the one who receives not the things of the Spirit of God (rejects Christ Who comes in the Name of the Father); and receives him that è comes in his own name, Satan, the creator of the "natural person" and the "natural child." See John 5:43; 8:34; 1 John 3:8; and KOSMOS. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, Satan's dominion, he is separated from Satan's dominion over him--sin. See John 8:34. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God our Father--to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us].

{43} For a history of "hermeneutics" see Etymologicum Anglicanum on Page twelve.

"HERMENEUTICS. (Greek, to interpret). The art and science, or body of rules, of truthful interpretation. It has been used chiefly by theologians; but Zacharie, in "An Essay on General Legal Hermeneutics" (Versuch elner allg. Hermeneitik des Rechts), and Dr. Lieber, in his work on Legal and Political Hermeneutics, also make use of it. See INTERPRETATION; CONSTRUCTION." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 205.

"HERMENEUTICS. Science of interpretation. XVIII (Waterland).-mod.L. hermeneutica-Gr. hermeneutike, sb. use (sc. tekhne art) of fem. sg. of adj. (see -IC, -ICS), f. hermeneutes, agent noun f. hermeneuein interpret, f. hermeneus interpreter." Oxford's Dictionary of Etymology (1966), p. 438.

Some other things to note about "hermeneutics" are the following from Roget's Thesaurus,

"Interpretation. (science of interpretation) exegetics, exegetic (rare); heremeneutics, hermeneutic; symptomology, semeiology, semeiotics (all Med.); diagnostics, prognostics [*forbidden by Word of God]; physiognomics, physiognomy; metoposcopy; oneirology, oneirocritics, oneirocriticism; astrology [*forbidden by Word of God], chiromancy [*forbidden by Word of God], palmistry [*forbidden by Word of God] etc., divination [*forbidden by the Word of God]." Roget's International Thesaurus (1946), p. 356.

{44} "THEOLOGY. The study or science which treats of God, His nature and attributes, and His relations with man and the universe; the science of things divine (Hooker); divinity. b. A particular theological system or theory-1669." Oxford's Universal Dictionary (1955), p. 2167.

"THEOLOGY. 1. A rational interpretation of religious faith, practice, and experience [*all human]; specif.: a branch of systematic theology dealing with God and his relation to the world [*"What fellowship hath light with darkness?"]. 2. a. A theological theory [*no Truth] or system. b. A distinctive body of theological opinion [*no Truth]. 3. A usu. è four-year course of specialized religious training [*conscience searing] in a Roman Catholic major seminary." Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1967), p. 915.

Note here that in looking for a definition of "theology" from a "christian" dictionary we could not find any definition, not even in Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. We have been told that the clergy have their own definition of theology. If this is the case, it is private and not in Christ and only evidences their willingness and wilfullness to cover their deception and theft of God's people. See John 3:20-21.

{45} "3446. MORPHOSIS. From 3445; formation, i.e. (by implication) appearance (semblance or [concretely] formula):--form." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Outward Pretence -- "morfwsij (morphosis)

"An old word has received a new passive sense (external shape) in place of its active meaning hitherto (a shaping).

"In secular Greek morphosis was a rare word, perhaps a Stoic term for 'education' (MM). Theophrastus, however, joins it with schematismos (configuration) in referring to the 'schematismos and morphosis (bringing into shape) of plants.' The compound diamorphosis, used by Plutarch, concerns the 'shaping' of wood. Hence, its secular meaning is active, and intrinsic influence or vital impulse, working outwards. But the meaning fails to suit Christian contexts, where morphosis is a soulless and dead shell revealing, as St Chrysostom observes, only schema (outward show), tupos (impression), and hupokrisis (playing a part).

{46} "5768. OWLEL. Or wolal {o-lawl'}; from 5763; a suckling:--babe, (young) child, infant, little one." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{47} "3243. YANAQ. Aprimitive root; to suck; causatively, to give milk: -milch, è nurse(-ing mother), (give, make to) suck(-ing child, -ling). " Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{48} It is also interesting to note that in the Apocrypha of the Septuagint is the following that sheds light on the above statements made in the received canon,

"He that hath small understanding, and feareth God, is better than one that hath much wisdom and transgresseth the Law." Ecclesiasticus 19:24 (LXX).

{49} "1321. DIDASKO. A prolonged (causative) form of a primary verb dao (to learn); to teach (in the same broad application):--teach." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"didasko, to teach, to give instruction or direction." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 761.

{50} "4864. SUNAGOGE. From (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specifically, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church: --assembly, congregation, synagogue." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Note that this is not to be construed to be a Lawful assembly, to wit,

"CHURCH.The word church and its synonyms. The church is designated in Scripture sometimes by the Greek term ecclesia (hence French eglise), sometimes by figures of speech. Ecclesia was current in the Hellenistic world for the regular assemblages of a particular social group or even of the whole population (cf. Acts 19:39f.). But ecclesia was never used by the Greeks in a religious context. For religious meetings they employed other terms, not one of which is retained in the New Testament to signify the church.

"For the mission of the church is not that of withdrawing from the world but of being present within the world to convey to it the summons of God. The church is by definition the opposite of a sect of the Pharisaic kind [*creeds, confessions, articles of faith, ad nauseam]." Vocabulary of the Bible (1958), pg. è 50.

{51} "4159. POTHEN. from the base of 4213 with enclitic adverb of origin; from which (as interrogative) or what (as relative) place, state, source or cause:--whence." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"poqen, (interrogatory. adverb) whence? from whence? (of place, source, author, cause or manner)." E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 870.

{52} "4678. SOPHIA. from 4680; wisdom (higher or lower, worldly or spiritual):--wisdom." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{53} "1411. DUNAMIS. From 1410; force (literally or figuratively); specially, miraculous power (usually by implication, a miracle itself):--ability, abundance, meaning, might(-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle(-s), power, strength,violence, mighty (wonderful) work." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{54} "1121. GRAMMA. From 1125; a writing, i.e. a letter, note, epistle, book, etc.; plural learning:--bill, learning, letter, scripture, writing, written." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Letters. Greek plural of gramma. Put by fig. Metonymy (of adjunct), Ap. 6, for what is written; e.g. an account (Luke 16:6, 7); the Pentateuch (John 5:47); Epistles (Acts 28:21); the whole of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15). Hence, used of general literature suchas the Talmudical writings (here, and in Acts 26:24). Compare our term 'man of letters', and see Acts 4:13." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1534.

"Letters (grammata). See on John 5:47. In John 7:15, Acts 26:24 it is used in the plural or a general term for scriptural and Rabbinical learning." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888). [*Thus, the Spirit bears witness that Christ had no theological or philosophical training from those who put Him on the cross by and through their theological and philosophical training].

{55} "3129. MANTHANO. Prolongation è from a primary verb, another form of which, matheo, is used as an alternate in certain tenses; to learn (in any way):--learn, understand." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{56} "PHARISAIC. PROP., by the genitive, Pharisaeorum. FIG., simulatus; fictus; or, if necessary, by the genitive, Pharisaeorum.

"PHARISAICALLY. more modo Pharisaeorum; simulate; speciose.

"PHARISEE. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]

"5330. PHARISEES. Pharisaios. From an Aramaic word peras (found in Dan. 5:28), signifying 'to separate,' owing to a different manner of life from that of the general public. The 'Pharisees' and Sadducees appear as distinct parties in the latter half of the 2nd cent. B.C., though they represent tendencies traceable much earlier in Jewish history, tendencies which became pronounced after the return from Babylon (537 B.C.). The immediate progenitors of the two parties were, respectively, the Hasideans and the Hellenizers; the latter, the antecedents of the Sadducees, aimed at removing Judaism from its narrowness and sharing in the advantages of Greek life and culture. The Hasidaeans, a transcription of the Hebrew chasidim, i.e., 'pious ones,' were a society of men zealous for religion, who acted under the guidance of the scribes, in opposition to the godless Hellenizing party; they scrupled to oppose the legitimate high priest even when he was on the Greek side. Thus the Hellenizers were a political sect, while the Hasidaens, whose fundamental principle was complete separation from non-Jewish elements, were the strictly legal party among the Jews, and were ultimately the more popular and influential party. In their zeal for the Law they almost deified it and their attitude became merely external, formal, and mechanical. They laid stress, not upon the righteousness of an action, but upon its formal correctness [*legalism]. Consequently their opposition to Christ was inevitable; His manner of life and teaching was essentially a condemnation of theirs; hence His denunciation of them, e.g., Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7 and chapter 23. While the Jews continued to be divided into these two parties, the spread of the testimony of the gospel must have produced what in the public eye seemed to be a new sect, and in the extensive development which took place at Antioch, Acts 11:19-26, the name 'Christians' seems to have become a popular term applied to the disciples as a sect, the primary cause, however, being their witness to Christ (see CALL, A, No. 11). The opposition of both 'Pharisees' and Sadducees (still mutually antagonistic, Acts 23:6-10) against the new 'sect' continued unabated during apostolic times." William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{57} "4507. RHUPARIA. From 4508; dirtiness (morally):--turpitude." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"ruparia, dirt, filth, in the worst sense." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 286.

"4507. FILTHINESS, FILTHY (to make). Noun. Rhuparia. Denotes 'dirt, filth' (cf. No. 2, under FILTH), and is used metaphorically of moral "defilement" in Jas. 1:21." William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{58} "4050. PERISSEIA. From 4052; surplusage, i.e. superabundance:--abundance (-ant, [-ly]), superfluity." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"perisseia, more than enough, super- è abundance." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 750.

"4050. ABUNDANCE, ABUNDANT, ABUNDANTLY, ABOUND. Noun. Perisseia. 'An exceeding measure, something above the ordinary,' is used four times; Rom. 5:17, 'of abundance of grace'; 2 Cor. 8:2, 'of abundance of joy'; 2 Cor. 10:15, of the extension of the apostle's sphere of service through the practical fellowship of the saints at Corinth; in Jas. 1:21 it is rendered, metaphorically, 'overflowing,' KJV 'superfluity,' with reference to wickedness. Some would render it 'residuum,' or 'what remains.' See No. 3." William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{59} "2549. KAKIA. From 2556; badness, i.e. (subjectively) depravity, or (actively) malignity, or (passively) trouble:--evil, malice(-iousness), naughtiness, wickedness." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"kakia, vice, generally, especially malice and the evil habit of it." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 517.

"2549. WICKEDNESS. 'Evil,' is rendered 'wickedness' in Acts 8:22; RV in Jas. 1:21, KJV, 'naughtiness.' See EVIL, B, No. 1, MALICE. Notes: (1) For the KJV of 1 John 5:19 see WICKED, No. 1. (2) In Acts 25:5, KJV, the word atopos (RV, 'amiss') is incorrectly rendered 'wickedness.' William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"2549. EVIL, EVIL-DOER. Noun. Kakia. Primarily, 'badness' in quality (akin to A, No. 1), denotes (a) 'wickedness, depravity, malignity,' e.g., Acts 8:22, 'wickedness'; Rom. 1:29, 'maliciousness'; in Jas. 1:21, KJV, 'naughtiness'; (b) 'the evil of trouble, affliction,' Matt. 6:34, only, and here alone translated 'evil.'" William Edwy Vine, ibid.

{60} "1209. DECHOMAI. Middle voice of a primary verb; to receive (in various applications, literally or figuratively):--accept, receive, take. Compare 2983." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"decomai, to take to one's self what is presented or brought by another, to accept, embrace, receive hospitably; admit, approve, allow. It implies a subjective reception, showing that a decision of the will has taken place with respect to the object presented, and that the acceptance manifests it." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 626.

{61} "4240. PRAUTES. From 4239; mildness, i.e. (by implication) humility:--meekness." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{62} "1721. EMPHUTOS. From 1722 and a derivative of 5453; implanted (figuratively): --engrafted." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"emfutoj, adapted for inward growth grow(from emfuw, to implant; the termination marking the idea of capabliity or adaptation both actively and passively." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 251.

"Engrafted (emfuton). Only here in New Testament. Better, and more literally, as Rev., implanted. It marks a characteristic of the word of truth (ver. 18). It is implanted; divinely given, in contrast with something acquired by study. Compare Matthew 13:19, "the word of the kingdom--sown in his heart." Grafted or graffed is expressed by a peculiar word, employed by Paul only, egkentrizw, from kentron, a sharp point, thus emphasizing the fact of the incision required in grafting. See Romans 11:17, 19, 23, 24." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, pp. 777-778. [*The Word of God is not just planted and left to die; but, is to grow and be fruitful for Him as He nurtures it through His Word. The current word "edification" answers to this word].

{63} "1410. DUNAMAI. Of uncertain affinity; to be able or possible:--be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{64} "20. That which is committed to thy trust (thn paraqhkhn). Only in Pastorals. Comp. 2 Timothy 1:12, 14. From para beside or with, and tiqenai to place. It may mean either something put beside another as an addition or appendix (so Mark. 6:41; Acts 16:34), or something put with or in the keeping of another as a trust or deposit. In the latter sense always in LXX. See Leviticus 6:2, 4; Tob. x. 13; II Macc. iii. 10, 15. Hdt. vi. 73, of giving hostages; ix. 45, of confidential words intrusted to the hearer's honor. The verb is a favorite with Luke. The meaning here is that teaching which Timothy had received from Paul; the 'sound words' which he was to guard as a sacred trust, and communicate to others." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. IV, p. 842.

{65} "Vain babblings (kenofwniaj). Only in Pastorals. LXX, Class. From kenoj empty and fwnh voice." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. IV, p. 842.

{66} "1108. GNOSIS. From 1097; knowing (the act), i.e. (by implication) knowledge:--knowledge, science." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{67} "Falsely so called. Greek pseudonumos. Only here (1 Tim.). There is much science è (knowledge) which does not deserve the name, being only speculation." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1808.

{68} "2344. THESAUROS. From 5087; a deposit, i.e. wealth (literally or figuratively):--treasure." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Qhsauroj, any thing laid up in store; hence, treasure, wealth; (lxx for ]vmmm, mammon, Genesis 43:23; Proverbs 2:4; rava, 1 Kings 14:26; Provers 15:17), (non occurring)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 818.

{69} "1922. EPIGNOSIS. From 1921; recognition, i.e. (by implication) full discernment, acknowledgement: --(ac-)knowledge(-ing, - ment)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{70} "3884. PARALOGIZOMAI. From 3844 and 3049; to misreckon, i.e. delude:--beguile, deceive." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{71}"4086. PITHANOLOGIA. From a compound of a derivative of 3982 and 3056; persuasive language: --enticing words." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{72}"4812. SULAGOGEO. From the base of 4813 and (the reduplicated form of) 71; to lead away as booty, i.e. (figuratively) seduce:--spoil." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*Philosophy is a tool of theological pirates].

{73}"5385. PHILOSOPHIA. From 5386; 'philosophy,' i.e. (specifically) Jewish sophistry:--philosophy." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"filosofia, love of wisdom; then, English, philosophy." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 584.

"Philosophy and vain deceit-- Or, the vain or empty deceit of philosophy; such philosophizing as the Jewish and Gentile teachers used. As the term philosophy stood in high repute among the Gentiles, the Jews of this time affected it; and both Philo and Josephus use the word to express the whole of the Mosaic institutions. 'There are three systems of philosophy among the Jews,' (Bell. Jud., lib. ii. cap 8, sec. 2,) meaning the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as immediately follows. The Jewish philosophy, such as is found in the Cabala, Midrashim, and other works, deserves the character of vain deceit, in the fullest sense and meaning of the words. The inspired writers excepted, the Jews have ever been the most puerile, absurd, and ridiculous reasoners in the world. Even Rabbi Maymon, or Maimonides, the most intelligent of them all, is often in his master piece (the Moreh Nevochim, the Teacher of the Perplexed) most deplorably empty and vain."Adam Clarke, Commentary on Colossians, vol VIa, pp. 1158-1159.

[*It is the seeking after the knowledge of the world (wizardry, divinations) that corrupts and inhibits the execution of Christ's Testament].

{74} "2756. KENOS. Apparently a primary word; empty (literally or figuratively): --empty, (in) vain." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{75} "539. APATE. From 538; delusion:--deceit(-ful, -fulness), deceivableness (-ving)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{76} "3862. PARADOSIS. From 3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specifically, the Jewish traditionary law:--ordinance, tradition." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*This is what the lawyer does with constitutions, codes, rules, regulations, stare decisis, and statutes--see the law review article entitled,"The Great Contract"].

History of the Septuagint

by Richard Watson

The following is one account of the history and chronology of the Septuagint, reprinted from Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832). We will periodically reprint various accounts from other sources as they become available to us.

"SEPTUAGINT. Among the Greek versions of the Old Testament, says Mr. Horne, the Alexandrian or Septuagint is the most ancient and valuable, and was held in so much esteem both by the Jews as well as by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the early fathers, whether Greek or Latin; and from this version all the translations into other languages which were anciently approved by the Christian church were executed, with the exception of the Syriac; as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, gothic, and old Italic or Latin version in use before the time of Jerom; and to this day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other oriental churches. This version has derived its name either from the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to make it, or from its having received the approbation of the sanhedrim or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more correctly, of seventy-two persons. Much uncertainty, however, has prevailed concerning the real history of this ancient version; and while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and Divine origin, other eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must have been executed by several persons and at different times. According to one account, Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, caused this translation to be made for the use of the library which he had founded at Alexandria, at the request and with the advice of the celebrated Demetrius Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this purpose, it is reported, that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distinguished officers of his court, to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, then high priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him seventy-two persons, six chosen out of each of the twelve tribes, who were equally well skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These learned men were accordingly shut up in the island of Pharos; where, having agreed in a translation of each period after a mutual conference, Demetrius down their version as the dictated it to him; and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly disputed. If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this piece is a forgery, it was made at a very early period; for it was in existence in the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish Antiquities. The veracity of Aristeas' narrative was not questioned until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, at which time, indeed, Biblical criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy, Vives, Scaliger, Van Dale, Dr. Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody, were the principal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked the genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas; and though it was ably vindicated by Bishop Walton, Isaac Vossius, Whiston, Brett, and other modern writers, the majority of the learned of our own time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. Philo, the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was ignorant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas; but he relates others which appear not less extraordinary. According to him, Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose number he does not specify; and these, going over to the island of Pharos, there executed so many distinct versions, all of which so exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved them to have been not only common interpreters, but men prophetically inspired and divinely directed, who had every word dictated to them by the Spirit of God throughout the entire translation. He adds, that an annual festival was celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit.

"It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in favour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with these preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan chronicle of Abul Phatach, which was compiled in the fourteenth century from ancient and modern authors, both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to the following effect: that Ptolemy Philadelphus, in the tenth year of his reign, directed his attention to the difference subsisting between the Samaritans and Jews concerning the Law, the former receiving only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he commanded the two nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The Jews entrusted this mission to Osar, the Samaritans to Aaron, to whom several other associates were added. Separate apartments were in a particular quarter of Alexandria were assigned to each of these strangers, who were prohibited from having any personal intercourse, and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his version. Thus were the Law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; whose version being most carefully examined, the king was convinced that their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such is the narrative of Abul Phatach, divested, however, of numerous marvellous circumstances with which it has been decorated by the Samaritans, who are not surpassed, even by the Jews, in their partiality for idle legends.

"A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of the Septuagint has been by the historians who have pretended to record it, necessarily loses all its historical character, which, indeed, we are fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is no doubt but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, yet it is by no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is false: the following, however, is the result of our researches concerning this celebrated version:--

"It is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they are called, executed their version of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of Ptolemy Lagus and his son Philadelphus. The pseudo Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, and many other writers whom it were tedious to enumerate, relate that this version was made during the reign of Ptolemy II., or Philadelphus; Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among the rabbins, Theodoret, and many other Christian writers, refer its date to the time of Ptolemy Lagus. Now, these two traditions can be reconciled only by supposing the version to have been performed during the two years when Ptolemy Philadelphus shared the throne with his father; which date coincides with the third and fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third Olympiad, that is, about B.C. 286 and 285. Farther, this version was neither made by the command of Ptolemy, nor at the request nor under the superintendence of Demetrius Phalereus; but was voluntarily undertaken by the Jews for the use of their countrymen. It is well known, that, at the period above noticed, there was a great number of Jews settled in Egypt, particularly at Alexandria: these, being most strictly observant of the religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their sanhedrim or grand council of seventy or seventy-two members, and very numerous synagogues, in which the law was read to them on every Sabbath; and as the bulk of the common people were no longer acquainted with Biblical Hebrew, the Greek language alone being used in their ordinary intercourse, it became necessary to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for their use. This is a far more probable account of the origin of the Alexandrian version than the traditions above stated. If this translation had been made by public authority, it would unquestionably have been performed under the direction of the sanhedrim, who would have examined and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the work of a single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of their approbation, and introducing it into their synagogues. It either case the translation would probably be denominated Septuagint, because the sanhedrim was composed of seventy or seventy-two members. It is even possible that the sanhedrim, in order to ascertain the fidelity of the work, might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, of whose assistance and advice they would have availed themselves in examining the version. This fact, if it could be proved, for it is offered as a mere conjecture, would account for the story of the king of Egypt's sending an embassy to Jerusalem: there is, however, one circumstance which proves that, in executing this translation, the synagogues were originally in contemplation, namely, that all the ancient writers unanimously concur in saying that the Pentateuch was first translated. The five books of Moses, indeed, were the only books read in the synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria; who having forbidden that practice in Palestine, the Jews evaded his commands by substituting for the Pentateuch the reading of the prophetic books. When, afterward, the Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the kings of Syria, they read the law and the prophets alternately in the synagogues; and the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or Græcising Jews.

"But whatever was the real number of the authors of the version, their introduction of Coptic words, such as oifo aci reufan, &c, as well as their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the Egyptian manner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt. Thus, they express the creation of the world, not by the proper Greek word ktisij, but by genesij, a term employed by the philosophers of Alexandria to express the origin of the universe. The Hebrew word thummim, Exodus 28:30, which signifies 'perfections,' they render alhqeia, truth. The difference of style also indicates the version to have been the work of not of one but of several translators, and to have been executed at different times. The best qualified and most able among them was the translator of the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and Hebrew; he has religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in various instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen expressions. From the very close resemblances subsisting between the text of the Greek version and the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Louis De Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, are of opinion that the author of the Alexandrian version made it from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in proportion as these two correspond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew. This opinion is farther supported by the declarations of Origen and Jerom, that the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah, not in the letters in common use, but in very ancient characters; and also by the fact that very those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently confounded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan but not in the Hebrew alphabet. This hypothesis, however ingenious and plausible, is by no means determinate; and what militates most against it is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans, added to the constant and unvarying testimony of antiquity, that the Greek version of the Pentateuch was executed by Jews. There is no other way by which to reconcile these conflicting opinions than by the Egyptian Jews approximated toward the letters and text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the translators of the Septuagint made use of manuscripts written in ancient characters. Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execution, ranks the translation of the Book of Proverbs, the author of which was well skilled in the two languages: Michaelis is of opinion that, of all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is the best, the translator having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in as neat and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, is to express his philosophical maxims.

"The Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the Egyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the Jews of Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, and subsequently also among Christians: it appears, in deed, that they legend above confuted, of the translators having been divinely inspired, was invented in order that the LXX. might be held in the greater estimation. Philo, the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in his allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law; and though Dr. Hody was of opinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, corroborated his work on Jewish antiquities from the Hebrew text, yet Salmasius, Bochart, Bauer, and others, have shown that he has adhered to the Septuagint throughout that work. How extensively this version was in use among the Jews, appears from the solemn sanction given to it by the inspired writers of the New Testament, who have in very many passages quoted the Greek version of the Old Testament. Their example was followed by the earlier fathers and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of Origen and Jerom, were unacquainted with Hebrew: not with standing their zeal for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the original language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek representation of them, judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for all the purposes of their pious labours. The Greek Scriptures were the only Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the text commented on by Chrysostom and Theodoret; it was this which furnished topics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this fountain the stream was derived to the Latin church, first by the Italic or Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, which was made from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the study of the Greek fathers. It was by this borrowed light that the Latin fathers illumined the western hemisphere; and, when the age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory, successively passed away, this was the light put into the hands of the next dynasty of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on the work of theological disquisition by the aid of this luminary, and none other. So that, either in Greek or Latin, it was still the Septuagint Scriptures that were read, explained, and quoted as authority, for a period of fifteen hundred years." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), vol. II, pp. 849-851.

"Septuagint Chronology

The Septuagint chronology is that which is formed from the dates and periods of time mentioned in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. It reckons one thousand five hundred years more from the creation to the time of Abraham than the Hebrew Bible. Dr. Kennicott, in the dissertation prefixed to his Hebrew Bible, has shown it to be very probable, that the chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the period just mentioned, was corrupted by the Jews between A.D. 175 and 200; and that the chronology of the Septuagint is more agreeable to truth. It is a fact, that, during the second and third centuries, the Hebrew Scriptures were almost entirely in the hands of the Jews, while the Septuagint was confined to the Christians. The Jews had, therefore, a very favourable opportunity for this corruption. The following is the reason which is given by the oriental writers: It being a very ancient tradition that Messiah was to come in the sixth chiliad, because he was to come in the last days, founded on a mystical application of the six days of creation, the contrivance was to shorten the age of the world from about 5500 to 3760; and hence to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah. Dr. Kennicott adds, that some Hebrew copies, having the larger chronology, were extant till the time of Eusebius, and some till the year 700." Richard Watson, Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), vol. II, pp. 850-851.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark's Gospel

by Ethelbert William Bullinger

Below is a copy of Appendix 168 of The Companion Bible, written by Bullinger in the 1880's. Note that the introduction and IV are his words, and Nos. I-III are based on the research of Dean Burgon.

Most modern critics are agreed that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not an integral part of his Gospel. They are omitted by T [A]; not by the Syr. Ap. 94. V. ii.

The question is entirely one of evidence.

From Ap. 94. V., we have seen that this evidence comes from three sources: (1) manuscripts (2) versions, and (3) the early Christian writers, known as "the Fathers". This evidence has been exhaustively analyzed by the late Dean Burgon, whose work is epitomized in the Nos. I-III, below.

-------------------------

I. As To Manuscripts:--

there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial MSS. (B and a, see Ap. 94. V.) are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive MSS. which contain the Gospel of Mark) there is not one which leaves out these twelve verses.

-------------------------

II. As to the Versions:--

1. THE SYRIAC. The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms : the "Peshitto" (cent. 2), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek MS. in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (cent. 5) and the "Jerusalem" (cent. 5). See note (*3) on page 136 - Ap 94.

2. THE LATIN VERSIONS. JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.

3. THE GOTHIC VERSION (A.D. 350) contains them.

4. THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "COPTIC"), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the "THEBAIC" (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "SAHIDIC"), belonging to cent. 3.

5. THE ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

-------------------------

III. THE FATHERS:--

Whatever may be their value (or otherwise )as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual words or their form, or sequence their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions.

There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).

JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).

IRENAEUS (A.D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).

HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).

VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN.

The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1852, pp. 243, 351).

The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.

EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.

APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i. p. 21).

AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).

CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".

JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.

AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.

NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20 and

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.

VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

-------------------------

IV. We should like to add our own judgment as to the root cause of the doubts which have gathered round these verses.

They contain the promise of the Lord, of which we read the fulfillment in Heb. 2:4. The testimony of "them that heard Him" was to be the confirmation of His own teaching when on earth : "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and divers miracles, and gifts of pneuma hagion (i.e. spiritual gifts. See Ap. 101. II. 14), according to His own will."

The Acts of the Apostles records the fulfillment of the Lord's promise in Mark 16:17, 18; and in the last chapter we find a culminating exhibition of "the Lord's working with them" (vv. 3, 5, 8, 9). But already in 1Cor. 13:8-13, it was revealed that a time was then approaching when all these spiritual gifts should be "done away". That time coincided with the close of that dispensation, by the destruction of Jerusalem; when they that heard the Lord could no longer add their confirmation to the Lord's teaching, and there was nothing for God to bear witness to. For nearly a hundred years (*1) after the destruction of Jerusalem there is a complete blank in ecclesiastical history, and a complete silence of Christian speakers and writers (*2). So far from the Churches of the present day being the continuation of Apostolic times, "organized religion", as we see it to-day, was the work of a subsequent and quite an independent generation.

When later transcribers of the Greek manuscripts came to the last twelve verses of Mark, and saw no trace of such spiritual gifts in existence, they concluded that there must be something doubtful about the genuineness of the verses. Hence some may have marked them as doubtful, some as spurious, while others omitted them altogether.

A phenomenon of quite an opposite kind is witnessed in the present day.

Some [believers in these twelve verses], earnest in their desire to serve the Lord, but not "rightly dividing the Word of truth" as to the dispensations, look around, and not seeing these spiritual gifts in operation, determine to have them (!) and are led into all sorts of more than doubtful means in their desire to obtain them. The resulting "confusion" shows that God is "not the author" of such a movement (see 1Cor. 14:31-33).

(*1) See Col. 1, opposite.

(*2) Except the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve, which is supposed to be about the middle of the second century, but which shows how soon the corruption of New Testament "Christianity" had set in.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

The History of Hermeneutics

"HERMENEUTICS. (Gr. hermeneuin, to translate, interpret, make intelligible) n. sing. 1. Interpretation. 2. Inquiry into, or theory of, the nature or methods of interpretation.

"There has been reflection on the art of interpreting texts since ancient times, but the word 'hermeneutics' was first used by J. C. Dannhauer in the mid-seventeenth century [*in other words, it was not in the beginning in and with Christ]. He noted that texts for which a theory of interpretation was needed fell into three classes: Holy Scripture, legal texts (statutes, precedents, treaties, etc.), and the literature of classical antiquity.

"One important problem for traditional hermeneutics was that it had two radically different aims in its main areas: theology and jurisprudence [*confusion]. One aim was to provide a correct interpretation, the other to establish an authoritative statement of dogma [*creeds, confessions, articles of faith] or of law. It can at times be difficult to satisfy both requirements, and this is why it has been said that hermeneutics is the art of finding something in a text that is not there.

"The first major thinker to propose a general theory of interpretation was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). He went beyond the traditional view, in his proposal that interpretation requires not only a proper grasp of the relevant linguistic and historical facts, but also a mental retracing, an imaginative reconstruction [*conjuration], of the way in which a text came into being [*sans the Spirit of God.] An interpreter of a text may be in a position to see the author's life [*who has seen the shape of God or known His Life outside of Christ?] and work as a whole, and to place it in a historical setting. [*Is God limited by history?] Such knowledge, unattainable to the author [*how is this possible with God?], can enable the interpreter to understand the text better than the author. [*The theologician is now greater than God!?!?!?!?--In other words, Schleiermacher denies the Spirit of God is the Author of Scripture].

"From Schleiermacher and on, the field of hermeneutics was extended to include texts generally [*criticism], and not only those of Scripture, law and ancient classics. The historian J. G. Droysen (1808-1884) stressed that knowledge gained by interpretation--he had historical knowledge especially in mind--is entirely different from scientific knowledge [*ruse--hermeneutics itself is a science.] This contrast became well-established through Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). He explained it as a contrast between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation (Erklaren). Our knowledge of historical, social and cultural facts--the realm of the Geisteswissenschaften (the human, or cultural sciences)--essentially involves interpretation. This is why it is radically different from the knowledge gained by application of the scientific method in the Naturwissenschaften (the natural sciences). Hermeneutics has since been regarded as a theory of interpretation of all bearers of meaning:: not only texts but also human action and the various features of human culture and society [*social sciences and engineering].

"Hermeneutics can be seen as a part of a theory of knowledge [*Van Til and other moderns--but it is not knowledge or Truth] since it is a study of the principles by which certain kinds of knowledge are obtained [*not a true statement--man's conjurations are not knowledge but give a prima facie appearance of knowledge]. But the claim that interpretation provides knowledge seems incompatible with three fundamental tenets in positivist (POSITIVISM) thought which have enjoyed wide acceptance: (1) that in principle, scientific method can and must be applied in all fields of inquiry in order to gain knowledge; (2) that the method of the physical sciences is the ideal paradigm; (3) that facts are to be explained casually, and that such an explanation consists in subsuming individual cases under general laws.

"Paul Ricoeur has distinguished between a hermeneutics of tradition and a hermeneutics of suspicion. The former aims to listen to what is communicated in order to gain insight from, or become aware of, a message hidden under the surface. A representative of this tendency is Gadamer. The latter is 'subversive', attempting to show that, properly understood, texts and human action are not as innocuous as they may seem to be, but may be reflections of hidden drives [*lusts, etc.] class interests, etc. Representative of this tendency are Nietzsche, Freud, Foucault. There are affinities between these and the so-called critical hermeneutics represented by Apel and Habermas, which continue a tradition of critique of ideologies that goes back, via Marx, to the eighteenth century. The aim of this approach is to criticize existing social, political, and cultural conditions by interpretations that are at the same time demystifications.

"The so-called HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE presents a problem for interpretation.

"'Hermeneutics' has also been used to denote an ontological inquiry, or theory, which explores the kind of existence had by beings who are able to understand meanings, and to whom the world is primarily an object of understanding (rather than, say, of sense-perception). Heidegger's philosophy can be described as hermeneutical in this sense." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1998), pp. 248-249. [*Hermeneutics is a deception at worst and theory at best about theory].

Bits and Pieces

The Handbook on Compromise

The Negotiator's Handbook

It was the Babylonian Talmud which emerged as the most influential book in Judaism next to the Bible--indeed, under certain circumstances it eclipsed the Bible as the object of Jewish study. The foundations were laid by Rav and Samuel, and its redaction was accomplished by R. Ashi and Ravina, c. 500. There are differences in the surviving books on which the gemara exists in the two Talmuds. The main language of the Talmud is Aramaic. The Babylonian Talmud is four times the size of the Palestinian. The Talmud became the source of Jewish law, and its study has been the basis of Jewish religious life. Many commentaries were written on the Babylonian Talmud. The most accepted and influential was that of Rashi together with the further elucidations provided by his school (Tosaphot). From time to time, the Talmud was attacked by the Christian Church [*Roman Catholic], and, after a disputation in Paris, 24 cartloads of Talmud manuscripts were burned in 1242. This example was copied in Italy and Eastern Europe." Roth, Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1982), p. 509.

Compromise is Death

"Every successful religious society, or organization, must have some well-defined purpose which it seeks to accomplish. An aimless movement falls to pieces for want of common interests and common ends. An end that is at all worthy of being attained can be reached only by overcoming opposing forces. There is always something to oppose as well as something to favor. He who opposes nothing, favors nothing. Sin and evil in all their forms stand opposed to righteousness and truth. It is a peculiar and universal characteristic of sin that it seeks to entrench itself within the camps of those who claim to be the Lord's hosts, and to wage its deadliest battles beneath the standard of the Lord's anointed. Jesus' severest conflicts were not with publicans and harlots, but with the scribes and the Pharisees--with sin and wickedness that had intrenched itself in the ecclesiasticism of the times. The early church found its bitterest foes among the leaders of the prevailing religions of the world. Neither the violent bigotry of Judaism nor the heartless cruelty of heathenism was able to stay its progress nor hinder its growth. It was not until Christianity had acquired so much of power and position in the world as to make an alliance with it desirable as a means of power and influence that its opponents began to ask for compromise. After the compromise was once commenced it progressed with wonderful rapidity. To Christ was given the honor of the name, while He and the apostles were made the chief heroes. In the spirit and forms of worship the pagan influence largely predominated. When Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenburg, his conflict began not with men who made no profession of faith in Christ, but with the pope and his cardinals, who assumed to be the vicar of Christ and the guardians of His church. Protestantism was a protest. It could get itself place in the world only by shoving something else aside. Sin in all its forms is insidious and plausible. It wants no better victory than a truce. The white flag is the signal of its triumph."--Rev. Asa W. Coan, Herald of Gospel Liberty, January 5, 1882, in The Centennial of Religious Journalism (1908), pp. 203-205.

Judeo-Christanity

"APOSTASY. A deserting or abandoning of the true religion. The word is borrowed from the Latin apostatare, or apostare, to despise or violate any thing. Hence apostatare leges anciently signified to transgress the laws. The Latin apostatare, again, comes from, from, and , I stand. Among the Romanists, apostasy also signifies the forsaking of a religious order, whereof a man had made profession, without a lawful dispensation. The ancients distinguished three kinds of apostasy: the first, a supererogatione, is committed by a priest, or religious, who abandons his profession, and returns to his lay state; the second, a mandatis Dei, by a person of any condition, who abandons the commands of God, though he retains his faith; the third, a fide, by him who not only abandons his works, but also the faith. There is this difference between an apostate and a heretic: that the latter only abandons a part of his faith, whereas the former renounces the whole. The primitive Christian church distinguished several kinds of apostasy. The first was that of those who relapsed from Christianity into Judaism; the second, that of those blended Judaism and Christianity together; and the third was that of those who, after having been Christians, voluntarily relapsed into Paganism." Watson's Bible Dictionary (1832), vol. I, pp. 71-72.

God's Rod and God's Judged

"Contemporary Judaism often speaks of four foundational pillars of the Jewish faith, each interacting as a major force as part of the covenant: (1) The Torah, always a living law as the written Torah is understood in light of the oral Torah; (2) God, a unity (one), spiritual (not a body), and eternal; (3) The people (Israelites/ Jews), called into being by God as members of one family, a corporate personality, a community of faith; and (4) The land (known today as Eretz Yisrael), a bond going back to Abraham, the "father of the Hebrew people" (Gen. 17:7-8).

"In its modern expression Judaism is also shaped by the following traditional beliefs: (1) Man is pivotal in the universe. He sees himself as partner with God in the unending process of creation. In rabbinic thought, 'God needs man as much as man needs God.' (2) Man is a responsible moral agent, fully accountable for his acts. He is free to shape his own destiny." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary.

The Viper's Offspring

"The breakdown of physical isolation still remains one of the dominant features of the history of images in the past few hundred years. The transformation of Japan in the nineteenth century is a striking example of the effect of such physical communication. The coming of communism to China represents an even more striking example. Like Christianity and Islam, communism is a faith and an image of society in history which has deep roots in eschatological Judaism. Looked at in the long view of history, the present events in China may represent not so much the contact of the Chinese with Marx, as their contact with Moses." Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), p. 139-147.

Issue the Forty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Engrafted Evidence: Who Do You Express?...

The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part Three...

The Septuagint: Its History and Sacred Character, Part Two...

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Engrafted Evidence

Who Do You Express?

Written by John Joseph and Randy Lee

In recent months we have written and spoken about many of the misconceived and deceptive "Church World" modes of operation, doctrines, heathen terminology, and other tools of the spiritually dead, i.e., theology, hermeneutics, emotionalism, denominationalism, creeds and confessions, the so-called sacred name of God, mistranslations of the available sacred texts, and other matters concerning His Lawful assembly. In these matters, we are mindful that the light of truthful evidence must always be shown.

Those writings and radio interviews have been well received by most, and not so well received by a few who have preferred to determine matters by way of opinion, speculation, feelings or tradition --and not according to evidence. The following should be considered by all, especially by the few referred to above.

The natural man, in imitation of God's Word, has stated the following in regard to written documents, but read in the Light of The Word we are shown keys to producing what is pleasing to our Lord, to wit,

"A writing [*engrafted on the heart and inward parts by the finger of God--Jeremiah 31:33; James 1:21] is the best evidence of its own contents, and must be introduced [*through the working of the Spirit in fulness of faith to Him (epilusis) before God our Father and those of the kosmoj] unless it has been lost or destroyed [*by philosophy, theology, seminary morphosis], or its absence is otherwise satisfactorily accounted for [*which is impossible before God--see Romans 1:20], except in the case of public documents and records, of which exemplified copies will be admitted." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing McKelvey, 301, 302.

This completely vindicates the bondman in Christ when he brings forth the writing of God's Expression received by being engrafted on his inward parts, in execution of what is written and is corroborated by the Spirit of God [*see Romans 8:16], the attesting witness of such engrafting or writing of His Law on the hearts of His remnant. It is vitally important that this evidence be brought forth first, to wit;

"There is no presumption [*in Law] as to the defendant's character. People v. Lingley, 207 N.Y. 396, 101 N.E. 170, 46 L.R.A.N.S. 342. If the defendant elects to have his character weighed in determining his innocence, he must produce evidence of his character [*bondman in Christ]. This he does by calling a qualified witness [*"calling upon the name of the Lord"--Isaiah 54:16-17; Luke 11:20] or witnesses to testify to his good reputation in the [*Lawful assembly] for the particular trait involved in the crime charged." Richardson on Evidence (1964), 155, p. 141.

But natural men presume everything to be evil. From this it is plain to see that those who cling to the rudiments of the kosmoj (world/kosmos, see Etymologicum Anglicanum, Pages nine and ten ) always fail and will continue to fail to state a claim upon which God through Christ Jesus can give relief or deliverance [see Matthew 12:37; 1 John 4:5-6], for we have been told by Him, to wit;

"Offspring of vipers [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, speculators, ad nauseam], how are ye able good things to speak, being wicked? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12:34 (Berry).
"O generation of vipers [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, speculators, ad nauseam], how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matthew 12:34.

....having not brought forth the best evidence--the first-fruits meet for Him, or what is also called primary evidence, to wit;

"Primary evidence is that which does not pre-suppose a higher or better evidence, or that which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in question.
"Secondary evidence is that which indicates on its face that there exists a higher or better evidence, and it is only admissible when primary evidence cannot be produced." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing 1 Greenleaf, 84. See also 2 Corinthians 10:3-6.

When we fulfill our obedience to Him we are offering the best evidence to those of the kosmoj of our bond of faith in and to Him. This is being the salt of the earth by offering our self-will on His Altar of Righteousness, being the firstfruit of repentance from it.

In other words, those who look to the vain imaginations of men fail to overcome evil with good; but, have already been overcome by evil because there is no good in the inventions of men, i.e. philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, seminary morphosis, mechanical religious repetitions, codes, rules, regulations, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, statutes, edicts, proclamations, executive orders, resolutions, referendums, opinions, speculations, traditions, ad nauseam--for those who harken to the vain imaginations and inventions of men have been overcome by the spirit of the aiwn (aion/age, see Etymologicum Anglicanum, Pages nine and ten ) before they ever engaged the evil one in battle. See Judges 2:17; Proverbs 21:16; Isaiah 28:7; Malachi 2:8; Romans 12:21; 2 Peter 2:19.

In the matter thus far presented we must distinguish between evidence and proof. The natural man, has admitted the following in his distinctions, to wit;

"Proof is the belief or conclusion arrived at by a consideration of the evidence. As was said in People v. Beckwith, 108 N.Y. 67, 73, 15 N.E. 53, 55: 'Evidence [*the word of Testimony in Christ--see Revelation 12:11; or, word of testimony in the aiwn to those of the kosmoj] is the medium of proof; proof is the effect of the evidence [*see Matthew 12:37; 1 John 4:5-6].'" Richardson on Evidence (1964), 1, p. 1.

In the cases before God's Throne, evidence known by the natural man as secondary, tertiary, quaternary, ad nauseam, is never admissible, for His Evidence is always bearing witness, to wit;

"...that which is known of God is manifest among them, for God to them manifested; for the invisible things of Him from creation of world by the things made being understood are perceived, both His eternal power and divinity; for them to be without excuse." Romans 1:19-20. (Berry)
"that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19-20. See also 1 John 5:7-9.

The natural man's secondary evidence has a limiting qualification attaching to it, to wit;

"Secondary evidence is admissible in case the original is proven to have been lost or destroyed, or is out of the jurisdiction of the court, or is in the hands of the adverse party, who has failed to produce it on demand duly made." Wilber A. Owen, Owen's Law Quizzer (1933), p. 501, citing McKelvey, 303.

So, God will not bring forth deliverance when obedience of bringing forth firstfruits of sacrifice meet for Him is not fulfilled by one who makes claims solely by outward pretence. See Genesis 4:4-5; 1 Kings 18; 2 Corinthians 10:3-6. When, where, and how was God's Word ever destroyed, lost, or handed over to the adverse party, Satan, outside the jurisdiction of our Father's Court?; and how does one evade the jurisdiction of His Court? for it is written:

"Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? and whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I should go up to heaven, Thou art there: If I should go down to hell, Thou art present." Psalm 138:7-8 (LXX).
"Whither shall I go from Thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there: If I make by bed in hell, behold, Thou art there." Psalm 139:7-8.

Thus, we and they are without excuse.

This short dissertation on evidence and its effects of proof will be disputed further by those bearing the spirit of the aiwn evidenced by self-serving verbal claim, feminization, and outward pretence; but being of, and possessing, a sound mind in Christ, Who has not given His remnant the spirit of fear, we can all be assured through The Way, The Truth and The Life that all self-servers bear witness of themselves, to wit;

"But to the sinner God has said, Why dost thou declare My ordinances, and take up My covenant in thy mouth? Whereas thou hast hated instruction, and hast cast My words behind thee.thy mouth has multiplied wickedness [*through your philosophy, theology, opinions, speculations, traditions, ad nauseam], and thy tongue has framed deceit." Psalm 49:16-17, 19 (LXX).
"But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare My statutes, or that thou shouldest take My covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest My words behind thee. Thou givest thy mouth to evil [*through philosophy, theology, opinion, speculation, tradition, ad nauseam], and thy tongue frameth deceit." Psalm 50:16-17, 19.
"He that is not wise will not be taught: but If a skilful man hear a wise word, he will commend it, and add unto it: but as soon as one of no understanding heareth it, it displeaseth him, and he casteth it behind his back.." Ecclesiasticus 21:12 & 15.
"Death befalls uninstructed men. The fool [*the philosophers, the theologians, and the other "benevolent lawgivers"] also dies in sins; and uncleanness attaches to a pestilent man." Proverbs 24:9 (LXX).
"The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men." Proverbs 24:9.
"Consult not with a fool; for he cannot keep counsel." Ecclesiasticus 8:17.
"The inner parts of a fool are like a broken vessel, and he will hold no knowledge as long as he liveth." Ecclesiasticus 21:14.

....and the natural man recognizes in his own imitations of the Word of God that;

"Non est disputandum contra principia negantem --There is no disputing against a man denying principles." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2149; Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1202.

In Lawful execution of the foregoing, by and in the Will of God in and through Christ Jesus, we can...

"Talk not much with a fool, and go not to him that hath no understanding: beware of him, lest thou have trouble, and thou shalt never be defiled with his fooleries: depart from him and thou shalt find rest, and never be disquieted with madness." Ecclesiasticus 22:13.

The Spiritually Dead

and the tools of their trade

Part Three

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

The Spirit (in Colossians 2:1-9) specifically mentioned superfluity, filthiness, oppositions of falsely called knowledge (philosophy), and vain deceit being set aside and avoided. To not avoid them leads to destruction because it is a walk away from the Tree of Life toward the rudiments of the world and its prince. This is seen, the Spirit bearing witness, to wit;

"The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, sciolists, ad nauseam] poureth out foolishnessA wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness [*i.e., the leaven of the pharisees] therein is a breach in the spirit." Proverbs 15:2 & 4.
"The tongue of the wise knows what is good: but the mouth of the foolish [*philosophers, theologicians, sophists, sciolists, ad nauseam] tells out evil things.The wholesome tongue is a tree of life, and he that keeps it shall be filled with understanding." Proverbs 15:2 & 4 (LXX).

Even the natural man knows that,

"Designatio unius est exclusio alterius, et expressum facit cessare tacitum --The appointment or designation of one is the exclusion of the other; and that which is expressed prevails over that which is implied." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2131.
"Expressio unius est exlusio alterius --The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.
"Expressum facit cessare tacitum --That which is expressed puts an end to (renders ineffective) that which is implied." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.

And, because they are expressly excluded and only mentioned to be those things avoided, no man adds to or annuls the covenant that flows through the Christ from God to His bondmen, the Spirit bearing witness, to wit;

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto{1}." Galatians 3:15.
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1 Timothy 2:5-6.
"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Hebrews 8:6. See also Matthew 16:1-6.

Therefore, philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, or seminary morphosis have no place in the Christ's bondmen because they are not found in Him. Christ being the Tree of Life could not have any thing of death in Him for they were sent forth from the Paradise of God. See John 14:30 & Genesis 3:22-24. And because the Tree of Life is in the midst of the Paradise of God, it is in the midst of the Body of Christ--see Matthew 18:20 & Luke 17:21.

And the natural man bears witness of his own personal knowledge of the foregoing, to wit;

"Lex uno ore omnes alloquitur --The law addresses all with one [the same] mouth or voice." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1058.
"Lex uno ore omnes alloquitur --The law speaks to all with one mouth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143.

Where is the privacy in Law?

"Within the meaning of the maxim that 'ignorantia juris non excusat' (ignorance of the law is no excuse), the word 'jus' is used to denote the general law or ordinary law of the land{2}, and not a private right [*brought into being by codes, rules, regulations, creeds, confessions, articles of faith, ad nauseam--all foreign to the Christ{3} and His bondmen, but common among christians]. Churchill v. Bradley, 58 Vt. 403, 5 A. 189, 56 Am.Rep. 563; Cooper v. Fibbs, L.R. 2 H.L. 149; Freichnecht v. Meyer, 39 N.J.Eq. 561." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 994.
"Ignorare legis est culpa --To be ignorant of the law is negligence." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 394.
"Ignorare legis est lata culpa --To be ignorant of the law is gross negligence." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 394.

How could what we write be interpreted to be private requiring others to come to us for Truth? Further the Spirit witnesses,

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour [*see Matthew 7:21; 12:50], and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know Me [*see Luke 10:22], from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity [*seeking familiar spirits and wizards], and I will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:34.
"Behold, is it not of the LORD of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity{4} [*philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis]? For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge{5} of the glory of the LORD{6}, as the waters cover the sea." Habakkuk 2:13-14.

There is no place to hide from the Spirit of God when poured forth from Him through Christ--the Fountainhead of living waters flowing from the belly of Christ--see John 7:38; Psalm 32:8-9.

"Are not these things of the Lord Almighty? surely many people have been exhausted in the fire, and many nations have fainted. For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord; it shall cover them as water." Habakkuk 2:13-14 (LXX).

Philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis are all private opinion, conjecture, speculation, divinations, theory, conjurings{7}, and supposition all without Truth (see 1 Timothy 6:20-21) and have no thing in the Christ, for the Word bears witness, to wit;

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince{8} of this world{9} cometh, and hath nothing in Me." John 14:30.

What morphosis of the world did Christ bear when the prince of this world (kosmoj) has no thing in Him?

"No longer much I will speak with you, for comes the ruler of this world, and in Me he has nothing;" John 14:30 (Berry). See also Genesis 3:22-24.

And those who use such conjurings of death bear witness that they are the ones to whom others must come for pretended knowledge of Truth. Hence, the subjectively perceived "need" for seminary morphosis giving the outward appearance or pretence of truth is shown for the deceit it is. This will become all the more evident when we look at the station of the Pharisees and scribes of Christ's day and their peculiar marks that "separated" them.

Yet the Spirit of God has ordained strength in the words and works of praise babes and sucklings speak because they are born of Him, not by the wills of seminary schoolmen; and, innocently receive, live and do His Word, not as mules and horses of the world, thereby bringing forth the firstfruits pleasing to God that they are children of the light, the Spirit and Word witnessing, to wit;

"But as many as received{10} Him, to them gave He power{11} to become the sons{12} of God, even to them that believe{13} on His name{14}: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12-13.

Is it by seminary morphosis that we become a son of God? And when a babe by His Call, He has established the relation of Father to son. By whose authority is the relationship redefined through hermeneutics, philosophy, theology, ad nauseam?

"Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits{15} of His creatures." James 1:18.
"Having willed He begat us by word of truth, for us to be a sort of first-fruits of His creatures." James 1:18 (Berry).
"Teach me to do Thy will; for Thou art my God [*not the divinators, a.k.a. "divines"]: thy Spirit is good [*not philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis]; lead me into the land of uprightness." Psalm 143:10.
"Teach me to do Thy will; for Thou art my God; thy good Spirit [*not philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis] shall guide me in the straight way." Psalm 142(143):10 (LXX). See also John 16:13.
"I will instruct{16} thee and teach{17} thee in the way{18} which thou shalt go: I will guide{19} thee with Mine eye{20}. Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee." Psalm 32:8-9.
"I will instruct thee and guide thee in this way wherein thou shalt go: I will fix mine eyes upon thee. Be ye not as horse and mule, which have no understanding; but thou must constrain their jaws with bit and curb, lest they should come nigh to thee." Psalm 31(32):8-9 (LXX).
"Doth a fountain{21} send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" James 3:11. See also Psalm 32:8; Proverbs 13:14; Jeremiah 2:13.
"Pours forth the fountain out of the same opening sweet and bitter?" James 3:11 (Berry).
"Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth{22}: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come." John 16:13.
"But when He may have come, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He may hear He will speak; and the things coming He will announce to you." John 16:13 (Berry).
"But ye brethren, are not in darkness [*philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, seminary morphosis], that that day should overtake you [*see John 1:5--the darkness apprehends not the light] as a thief. Ye are the children of light{23}, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness." 1 Thessalonians 5:4.

And will live, speak and do His Word written or engrafted on their heart, and not the word of the world, the Spirit and Word bearing witness, to wit;

"But this shall be the covenant{24} that I will make with the house{25} of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law [*not philosophy, theories, theology, logic, reason, scholasticism, the ways of the heathen] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jeremiah 31:33. See also James 1:21. The Spirit testifies that God put Law in our inward parts. Who then put all the logic, theology, theories, reason, scholasticism, hermeneutics, ad nauseam in the same place?

"O generation{26} of vipers [*theologicians, philosophers, ad nauseam--see Genesis 3:1], how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matthew 12:34.

And they did speak their abundance when they murdered the Christ.

"Offspring of vipers [*theologicians, philosophers, ad nauseam--see Genesis 3:1], how are ye able to good things to speak, being wicked? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Matthew 12:34 (Berry).

How are vipers any bondman's brother? How can those who conspire against God and His anointed be brothers of His anointed?

"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." Luke 6:45.
"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which good; and the wicked man out of the wicked treasure of his heart brings forth that which wicked; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." Luke 6:45 (Berry).

Thus, the Spirit bears witness against those who put their faith in such convolutions, conjurations, or "principles" of the pagan mind, to wit;

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways [*philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis, ad nauseam], and My thoughts than your thoughts [*philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, sophistry, morphosis, ad nauseam]." Isaiah 55:9.
"Canst thou by searching{27} find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection{28}? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." Job 11:7-9.
"Wilt thou find out the traces of the Lord? or hast thou come to the end of that which the Almighty has made? Heaven is high; and what wilt thou do? and there are deeper things than those in hell; what dost thou know? Or longer than the measure of the earth, or the breadth of the sea." Job 11:7-9 (LXX).
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge{29} of God! how unsearchable{30} are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" Romans 11:33.
"O depth of riches both of wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable{31} His ways." Romans 11:33 (Berry).

Therefore, the ways and knowledge of God are far and away beyond the reach of the natural man's philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis. So, the natural man looks to create "a god" in his own image and likeness using philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, etc., to give the image of truth.

We will end this subject for now where we began in Issue the Forty-seventh concerning the spiritually dead and the tools of their vain and foolish trade, the Spirit again witnesses, to wit,

"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God [*philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis are excluded]. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God [*Because the Spirit of Truth is not in hermeneutics, divinations, theology or seminary morphosis, how is it possible to know the things of God?]. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world [*hermeneutics, theology, philosophy, sophistry, divinations, or seminary morphosis], but the spirit [*of Truth] which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned [*not by hermeneutics, theology, philosophy, sophistry, divinations, or seminary morphosis, ad nauseam--see Job 11:7-9; Isaiah 55:4]. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:9-16.

There is now a 90 page pamphlet on this subject available from the Christ's assembly at California. This subject will be continued next month.

Endnotes

{{1} "Addeth thereto (ejpidiatassetai). N.T.o . Adds new specifications or conditions to the original covenant, which is contrary to law. Comp. ejpidiaqhkh a second will or codicil, Joseph B. J. 2:2, 3; Ant. 17:9, 4. The doctrine of the Judaisers, while virtually annulling the promise, was apparently only the imposing of new conditions. In either case it was a violation of the covenant." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's Word Studies (1888), vol 4, p. 698.

Also the philosopher and theologician would do well to take the following to heart, to wit,

"in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God." Ecclesiastes 5:7.

{2} The following maxim from the natural man clarifies the above terms "general law" and "law of the land", to wit,

"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

The natural man then bears witness against himself and those who have fallen into apostasy with him, to wit,

"Legem terrae amittentes perpetuam infamiae notam inde merito incurrunt --Those who do not preserve the law of the land, then justly incur the ineffaceable brand of infamy." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

Note that the natural man never refers to hermeneutics, theology or seminary morphosis for these are not found, and have nothing, in the Testament to be executed by the bondman in Christ. Note now Genesis 1:28. This is the law of the land and has never been overruled or repealed by God in Christ Jesus; but, was executed and fulfilled by and in Him and those who have received Him and become His sons by His Will and not the will of man. These are admissions that the natural man knows that the only Law capable of being executed by the bondman in Christ is the Law that brought the land into being--see Genesis 1:1-2. This is the dominion of Christ working in and through His bondmen. The terms Son of God and Son of man are the keys to understanding this relation for they describe the Mediatorial capacity or office of the Christ. See John 5:25-27.

{3} "Ignorance of the law. Within the meaning of the presumption that every one knows the law and hence, the rule that ignorance of the law is not excused, the expression 'ignorance of the law' means ignorance of the laws of one's own country [*see Hebrews 11:9-16] or state [*status or condition] and it does not extend to foreign laws or statutes of other states [*status or condition]. Haven v. Foster, 26 Mass. 112, 19 Am.Dec. 353." Ballentine, Ballentine's Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 393.

{4} "7385. RIYQ. From 7324; emptiness; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:--empty, to no purpose, (in) vain (thing), vanity." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{5} "3045.YADA . A primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) [as follow]: -acknowledge, acquaintance(-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-]awares, can[-not], certainly, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-]norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{6} "The earth shall be filled, &c. Reference to Pentateuch (Numbers 14:21). This is the fifth and last occurrence of this wondrous prophecy:--Numbers 14:21; Psalm 72:19; Isaiah 6:3 (=shall be); 11:9; and Habakkuk 2:14." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1269. Five in Scripture has a special significance in that it represents the Grace of God or Favour toward the unworthy. How is God's Grace or Favour private?

{7} "CONSPIRACY. Conjuratio (the proper word): conspiratio (any association either for good or bad purposes). To form a conspiracy [vid. to CONSPIRE]: to discover a conspiracy, conjurationem invenire atque deprehendere: conjurationem detegere (of a non-conspirator): conjuriationem patefacere or prodere (on the part of a member): to suppress a conspiracy, conjurationem opprimere: privy to a conspiracy, conjurationis conscius, or (from context) conscius only.

"CONSPIRATOR. Conjuratus: conjurationis particeps or socius: the conspirators, conjurati; conjurationis globus.

"CONSPIRE. Conjurare: conjurationem facere (the proper word): conspirare (to join for a certain purpose in general). To conspire with any body, conjurare cum aliquo: to conspire against any body or any thing, conjurare contra aliquem or aliquid: conspirare in aliquem or aliquid; for accomplishing a certain purpose, conjurare de aliqua re facienda or in aliquid; conspirare in or ad aliquid: to conspire against any body's life, conjurare de aliquo interficiendo or in alicujus mortem: conspirare in alicujus caedem." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 133. [Emphasis added.] See also Psalm 2:2-3; 5:10; 31:13; 71:10; 83:3; 107:11.

{8} "758. ARCHON. Present participle of 757; a first (in rank or power):--chief (ruler), magistrate, prince, ruler." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Prince=ruler. Greek archon; applied to Satan as prince of this world (kosmos) three times, here, 14:30, and 16:11; as prince of the demons in Matthew 12:24; Mark 3:22; and as prince of the power of the air Ephesians 2:2. The same word is used in Revelation 1:5 of the Lord. The prince of this world was a well-known Rabbinical term (Sar ha olam, prince of the age) for Satan, 'the angel,' as they say, 'into whose hands the whole world is delivered.' See Dr. John Lightfoot's Works, xii, p. 369." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1551.

"arcwn, one first in power, authority or dominion; hence, a ruler, lord, prince, chief person." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 602.

{9} See KOSMOS, Pages ten and eleven.

{10} "2983. LAMBANO. A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [properly objective or active, to get hold of; whereas 1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while 138 is more violent, to seize or remove]):--accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, X when I call, catch, come on (X unto), + forget, have, hold, obtain, receive (X after), take (away, up)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Received=accepted (from a giver). Not the same word as in verse 11." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1513.

"lambanw, to take, take hold of, apprehend, to take or receive from another [*involves recognition of the Giver]; to take what is given [*involves recognition of What is being given]; hence, receive, pointing to an objective reception, (see number seven).

"decomai, to take to one's self what is presented or brought by another, to accept, embrace, receive hospitably; admit, approve, allow. It implies a subjective reception, showing that a decision of the will has taken place with respect to the object presented, and that the acceptance manifests it." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 626.

{11} 1849. EXOUSIA. From 1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:--authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength." Strong's Greek Dictionary."

"EXOUSIA; denotes freedom of action, right to act; used of God, it is absolute, unrestricted, e.g., Luke 12:5 (R.V. marg., "authority"); in Acts 1:7 'right of disposal' is what is indicated; used of men, authority is delegated. Angelic beings are called "powers" in Eph. 3:10 (cp. 1:21); 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15 (cp. 2:10). See AUTHORITY, No. 1, se also PRINCIPALITY." William Edwy Vine, Expository Dict. of New Testament Words, p. 878.

"exousia, (from exesti, it is allowed, one can, it is permitted, denying the presence of a hindrance) delegated authority, liberty, or authority to do any thing; combining the two ideas of right and might." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 598.

"exousia is not merely possibility or ability, but legitimate right derived from a competent source--the Word." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, p. 872.

{12} "5043. TEKNON. From the base of 5098; a child (as produced):--child, daughter, son." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"teknon, that which is born, (from tektw, to bear; like Anglo-Saxon, bearn; Scottish, bairn, from beran, to bear) a child, whether son or daughter; often used as a term of endearment, dear child." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 717.

{13} "4100. PISTEUO. From 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one's spiritual well-being to Christ):-- believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"pisteuw, be persuaded, to rely upon, to trust; (not used in the Classics religiously, but nomizo.) The New Testament conception of faith is (i) a fully convinced acknowledgment, (ii) a self-surrendering fellowship, (iii) a fully assured and unswerving confidence." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 95.

{14} "3686. ONOMA. From a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (compare 3685); a 'name' (literally or figuratively) [authority, character]:--called, (+ sur-)name(-d)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"onoma, the name by which a person or thing is called. In phrases 'called Simon,' it is literally by name Simon." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 129.

"Name (onoma). See on Matthew 28:19. Expressing the sum of the qualities which mark the nature or character of a person. To believe in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, is to accept as true the revelation contained in that title. Compare 20:31." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, p. 873.

{15} "536. APARCHE. From a comp. of 575 and 756; a beginning of sacrifice, i.e. the (Jewish) first-fruit (fig.):-- firstfruits." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"536. ap-archwith a reference to the moral creation effected by Christianity all the Christians of that age called aparch tij (a kind of firstfruits). James 1:18." Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (1885), p. 54.

"aparch, an offering of first-fruits; then, an offering generally. In New Testament plural, first-fruits which were consecrated to God, (non occ.)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 289.

"FIRSTFRUITS. Noun. Aparche. Denotes, primarily, an offering of firstfruits (akin to aparchomai, to make a beginning; in sacrifices, to offer firstfruits). 'Though the English word is plural in each of its occurrences save Rom. 11:16, the Greek word is always singular. Two Hebrew words are thus translated, one meaning the chief or principal part, e.g., Num. 18:12; Prov. 3:9; the other, the earliest ripe of the crop or of the tree, e.g., Exodus 23:16; Nehemiah 10:35; they are found together, e.g., in Exodus 23:19, 'the first of the firstfruits.'

"'The term is applied in things spiritual, (a) to the presence of the Holy Spirit with the believer as the firstfruits of the full harvest of the Cross, Romans 8:23; (b) to Christ Himself in resurrection in relation to all believers who have fallen asleep, 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; (c) to the earliest believers in a country in relation to those of their countrymen subsequently converted, Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; (d) to the believers of this age in relation to the whole of the redeemed, 2 Thess. 2:13 (see note below) and Jas. 1:18. Cp. Rev. 14:4.'

"Notes: (1) In Jas. 1:15 the qualifying phrase, 'a kind of,' may suggest a certain falling short, on the part of those mentioned, of what they might be. (2) In 2 Thess. 2:13, instead of ap'arches, 'from the beginning,' there is an alternative reading, well supported, viz., aparchen, '(God chose you) as firstfruits.'" William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository è Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{16} "7919. SAKAL. A primitive root; to be (causatively, make or act) circumspect and hence, intelligent: --consider, expert, instruct, prosper, (deal) prudent(-ly), (give) skill(-ful), have good success, teach, (have, make to) understand(-ing), wisdom, (be, behave self, consider, make) wise(- ly), guide wittingly." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{17} "3384. YARAH. Or (2 Chr. 26:15) yara; {yaw-raw'}; a primitive root; properly, to flow as water (i.e. to rain); transitively, to lay or throw (especially an arrow, i.e. to shoot); figuratively, to point out (as if by aiming the finger), to teach: -(+) archer, cast, direct, inform, instruct, lay, shew, shoot, teach(-er,-ing), through." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{18} "1870. DEREK. From 1869; a road (as trodden); figuratively, a course of life or mode of action, often adverb: -along, away, because of, + by, conversation, custom, [east-]ward, journey, manner, passenger, through, toward, [high-] [path-]way[-side], whither[-soever]." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{19} "3289. YA`ATS. A primitive root; to advise; reflexively, to deliberate or resolve: -advertise, take advise, advise (well), consult, (give, take) counsel(-lor), determine, devise, guide, purpose." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{20} "5869. `AYIN. Probably a primitive word; an eye (literally or figuratively); by analogy, a fountain (as the eye of the landscape):--affliction, outward appearance, + before, + think best, colour, conceit, + be content, countenance, + displease, eye([-brow], [-d], -sight), face, + favour, fountain, furrow [from the margin], X him, + humble, knowledge, look, (+ well), X me, open(-ly), + (not) please, presence, + regard, resemblance, sight, X thee, X them, + think, X us, well, X you(-rselves)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary. See also Psalm 36:9; John 4:14.

{21} "4077. PEGE. Probably from 4078 (through the idea of gushing plumply); a fount (literally or figuratively), i.e. source or supply (of water, blood, enjoyment) (not necessarily the original spring): --fountain, well." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"phgh, a spring, a well, hence, fount, source, (occurs John 4:6 twice, 11; 2 Peter 2:17)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 306.

To show the importance in Law of what is related here to us, the natural man admits that the source, cause and origin of any thing is the principal thing, to wit;

"Unumquodque est id quod est principalius in ipso --That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2166.

"Causa et origo est materia negotii --The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

Note now that in John 7:38 Christ declares He is the Fountain of living water, Life itself--for the Law favors the life of a man.

{22} In this connection it is worthy to note that the Christ is confirming what He had written before, to wit;

"The Divine Spirit is that which formed me [*see Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 41:4], and the breath (pneuma) of the Almighty [*not philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, seminary morphosis] that which teaches me [*see Matthew 11:28-30].." Job 33:4 (LXX).

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Job 33:4. (KJV)

{23} "phos=light (underived and absolute); the opposite of darkness. Used therefore specially of God (John 1:4, 5; 8:12; 1 John 1:5, &c.)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 130, 1.

{24} "1285. BRIYTH. From 1262 (in the sense of cutting [like 1254]); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): -confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], coven- ant, league." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dict.

{25} "1004. BAYITH. Probably from 1129 abbreviated; a house (in the greatest variation of applications, especially family, etc.):--court, daughter, door, + dungeon, family, + forth of, X great as would contain, hangings, home[born], [winter]house(-hold), inside(-ward), palace, place, + prison, + steward, + tablet, temple, web, + within(-out)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{26} "1081. GENNEMA. From 1080; offspring; by analogy, produce (literally or figuratively):--fruit, generation." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"gennhma, that which is produced, as a child, fruits of the earth; hence, progeny, offspring." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the è English and Greek N T (1908), p. 316.

"Generation. Offspring or brood. Compare 3:7; 23:33." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1335.

"1080. GENNAO. From a variation of 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

The ancestors or predecessors in spirit of these are those who Eve met and to whom she fell prey in Genesis 3. See also 2 Timothy 3:6.

{27} "2714. CHEQER. From 2713; examination, enumeration, deliberation: -finding out, number, [un-]search(-able, -ed, out, -ing)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dict.

"r (1) searching, investigation, Job 34:24. r ]y that which cannot be sought out, Proverbs 25:3; hence used of any thing that is innumerable, Job 5:9; 9:10; 36:26; also deliberation, Judges 5:16.

"(2) that which is known by investigation, hidden, secret. Job 38:16, ,Oh r 'the most secret recesses of the sea.' Metaphorically Ol r Job 11:7, i.q. ta baqea tou qeou. [Professor Lee questions the propriety of this comparison on the ground of the Hebrew construction.]" William Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary (1847), p. 301.

{28} "7093. QETS. Contracted from 7112: an extremity; adverbially (with prepositional prefix) after: --+ after, (utmost) border, end, [in-]finite, X process." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{29} "33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge. So both A.V. and Rev., making depth govern riches, and riches govern wisdom and knowledge. Others, more simply, make the three genitives coordinate, and all governed by depth: the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge. "Like a traveler who has reached the summit of an Alpine ascent, the apostle turns and contemplates. Depths are at his feet, but waves of light illumine them, and there spreads all around an immense horizon which his eye commands" (Godet). Compare the conclusion of ch 8.

"Wisdom--knowledge (sofiaj--gnosewj). Used together only here, 1 Corinthians 12:8; Colossians 2:3. There is much difference of opinion as to the precise distinction. It is agreed on all hands that wisdom is the nobler attribute, being bound up with moral character as knowledge is not. Hence wisdom is ascribed in scripture only to God or to good men, unless it is used ironically. See 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6; Luke 10:21. Cicero calls wisdom 'the chief of all virtues.' The earlier distinction, as Augustine, is unsatisfactory: that wisdom is concerned with eternal things, and knowledge with things of sense; for gnwsij knowledge, is described as of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6); Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:8).

"As applied to human acquaintance with divine things, gnwsij knowledge, is the lower, sofia wisdom, the higher stage. Knowledge may issue in self-conceit. It is wisdom that builds up the man (1 Corinthians 8:1). As attributes of God, the distinction appears to be between general and special: the wisdom of God ruling everything in the best way for the best end; the knowledge of God, His wisdom as it contemplates the relations of things, and adopts means and methods. The wisdom forms the plan; the knowledge knows the ways of carrying it out." Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. III, pp. 168-169.

{30} "419. ANEXEREUNETOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of 1830; not searched out, i.e. (by implication) inscrutable:--unsearchable." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anexereunhtoj, which cannot be traced or searched out, inscrutable, (the opposite of "SEARCH," No. 1)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 834.

{31} "421. ANEXICHNIASTOS. From 1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2487; not tracked out, i.e. (by implication) untraceable:--past finding out; unsearchable." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"anexicniastoj, which cannot be explored, which cannot be tracked or followed out; (LXX for rqx ]ya Job 5:9; 9:10; 34:24), (occurs Romans 11:33)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), pp. 834-835

The Septuagint

Its History and Sacred character

Part Two

As we stated in the last Issue of Matters Concerning His Lawful Assembly, as additional information on the history of the Septuagint became available to us, we would print it. Below you will find several sources of information that we hope will give you a fuller understanding of just how vital the Septuagint is for every bondman of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and why the majority of the modern Babylonian "theologians" tend to consider it useful for little more than a door stop.

We have recently completed two radio broadcasts on the subject of the Septuagint, and by God's Grace, the tapes from those and two more broadcasts will be sent out with the next newsletter, and will also be available on request at any time.

"Septuagint (Latin: seventy; siglum: LXX; sometimes called the Old Greek or Proto-LXX translation) is the name of the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah; it later came to include the whole Old Testament and the Apocrypha. According to tradition it was prepared at the order of Ptolemy II (ca. 285-247 B.C.) in Alexandria, Egypt, by 70 (or 72) Hebrew elders, whence its name and symbol. It became the favored translation of the Old Testament in the early church and for this reason fell into disfavor among Jews. In Old Testament text-critical discussions, the symbol LXX often denotes the Lucianic recension of the LXX (Lucian d. A.D. 312), hence terms such as "Old Greek" or "Proto-LXX" refer to the earliest forms of the text. Further, "Proto-Lucian" (2nd-1st cent. B.C.) denotes a form of the Old Greek text revised in the direction of the Palestinian Hebrew text. Another early recension of the Old Greek is called the Proto-Theodotion or Kaige recension (1st cent. A.D. or earlier). By Jerome's day (ca. A.D. 400) there were three editions of the LXX called the Trifaria Varietas: the Hexaplaric text of Origen, another by Hesychius of Egypt, and Lucian's." Handbook of Biblical Criticism (2nd Ed. 1981), by Richard N. Soulen (John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia), pp.176-177.

From the Introduction to the Septuagint

"The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version has been so habitually known by the name of the "Septuagint," that the attempt of some "learned" men in modern times to introduce the designation of the Alexandrian version (as more correct) has been far from successful.

The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament. They used it as an honestly-made version in pretty general use at the time when they wrote. They did not on every occasion give an authoritative translation of each passage de novo (anew), but they used what was already familiar to the ears of converted Hellenists, when it was sufficiently accurate to suit the matter in hand. In fact, they used it as did their contemporary Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus, but not, however, with the blind implicitness of the former.

Another important point on which the Septuagint stands in close connection with the New Testament is the general phraseology of the version,--a phraseology in which the traces of Hebrew elements are most marked, but with regard to which we should mistake greatly if we supposed that it originated with the New Testament writers. Thus we may see that the study of the Septuagint is almost needful to any biblical scholar who wishes to estimate adequately the phraseology and usus loquendi of the New Testament.

Besides the direct citations in the New Testament in which the Septuagint is manifestly used, there are not a few passages in which it is clear that the train of expression has been formed on words and phrases of the Septuagint: thus an intimate acquaintance with this version becomes in a manner necessary on the part of an expositor who wishes to enter accurately into the scope of many parts of the New Testament.

After the diffusion of Christianity, copies of the Septuagint became widely dispersed amongst the new communities that were formed; so that before many years had elapsed this version must have been as much in the hands of Gentiles as of Jews.

The veneration with which the Jews had treated this version (as is shown in the case of Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them in argument; hence they decried the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority. As the Gentile Christians were generally unacquainted with Hebrew, they were unable to meet the Jews on the ground which they now took; and as the Gentile Christians at this time believed the most extraordinary [*supposed] legends of the origin of the version, so that they fully embraced the "opinions" of its authority and inspiration, they necessarily regarded the denial on the part of the Jews of its accuracy, as little less than blasphemy, and as a proof of their blindness.

In the course of the second century, three other complete versions of the Old Testament into Greek were executed; the first is of importance in this place, because of the manner in which it was afterwards connected with the Septuagint.

The first of the Greek versions of the Old Testament executed in the second century was that of Aquila. He is described as a Jew or Jewish proselyte of Pontus, and the date commonly attributed to his version is about the year A.D. 126. His translation is said to have been executed for the express purpose of opposing the authority of the Septuagint; his version was in consequence upheld by the Jews. His labor was evidently directed in opposing the passages which the Christians were accustomed to cite from the Septuagint as applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ.

We find amongst the members of the Eastern Churches who use the Greek language, that the Septuagint has been and is still so thoroughly received as authentic Scripture, that any effort to introduce amongst them versions which accurately represent the [*Masoretic] Hebrew (as has been attempted in modern times) has been wholly fruitless." Excerpts from the Introduction to the Septuagint (Greek to English), by Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich.).

Introduction from the King James,

Potter's Standard Edition (1810)

"The most remarkable translation of the Old Testament into Greek is called the Septuagint, which, if the opinion of some eminent writers is to be credited, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 270 years before the Christian era. At any rate, it is undoubtedly the most ancient that is now extant. The five books of Moses were translated first in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and others were added until the whole Old Testament was finished, and the version dates about two hundred and seventy years before the birth of Christ. The transcendent value of this version may be seen from the extensive usage that it obtained in Jewish synagogues, from the fact that our blessed Lord and the Apostles habitually quoted from it, and also from the fact that it helps to determine the state of the Hebrew text at the time when the version was made. Besides, it establishes beyond all doubt the point that our Lord and his inspired Apostles recognized the duty of rendering the Word into the vulgar tongue of all people, so that all men might in their own speech hear the wonderful things of the Lord.

All the authors of the New Testament appear to have written in the Greek language. That this tongue was already familiar to them as a vehicle to express God's inspired Word is evident from their frequent use of the Greek translation, the Septuagint, in quoting the Old Testament, and from the remarkable accordance of their style with the style of that ancient and precious version.

Introduction from

"Grammar of Septuagint Greek"

"The work of Origen might enlighten the "learned," but it did not affect the unique position held in the church by the Septuagint ever since it was taken over from the Hellenist Jews. We are familiar with the constant appeal made by the writers of the New Testament to 'Scripture,' an appeal couched in such words as 'It is written' or "As the Scripture saith.' In the great majority of cases the Scripture thus appealed to is undoubtedly the Septuagint; seldom, if ever, is it the Hebrew original. We have seen how, even before the Christian era, the Septuagint had acquired for itself the position of an inspired Book. Some four centuries after that era Augustine remarks that the Greek-speaking Christians for the most part did not even know whether there was any other Word of God than the Septuagint (D.D. XVIII, 43). So, when other nations became converted to Christianity and wanted the Scriptures in their own tongues, it was almost always the Septuagint which formed the basis of the translation. This was so in the case of the early Latin version, which was in use before the Vulgate; and it was so also in the case of the translations made into Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and other languages. The only exception to the rule is the first Syriac version, which was made direct from the Hebrew. When at the close of the fourth century Jerome had recourse to the Hebrew original in revising the accepted Latin text, the authority of the Septuagint stood in the way of the immediate acceptance of his work. 'The churches of Christ,' said Augustine, 'do not think that anyone is to be preferred to the authority of so many men chosen out by the High-priest Eleazar for the accomplishment of so great a work.'

Nevertheless, Jerome's revision did triumph in the end, and under the name of the Vulgate became the accepted text of the Roman Church. But the Vulgate itself is deeply tinctured by the Septuagint and has in its turn influenced our English Bible. Many of the names of Scripture characters, e.g. Balaam and Samson, come to us from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew; our Bible often follows the verse-division of the Septuagint as against that of the Hebrew; the titles of the five books of Moses are derived from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew. Thus the Septuagint, while it still survives in the East, continued its reign even in the West through the Vulgate; nor was it until the time of the Reformation that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves began to be generally studied in Western Europe.

Never surely has a translation of any book exercised so profound an influence upon the world as the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This work has had more bearing upon ourselves than we are perhaps inclined to think.

In dealing with the Septuagint in and for itself we feel that we are in a humble way acting as pioneers, For hitherto the Septuagint has been regarded only as an aid to the understanding of the Hebrew. We have reversed that procedure and have regarded the Hebrew only as an aid to the understanding of the Septuagint. This would be in a strict sense preposterous, were it not for the admitted fact that the Greek translation of the Old Testament has occasionally preserved traces of readings which are manifestly superior to those of the Massoretic text. That text, it should be remembered, was constituted centuries after the Septuagint was already in vogue in the Greek-speaking portion of the Jewish and Christian world." Introduction to Grammar of Septuagint Greek (1905), by Conybeare and Stock.

"Septuagintism ("belonging to the Septuagint"). Words or phrases that are peculiar to or especially characteristic of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint; q. v.) and are used by New Testament writers in imitation (conscious or otherwise) of its style and expression are called Septuagintisms. Luke in particular appears to have cast history of the early church (the book of Acts) in the style of the LXX. The expressions "lifted up his voice," "let this be known," and "give ear" all in Acts 2:14 are examples of Septuagintisms. The subsequent speech by Peter (Acts 2:15-39) and another in 3:12-26 are generally recognized as Luken imitations of Septuagint Greek. A Septuagintism may be, but is not necessarily, also a Semitism. For example, Matthew's use of parthenos (virgin) in his quotation of Isa. 7:14 (Mt. 1:23) follows the LXX and may be termed a Septuagintism, since the Hebrew reading contains 'almäh meaning "a young woman." The use of parthenos is peculiar to the LXX and has nothing to do with Hebrew (Semitic) terminology or expression. This is one of the reasons 1st-2nd century Judaism rejected the LXX." Handbook of Biblical Criticism (2nd Ed. 1981), by Richard N. Soulen (John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia), p. 177.

"Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth"

by Ethelbert William Bullinger

The following was originally published in pamphlet form in the 1800's, and has been transcribed from The Selected Writings of E. W. Bullinger (1960) pages 33-42. This full article is available by download from the Library (under the file name CUTSTRAT.ZIP).

"There is no subject which can rank with this as of equal importance, if we are to have a right understanding, or even to approach a right understanding of the Word of God.

This blessed Word comes before us with various titles, and each title which God has given it brings with its own corresponding responsibility to our hearts. If it is called "the engrafted Word", as it is in James 1:21, we are to receive it. "Receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." That comes first.

Then it is called in Titus 1:9, "the faithful Word", and as the faithful Word, it is our duty and our privilege too, to hold it fast-"holding fast the faithful word." Just because it is faithful we can hold it fast for our soul's peace and our heart's comfort and strength.

Then in Philippians 2:16, it is called "the Word of life." What is our duty to it as the word of life, the life-giving word? Our duty is to hold it forth; "holding forth the Word of life", so that others may receive that life which it reveals, and that new life, eternal life, spiritual life, which it imparts.

But then it is called in 2 Timothy 2:15, "the Word of truth"; and with regard to the Word of truth our duty is to rightly divide it. You see how these responsibilities are divinely perfect. We are not told to rightly divide "the faithful word". We have to hold it fast. That is all. We are not told to hold fast the "Word of life". We are told to hold it forth that others may enjoy that life which it brought to us. And that which concerns us as to the "Word of truth" is the right division of it. This division refers, not merely to its inward truth, but it embraces even its outward form. Man always thinks he can improve upon what God has done. He has always got a better way. Whatever he may say, or whatever He may do, man's thoughts and man's ways are always the opposite of God's. Man will always attempt improvements, but his improvements always end in his own disaster.

God has given us a way of righteousness, but man has invented a way of his own, and those two ways are brought before us upon the very fore-front of Revelation, the way of God and the way of man-the one which Abel took and the other which Cain invented. These are the only ways from that moment to this.

God has given us a "blessed hope" in His Word. "That blessed hope" is not enough for man. He thinks he can improve upon that. So he has got a "larger hope". God's hope is not large enough for him. And so, whatever department you may take (even as to God's way of holiness), whatever line you may pursue, man thinks he can improve upon it, and he always tries to.

Now, as to the outward form of the Word, man has attempted to improve upon God's order and arrangement. The ancient division, the right division, of the Word of God has come down to us from the earliest times, and it has been endorsed by the testimony of the Lord Jesus Himself, as consisting of three great divisions-"the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms." That does not do for man. Man arranges them differently! He has made four divisions. He retains the Law-i.e. the five books of Moses, the Pentateuch-(though he is now trying to make six books instead of five, and call it the "Hexateuch"), and he retains the Prophets, but he has made two new divisions. He has pout the historical books together, and what he calls the Poetical books!

And then, with regard to the books themselves, they have come down to us in a Divine order and a Divine number. They have come down to us in twenty-four books. But man has made them into thirty-nine. Twenty-four books did not do for man, so he divides some of them up and makes them into thirty-nine. And then as to the division of the books themselves. They come down to us already divided, and may we not say, rightly divided, for those divisions form part of the text itself. What comes to us was written almost by the finger of God, written by the agency of men, the Holy Ghost using human instruments; and the division comes to us with the same authority as the words which are divided.

Those divisions are of two kinds. They are called Open sections and Closed sections, and correspond to our larger and smaller paragraphs. These come to us with the text, and as part of the text itself, and I know of no authority which gives me the right to take the one and leave the other. I know of no authority which can authorize me to take the words and reject the form in which the words come to us. And then there is a further division, for the Verses are as ancient as any other part of it. I mean the verses of the Hebrew. They do not correspond to man's verses altogether. Man has got his own verses, of course. He made them about the middle of the thirteenth century, and at about the same time he invented some other divisions, which are called chapters, but these are all entirely human, entirely Gentile.

Then there are other divisions which are more human in their origin, but still ancient and Jewish. These correspond with our ecclesiastical lessons: The Parashyoth and Sedarim answering to our first Lesson, and the Haphtaroth to our second Lesson. The Parashyoth are peculiar to the Pentateuch alone, peculiar to the Law. There are fifty-four of these divisions in the five books of the law. The name given to them and written in most of the manuscripts "Parashyoth" is from "parash", to divide. Of these fifty-four divisions there are twelve in Genesis, eleven in Exodus, ten in Numbers, ten in Leviticus, and eleven in Deuteronomy.

And then you have another kind of division running through the whole of the Old Testament. It is further divided into shorter Lessons, and these are called "Sedarim", from the verb "sadar", to arrange in order. This is the way in which the Old Testament is arranged with a view to its being read through in three years; while the other division, or the Parashyoth, is a division of the Law for its being read through in one year. So you see that the idea of our Bible-reading unions that divides up the whole Bible into certain portions for every day is no new or modern idea, though it is very different, of course, from these ancient and authoritative divisions which we have here. There are four hundred fifty-two of these smaller divisions called Sedarim (one hundred sixty-seven in the Law, two hundred four in the Prophets, and eighty-one in the other books which are called by the name of the Psalms). The Lord Jesus calls them the Psalms and they are so called because the Psalms form the first great book in that division.

You see, therefore, what we lose and suffer to-day from wrongly dividing the word of truth, even as to its outward form. We all suffer from man's attempt at improvement in thus wrongly dividing this precious "Word of truth". All the divisions of the manuscripts and of the printed Hebrew text faithfully followed the divisions which have thus come down to us, and it was not until the year 1517 that the Jews first adopted the Gentile or so-called "Christian" chapters, and disfigured the Hebrew Bible by the pernicious practice which has been adopted in all subsequent editions. The Complutensian Polyglot was the first to notice the chapters, but then only in the margin; and the next great edition of the Hebrew Bible, by Felix Pratensis, marked them in the margin only. He still kept the text in its integrity. It was left for Arias Montanus, who, in 1517, in a Bible printed in Antwerp, was the first to actually break up the Hebrew text and to make it conform to the order and to the divisions which man had imposed upon it. This was the work of Gentiles, and was certainly not "rightly dividing the Word of truth", with which men were dealing.

But however important the right division of the outward form of the word may be, the right division of the inward truth is of infinitely greater importance. Just because it is "the Word TRUTH" it is important, and I believe that just in proportion as we rightly divide it, in that proportion we arrive at the "truth". If we, as students of this Word, differ in our apprehensions of the truth of God, it arises from the fact that we do not divide it in the same manner-that not one of us divides it altogether rightly. It is only in that measure in which we divide it rightly that we can approach the truth. It is "the Word of TRUTH": it is the fountain of "truth". It not only contains the truth, but it is the truth itself-not merely "the Word" as a whole, but "the words" which go to make it up. We have the authority of the Holy Ghost for his in Jeremiah 15:16, where Jeremiah says by the Spirit, "Thy WORDS were found, and I did eat them, and Thy WORD was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart". And so with our blessed Lord Himself. You remember in John 17, the closing words of His earthly ministry, the words in which he delivered up His office of Prophet, when he had finished His work, there was the same three-fold reference to the Word of truth that you have in the opening of His ministry; for His first ministerial words, the first words of His office as Prophet, were these: "It is written it is written it is written"-three times repeated. And in His last words, in which He gave up His office of Prophet, and could say, "I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do," He says, in the seventeenth verse (John 17), "Thy word is truth"; and in the fourteenth verse, "I have given them Thy word"; and in the eighth verse, "I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me". So I say we not only have to deal with the Word as a whole, but with the words which make up that Word, and therefore we see the wonderful importance of "rightly dividing" it.

This precept is especially addressed to God's workmen. In verse fifteen of this chapter (2 Timothy 2) we have God's "workman", and these are the instructions given to God's workman. The "workman" of verse fifteen corresponds in the structure of the passage with Jehovah "servant" at the end of the chapter. God's workman has his instructions, and the Lord's servant has his instructions also. He is not to strive with words with those who oppose themselves. Those who oppose themselves need instruction, and so it says, "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves." If they knew a little more they would not oppose. And, therefore, the Lord's servant has to be encouraged in instructing those who oppose themselves. But God's "workman" is to be guided by the great principle of "rightly dividing the Word of truth". In consequence of this and in immediate connection with it in the context, you have those "who, concerning the truth, have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already"; so that they did not divide the truth rightly, you see, with regard to the doctrine of the resurrection.

This word is addressed to God's "workman" for two reasons; first, that he may be approved unto God, "Study to show thyself approved unto God", to please God; and, secondly, that he may attain to the truth. Therefore it follows that, if we do not divide it rightly, we can neither find the truth, neither can we please God as His workmen. Hence you will perceive the wonderful importance of this great and blessed subject.

The phrase "rightly dividing", occurs nowhere else in the whole of the New Testament, and only twice in the Greek of the Old Testament. As it occurs only twice, you may as well have the passages, because they will throw light upon the meaning of the word. The first is in Psalm 119:128, where you see the inner force and meaning of it. "Therefore I esteem all Thy precepts concerning all things to be right", i.e. "I esteem as right all Thy precepts concerning all things", which means I rightly divide off Jehovah's precepts from the precepts of man. The precepts of man may or may not be right. Jehovah's precepts, therefore, must be rightly divided and separated off from all other precepts, and they are divided rightly.

Again, in Proverbs 3:6, "In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct" (the word is thus translated here), i.e. "He shall rightly divide thy ways". They will only be rightly divided, and they will only be right, and they will only be pleasing to Him, when they are thus rightly divided off from all other ways.

So I repeat that we have here more than a hint that, if we do not rightly divide the word, we shall not find the truth; neither shall we please God in our dealings with that truth; and certainly we shall not be "approved" unto Him as workmen, but on the contrary we shall be very much ashamed of ourselves. It says, "a workman that needeth not be ashamed"; and if we do not rightly divide the word, we shall have great reason to be ashamed.

Now when we come to add the New Testament to the Old, we perceive other phenomena with regard to the right division of it. The moment you put the New Testament, as we call it, to the Old, you have these two great divisions. But we have no business with the word "Testament", either as the "Old Testament" or the "New Testament". Testament is a Latin word and has no connection whatever with the word "Covenant". When you put the two so-called "Covenants" together we have the whole Bible-the whole Word of God; and when we look at it as a whole, we notice that all through there is one great subject running from the beginning to the end, and that is the coming of the Coming One. From Genesis 3:15, the coming of "the seed of the woman" is the one great subject which develops into the promise and prophecy of the coming King and His Kingdom. Then in the Gospels we have not so much the beginning of the New, but we have the completion of the Old Testament. We have the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise and prophecy, the story of the coming of the King, and the proclamation of the kingdom. We have, alas! something more-we have the rejection of both. This is the sum and substance of the historical records of the four Gospels!

And then passing on and over to the Apocalypse, you have the same King and the same kingdom set up and established with Divine power and judgment, and the fulfillment, too, of all those Old Testament prophecies concerning the King and the kingdom. But this division, if it is aright one, leaves a large portion of the New Testament unaccounted for. Hence we have the Epistles coming in between the rejection of the King and the establishment of the kingdom; and filling up a great gap, a great parenthesis between the rejection of the kingdom and the establishment of the kingdom in Divine judgment and power. Further, we have in the Acts of the Apostles, the transitional history between the rejection of the King in the Gospels and the establishment of the church of God among the Gentiles.

It is customary with most readers of the Scriptures, and the very great majority of Christians, to take all the Bible as referring to all time and to all persons. They make no division whatsoever! The result must, of course, be error and confusion, and it cannot be truth. How important, for example, is that we should divide it according to the three great subjects of the word which concern one or other of three great divisions of mankind. What God hath separated and divided we must not join together, any more than we may separate what God has joined together. You have that which concerns "the Jew", that which concerns "the Gentile", and that which concerns "the church of God" (1 Corinthians 10:32). Now, if we read the one into the other, and take that which is addressed to the one as though it was addressed to the other, the result must be confusion, because we are not rightly dividing the great subject matter of the Word. And then, again, unless in our reading we distinguish between the two covenants, the covenant of Mount Sinai and the covenant of Mount Sion, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, there must be confusion. If, in our reading or hearing publicly such Scriptures as the Book of Deuteronomy or the Prophet Ezekiel we interpret them of ourselves, and do not rightly divide them, we put ourselves immediately under the covenant of works. We lose sight of our standing in Christ; we lose sight of our standing in grace, and of all that grace has done for us, and all that grace has given us; and then we get into confusion as to the truth and into distress as to our peace.

Hence we have to distinguish between the Scriptures even of the New Testament, those that speak of our "standing", and those that refer to our "state"; those that refer to the position that God has given us in Christ, and those which relate to our walk before men in this world. If we mix them together, or if we read the one into the other, there is confusion, there is error, and there is not truth; and we suffer because we do not rightly divide the Word. Still more important is the error that arises from not rightly dividing the Word as to its dispensations-as to its times and seasons. Of course this refers only to interpretation, not to application. Truth is eternal; it is written from the beginning, for example, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee"; that is eternally true of God to all His people, and, therefore, though that promise refers, by interpretation, to the person or persons to whom it was said at the time, there is an eternal application of it to the very end of time for all who have the Lord for their God; but all application of God's Word must be governed by the analogy of truth, and we must not take a portion that refers to one people, spoken at one time, and interpret it as though it referred equally to another people at another time.

Take, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount. What great confusion is caused among Christians, and especially among infidels, who are never tired of bringing before us the Sermon the Mount. You see, they do not know any thing about rightly dividing the Word. The so-called "Sermon on the Mount" was spoken during that part of the ministry of the Lord which was occupied with the proclamation of the kingdom. But the King and the Kingdom were rejected, and, therefore, those precepts are in abeyance. Precepts must always be interpreted with reference to the occasion when, and the persons to whom they were given; and they may be applied to other occasions and persons only so far as may be consistent and in harmony with them. For example, other precepts given by our Lord during His ministry were abrogated even before the close of it! He told His Apostles when they proclaimed the kingdom (Matthew 10:7-10), "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in you purses; nor scrip for your journey; neither two coats, nor yet staves"; but after the kingdom had been finally rejected and the King was about to be crucified, He said (Luke 22:36), "But Now, he that hath a purse let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and by one". This proves beyond all controversy that those precepts given in the Sermon on the Mount refer to the period during which the kingdom was being proclaimed, and will apply again only when the time shall come to preach, "the Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matthew 24:14). Meantime they are in abeyance, while the kingdom itself is in abeyance. When the kingdom is on the point of being set up, what does it matter to the proclaimers of it whether they have two coats or one, purse or no purse, scrip or no scrip? All will be theirs directly when the King is enthroned.

Our lot is cast during the days when the kingdom is rejected, and therefore the precepts which refer to the period of its proclamation must not interpreted of ourselves. We have our special precepts as members of "the church of God", given us by the same Lord and Christ after He had ascended up into glory in the Pauline Epistles and addressed to the churches. We, therefore, who have our standing in Christ, have nothing to do with that Sermon on the Mount, by way of interpretation. All the truth and all the Divine principles which are in it we can apply, of course, to ourselves, but all the special precepts are in abeyance until the kingdom shall be again proclaimed. So that if we are to obey the words of Christ, we are directed to hear, not those words in the Sermon on the Mount (which are now postponed), but the words which the Spirit has specially addressed to the churches in the Epistles especially sent and written for their instruction and guidance.

And so with other passages: with Matthew 24, for example, which refers to the great Tribulation. If we read that into the present dispensation, and take what is said there as being for our guidance, there will be only confusion and error. We must not read a subsequent revelation into a previous revelation which is perfectly complete without it, which can be perfectly well understood, and which was perfectly well understood by those to whom it was addressed. And if we do read a subsequent revelation into a previous one, we only introduce both confusion and error.

And now, of course, time fails to illustrate the way in which this important principle may be applied to such a subject, for example, as the Resurrection; rightly dividing what is said concerning the resurrection of "Christ, the firstfruits, afterwards they that are Christ's at His coming, and then the end"; utterly doing away with the modern and erroneous idea of a so-called "general resurrection", which assumes that all who have died will rise at one and the same time.

Rightly dividing also what it says with regard to the JUDGMENTS in 2 Corinthians 5, in Matthew 25, and in Revelation 20, which each takes place under different circumstances, and at different times; and with regard to different persons, with different rewards and awards. You can see how far-reaching and how important is the great principle involved in "rightly dividing the Word of truth."

And it is a dividing word, dear friends, as well as a word to be divided. It is a word which divides us. We have not only to rightly divide the Word, but this Word rightly divides us. It pierces even to the dividing asunder of joints and marrow. It divides us in ourselves; it divides us collectively amongst one another. That is true of us to-day, as it was true in the days when our Lord was upon earth. It says, "There was a division among the people because of Him".

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words.

World/Kosmos (Kosmoj) -- Age/Aion (aiwn)

"Kosmoj is now a convertible term with 'darkness.' The kosmoj rejects light, is perverse and deceitful. This is the kosmoj that those who lose their souls (Matthew 16:26; Luke 9:25; Mark 8:36) and whose fashion is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:31), which consists of the lusts of the flesh, of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).

"Kosmoj frankly is the godless rout (1 John 4:3) who hate the children of God and whose works are evil; they can neither know nor receive the Holy Ghost and afford no peace to the disciples (John 7:7; 14:17, 27; 15:18; 17:14). [*see also Wisdom 2.] Their wisdom [*(of the world) philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, ad nauseam] brings no knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 1:21). Their values are not His (1 Corinthians 1:21-28). A believer will keep well away from them (James 1:27), for to be their friend is to be an enemy of God (James 4:4), and He will judge the kosmoj (John 12:31). A gap opens between such people and Christ's disciples who are not of the kosmoj and are 'called out' of it (John 15:19) [*this is the meaning of the ekklhsia]. They are in it because it is the place of their tribulation (John 16:33); yet they are dead to all of it, and all of it is dead to them (Galatians 6:14). If they love it, the love of God is not in them (1 John 2:15), for the whole kosmoj lies in the embrace of the wicked one (1 John 5:19).The deadly weapon against the kosmoj is faith [*see Revelation 12:11]." Nigel Turner, Christian Words (1981), p. 499.

"Kosmoj, the first of these words our Translators have rendered 'world' in every instance but one (1 Peter 3:3); aiwn the second often, though by no means invariably so; for (not to speak of eij aiwna) see Ephesians 2:2, 7; Colossians 1:26. It may be a question whether we might not have made more use of 'age' in our Version [*King James]: we have employed it but rarely,--only, indeed, in the two places which I have cited last. 'Age' may sound to us inadequate now; but it is quite possible that, so used, it would little by little have expanded and adapted itself to the larger meaning of the word for which it stood. One must regret that, by this or some other like device, our Translators did not mark the difference between kosmoj, the world contemplated under aspects of space, and aiwn, the same contemplated under aspects of time--kosmoj 'mundus' and aiwn 'seculum'; for the Latin, like the Greek, has two words, where we have, or have acted as though we had, only one. In all those passages (such as Matthew 13:39; 1 Corinthians 10:11) which speak of the end or consummation of the aiwn (there are none which speak of the end of the kosmoj), as in others which speak of 'the wisdom of this world (1 Corinthians 2:6), 'the god of this world' (2 Corinthians 4:4), 'the children of this world (Luke 16:8), it must be admitted that we are losers by the course which we have adopted.

"Kosmoj, connected with komein, 'comere,' 'comptus,' has a history of much interest in more aspects than one. Suidas traces four successive significations through which it passed: shmainei de o kosmoj tessara enprepeian, tode to pan, phn taxin, to plhqoj para the Grafh. Originally signifying 'ornament,' and obtaining this meaning only once in the New Testament (1 Peter 3:3), where it is rendered 'adorning,' and hardly obtaining any other in the Old (Isaiah 51:19; Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 7:20; Ecclesiasticus 43:9); from this it passed to that of order, or arrangement ('lucidus ordo'), or beauty as springing out of these; enprepeia and taxij, as Suidas gives it above, or kallwpismoj, kataskeuh, taxij, katastasij, kalloj, as Hesychius. Pythagoras is recorded as the first who transferred kosmoj to the sum of the material universe (for a history of this transfer see a note in Humboldt's Cosmos, 1846, English edition p. 371), desiring thereby to express his sense of the beauty and order which are every where to be traced therein: so Plutarch (De Plac. Phil. i. 5) tells us; while others report that he called by this name not the whole material universe, but only the heaven; claiming for it this name on the same ground, namely, on that of the well-ordered arrangement which was visible therein (Diogenes Laertius, viii. 48); and we often find the word so used; as by Plato (Tim. 28 b), who yet employs it also in the larger and what we might call more ideal sense, as embracing and including within itself, and in the bonds of one communion and fellowship heaven and earth and gods and men (Gorg. 508 a; Pliny, Hist. Nat. ii. 3). 'Mundus' in Latin,--'digestio et ordinatio singularum quarumque rerum formatarum et distinctarum,' as Augustine (De Gen. ad Lit. c. 3) calls it,--followed, as is familiar to all, in nearly the same track as the Greek kosmoj; giving occasion to plays of words, such as 'O munde immunde,' in which the same illustrious Church teacher delights. Thus Pliny (H. N. ii. 3): 'Quem kosmon Græce nomini ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolutaque elegantia mundum;' cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 22. From this signification of kosmoj as the material universe, which is frequent in Scripture (Matthew 13:35; John 17:5; 21:25; Acts 17:4; Romans 1:20), followed that of kosmoj as that framework of things in which man lives and moves, which exists for him and of which he constitutes the centre (John 16:21; 1 Corinthians 14:10; 1 John 3:17); and then the men themselves, the sum of those living in the world (John 1:29; 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:19); and then upon this, and ethically, all not of the ecclhsia [*Lawful assembly], alienated from the life of God and by wicked works enemies to Him (John 1:10; 1 Corinthians 1:20, 21; James 4:4; 1 John 3:13). On this last use of kosmoj, and on the fact that it should have been utterly strange to the entire heathen world, which had no sense of this opposition between God and man, the holy and unholy, and that the same should have been latent and not distinctly called out even in the Old Testament, on all this there are some admirable remarks by Zezschwitz, Profangracitat und Bibl. Sprachgeist, pp. 21-24; while on these various meanings of kosmoj, and on the serious confusions which, if not carefully watched against, may arise therefrom, Augustine (Con. Jul. Pelag. vi. 3, 4) may be consulted with advantage.

"We must reject the etymology of aiwn which Aristotle (De Cl. i. 9) propounds: apo ton aei einai eilhfwj thn epwnumian. It is more probably connected with aw, ahmi, to breathe. Like kosmoj it has a primary and physical, and then, superinduced on this, a secondary and ethical, sense. In its primary, it signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken duration; oftentimes in classical Greek the duration of a human life (=bioj, for which it is exchanged, Xenophon, Cyrop. iii. 3. 24; cf. Plato, Legg. iii. 701 c; Sophocles, Elect. 1085; pagklauton aiwna eilon: Pindar, Olymp. ii. 120: adakrun nemontai aiwna); but essentially time as the condition under which all created things exist, and the measure of their existence; thus Theodoret: o aiwn ouk ouaia tij estin, all anupostaton crhma, sumparomartoun toij gennhthv ecousi fusin kaleitai gar aiwn kai to apo thj ton kosmou sustasewj mecri thj sunteleiaj diasthma.--aiwn toinun esti to the ktisth fusei parezengmenon diasthma. Thus signifying time, it comes presently to signify all which exists in the world under conditions of time; 'die Totalitat desjenigen, was sich in der Dauer der Zeit ausserlich darstellt, die Welt, sofern sie sich in der Zeit bewegt' (C. L. W. Grimm; thus see Wisdom 13:8; 14:6; 18:4; Eccles. 3:11); and then, more ethically, the course and current of the world's affairs. But this course and current being full of sin, it is nothing wonderful that aiwn autoj, set over against o aiwn ekeinoj (Luke 22:35), oaiwn ercomenoj (Mark 10:30), o aiwn mellwn (Matthew 12:32), acquires presently, like kosmoj, an unfavourable significance. The barileiai tou kosmou of Matthew 4:8 are basileiai tou aiwnoj toutou (Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. 6); God has delivered us by His Son ex enestwtoj aiwnoj ponhron (Galatians 1:4); Satan is qeoj tou aiwnoj toutou (2 Corinthians 4:4; cf. Ignatius, Ep. ad Magn. I: o arcwn tou aiwnoj toutou); sinners walk kata ton aiwna tou kosmou toutou, too weakly translated in our Version, as in those preceding, 'the course of this world' (Ephesians 2:2). The last is a particularly instructive passage, for in it both the words which we are discriminating occur together; Bengel excellently remarking: 'aiwn et kosmoj differunt. Ille hunc regit et quasi informat: kosmoj est quiddam exterius, aiwn subtilius. Tempus [=aiwn] dicitur non solum physice, sed etiam moraliter, connotata qualitate hominum in eo viventium; et sic aiwn dicit ongam temporum seriem, ubi ætas mala malam ætatem excipit.' Compare Windischmann (on Galatians 1:4): 'aiwn darf aber durchaus nicht bloss als Zeit gefasst werden, sondern begreift alles in der Zeit befangene; die Welt und ihre Herrlichkeit, die Menschen und ihr naturliches unerlostes Thun und Treiben in sich, im Constraste zu dem hier nur beginnenden, seiner Sehnuscht und Vollendung nach aber jenseitigen und ewigen, Reiche des Messias.' We speak of 'the times,' attaching to the word an ethical signification; or, still more to the point, 'the age,' 'the spirit or genius of the age,' der Zeitgeist.' All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, at any time current in the world, which it is impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,--all this is included in the aiwn, which is, as Bengel has expressed it, the subtle informing spirit of the kosmoj, or world of men who are living alienated and apart from God. 'Seculum,' in Latin, has acquired the same sense, as in that well-known epigram of Tacitus (Germ. 19), 'Corrumpere et corrumpi seculum vocatur.'

"It must be freely admitted that there are two passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews which will not range themselves according to the distinction here drawn between aiwn and kosmoj, namely 1:2 and 11:3. In both of these [*206] aiwnej are the worlds contemplated, if not entirely, yet beyond question mainly, under other aspects than those of time. Some indeed, especially modern Socinian expositors, though not without forerunners who had no such motives as theirs, have attempted to explain aiwnej at Hebrews 1:3, as the successive dispensations, the cronoi kai kairoi of the divine economy. But however plausible this explanation might have been if this verse had stood alone, 11:3 is decisive that the aiwnej in both passages can only be, as we have rendered it, 'the worlds,' and not 'the ages.' I have called these the only two exceptions, for I cannot accept 1 Timothy 1:17 as a third; where aiwnej must denote, not 'the worlds' in the usual concrete meaning of the term, but, according to the more usual temporal meaning of aiwn in the New Testament, 'the ages,' the temporal periods whose sum and aggregate adumbrate the conception of eternity. The basileuj twn aiwnwn will thus be the sovereign dispenser and disposer of the ages of the world (See Ellicott, in loco.)" Richard Chevenix Trench, Trench's New Testament Synonyms (1871), pp. 201-206.

Bits and Pieces

True Worship

"That which marks off true worship from false, from the very beginning, [*is found) in the oldest lesson which is given and written on the very forefront of revelation (Gen. iv.). Abel, in the obedience of faith, worshipped God, as He must of commanded; for he worshipped "by faith," and "faith cometh by hearing." Cain worshipped according to his own invention; he "brought of the fruit of the ground"; of which the LORD God had said (ch. iii. 17), "Cursed is the ground." "The way of Cain" (Jude 11) was, therefore, to offer to God, in worship, that which He put under the curse.

The flesh is under the curse. It has no place in Divine worship. True worshippers are they who "worship God in spirit, .... and have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. iii.3): "The flesh profitteth nothing" (John. vi. 63).

Sensuous worship, i.e.: any worship which is the effort of the flesh, or any of our senses; is a direct insult to God; and is that to which He will "not have respect." It must be an abomination in His sight.

To put anything to be looked at; to perform anything to be listened to; to burn anything to be smelt; to do anything to be admired and make the people say "How beautiful!" is not true worship. It may be called so, it may bear any name that men may be pleased to give it, but it is not what is here [*John 4:23-24] defined as the worship which God "seeketh," or as the worship which "must" be rendered by the "true worshipper."

Those who make so much of what they call 'the teaching of Jesus' would do well to read, mark, learn, study, and obey this, which is His teaching concerning true worship." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit (1905), pp. 104-106.

Our Father

"Tetragrammaton (Greek: "having four letters") is the name of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH, usually written Yahweh or Jahweh, and translated "Lord." Following the Exile (539 B.C.) it became the most sacred name for God among the Jews and was not pronounced, the Hebrew term for Lord (Adonai) being pronounced in its stead. In English translations it is now the standard convention always to translate the Tetragrammaton with capital letters, so KJV, RSV, NEB, NASV, NAB, etc. The Jerusalem Bible employs the Masoretic proper noun, Yahweh. The word Jehovah is an artificial term dating from the 16th century and is a combination of the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton with the vowels of the Hebrew word Adonai; it is found in early editions of the KJV, in the ASV, et al. Where the convention above is followed, the Hebrew divine name Elohim is translated "God." Handbook of Biblical Criticism (2nd Ed. 1981), by Richard N. Soulen, pp.191-192.

The New Baptism

"Acts 19:4 'Then said Paul,

John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the pneuma the hagion, came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.'

The articles refer us back to verse 2. The fifth verse is usually taken as the resumption of the narrative of Luke; as though Luke went on to give an account of what Paul did after what he had said in verse 4. But we believe that in verse 5 we have the continuation of the words of Paul, and of what Paul was saying. Paul (in vv. 4, 5) is telling these Ephesian believers what John said and did. It is not Luke, breaking off suddenly, and telling us, in verse 5, what Paul did.

It is important for us to define who are "they" of verse 5.

Who were "they"? Were they those who heard John, or those who were listening to Paul? We believe they were those who heard John, and not those who heard Paul: otherwise we have here the only case of re-baptism mentioned in the New Testament: which, to say the least, is rather startling.

Paul finds no fault with John's baptism; for it was "from heaven." But he says that they were baptized unto repentance and in the faith of a coming Messiah; and goes on to speak of the faith of those who heard John as evidenced by their being baptized into the name of Him who John said should come after him; i.e., in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is not till verse 6 that Luke again takes up and goes on with his account of what Paul did, after he has told us what Paul had said, in verse 4 and 5.

[*Of verse 6] These were the spiritual gifts which they received with the laying on of Paul's hands. The articles are used grammatically to refer us back to the pneuma hagion of verse 2. It does not say that Paul re-baptized them. The contrast is not between John's baptism with water, and Paul's re-baptism with water; but between John's baptism with water (vv. 4, 5), and Paul's baptism with pneuma hagion (v. 6).

'Laying on of hands' was one of the 'first principles' of the 'doctrine of Christ' (Heb. vi. 1-4. Compare 1 Tim. iv. 14, 2 Tim. i. 6). It was a solemn act of public and authoritative sanction and designation. Paul exercised it here in the bestowal of spiritual gifts, after he had told them what John said and did, and had thus shown the difference between John's baptism with water, and the new baptism with pneuma hagion, instituted by Christ." E. W. Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit (1905), pp. 104-106.

Authorized by which authorizer?

"Current forms of the Authorized King James Version derive, not from the 1611, but from the revision of Blayney in 1769. Between eighty thousand and one hundred thousand alterations were made to bring the version into conformity with Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755." The Westminster Dict. of Church History (1971), page 112.

The Kingdom of Self

"Emancipation, n. A bondman's change from the tyranny of another to the despotism of himself."

He was a slave: at word he went and came;

His iron collar cut him to the bone.

The Liberty erased his owner's name,

Tightened the rivets and inscribed his own.

From The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, page 30.

"Peace of God"

"A declaration originating late in the 10th century of the immunity from military attack of particular holy places or specific holy personages. It was taken up as a divine command and made part of the ecclesiastical law. In time it became part of the penitential system and is to be differentiated from the secular Public Peace declared by the emperor and from the Truce of God." The Dict. of Church History (1971), p. 643.

The Bulwark of Modern Evangelism

"Emotion, n. A prostrating disease caused by a determination of the heart to the head. It is sometimes accompanied by a copious discharge of hydrated chloride of sodium from the eyes." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 30.

Issue the Fiftieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part One...

The Spiritually Dead and the Tools of their Trade, Part Four...

The Religion of the Romans...

The 2000 Census Form...

The Missing Zip Codes of the general post-office...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Unincorporated Church so-called

Part One

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

In an article titled "Unincorporated Associations and Religious Societies" in Issue the Thirty-fourth of The Christian Jural Society News we had written concerning the church the necessary and continual avoidance of minimum contacts with the State and its lex mercatoria. It is suggested that the contents of that article be reviewed.

This writing is a follow-up on that article and, hopefully, will shed some further light on a subject that is of paramount importance for those whom our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ has gathered together in His Name for His purposes.

We made the statement in the previous article that "being unincorporated or unregistered is not sufficient to avoid the Roman Imperial State's regulations and taxing authority, though it is a beginning." That beginning must be continued until the particular area church is "unspotted from the world" by no longer operating according to the ways of the world. We hope that the information herein will be a partial guide toward discontinuing those ways.

We must first begin by pointing out that our Lord did not designate His church to be either incorporated or unincorporated. As a catalyst for the natural man's continual effort to mask the True church, these are the created designations of the Hegelian dialect, i.e., when you argue over two lies you still end up with a lie, but to the ignorant it looks like the truth.

Again, we must point out that our Lord did not found a Christian Church, the Christian religion, or Christianity. Those self-defining designations created by the natural man are not found in Scripture. As He said:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Note that there is no mention or allusion to the Christian Church, the Christian religion or Christianity. The "rock" spoken of, of course, is Christ Himself, for in the original Greek text, the word there is petra (petra) meaning "a mass of rock," or metaphorically, "a foundation that no man can lay," as distinct from petros (petros, [Peter]), "a detached stone or boulder," or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved, as was Peter's character.

There are two religions mentioned in Scripture. The first is the religion of the Jews (Judaism, see Acts 26:5 and Galatians 1:13-14) and the second, literally:

"If anyone among you seems to be religious, not bridling [*restraining, holding in check] his tongue, but deceiving his heart, of this one vain is the religion.
Religion pure and undefiled before God and the Father is: to visit orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." James 1:26-27 (Berry)

In the King James it is "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

The only religious activity His bondmen and servants are to adhere to or engage in is clear from the above. All else is of the religion of the Jews and the heathen, and as Brother Paul said, should be counted but dung (see Philippians ch. 3).

Concerning the meeting place of His Lawful assemblies, as contrasted with those of the Christian religion, we offer the following:

Over the past nineteen-plus centuries since the bondmen in and of Christ Jesus abandoned the synagogues, tabernacles and temples made with the hands of their earthly fathers and began to be gathered together in His Name, wherever that may of occurred (be it houses, caves, on a hillside, etc.), there has been a continual walking away from His mode of congregating His remnant together, toward an organized commercial system based on the ways the natural man. We have examples of where His assembled may have been found prior to making merchandise of His body:

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:38
"As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." Acts 8:3
"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house." 1 Corinthians 16:19
"Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house." Colossians 4:15

It was not until the fourth century, shortly after "The Church" joined the Roman State at the Council of Nicea, that the first Basilica was built for the Christian religion. All ancient and modern definitions of "basilica" show that it is a commercial building for commercial purposes.

From the heathen-based idea of the basilicas and cathedrals, the Protestant Church created a facsimile, known as "a Church," or "a Christian Church." Like the Roman Catholic Church, they designated their buildings made with men's hands to be "the House of God" and a place of sanctity and sanctuary. But the Word of God says otherwise:

"Thus saith the LORD, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what kind of a house will ye build Me? and of what kind the place of My rest? For all these things are Mine, saith the LORD: and to whom will I have respect, but to the humble and meek, and the man that trembles at My words?" Isa. 66:1-2 (LXX).
"Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool: what house will ye build Me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of My rest? Hath not My hand made all these things?" Acts 7:48-50
"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" Acts 17:24
"We have such an High Priest, Who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Hebrews 8:1b-2

And further we are told in the original Greek texts that:

"For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20 (Berry)

In the King James version, it reads "in My name." But the word in the Greek is eij, which should be translated "unto," as is with the Berry literal rendering.

eij in this case means:

"eij, a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into. Metaphorically, I. retains the force of entering into anything. 1. where one thing is said to be changed into another [translated sometimes by unto], to mark the limit reached, or where one sets foot." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 183.

In the aftermath of following the Roman Catholic Church's way of establishing a commercial center of worship under the designation of "a Church," the so-called Protestant Church decided to continue to "do business" under the State in the same manner as the Popish Church, and went one step further. It developed the Humanistic concepts of "The Common Schools," "Secondary Schools," "Sunday Schools," and other methods of immersing God's children in the commercial world and the things of the world. The only school found in Scripture is that of one Tyrannus (tyrant) at Acts 19:9.

The earthly fathers of our Father's little ones forgot our His admonitions:

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life. Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:3-6

And we are told in what way that is:

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4

Is it any wonder that the State, when pulling these self-defined "unincorporated churches" into court, usually designate them to be an "unincorporated association," not "a church" or a member of "the True church," because an unincorporated association is defined by the State to be:

"a body or collection of persons who have united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations, for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise, and who are called, for convenience, by a common name." Morrissey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 56 S. Ct. 289, 296 U.S. 344.

The marks of the world become obvious. "Persons united or joined together, without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by corporations" describes those who have assembled together through self-will, not through Christ Jesus, for: (1), He is not a respecter of persons, and (2), it is not assembled according to His ways, but according to the methods and forms of a corporation, and (3), they are joined together "for the prosecution of some business or common enterprise," i.e. making merchandise of Him; and not for His purposes or for His glory, and (4). they "are called, for convenience, by a common name," meaning that they are not called by Him, but are self-defined "for convenience," i.e. commercial purposes.

And the signs leading up to the marks of the world become obvious, i.e., bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, receipts, employees, salaried pastors, etc., all instruments of the world, created by the world for those who are engaged in an enterprise for profit-sake.

Again, the State reveals:

"Where the association is organized for commercial purposes, and operated for pecuniary (monetary) profit, it is no more than a partnership, and the rights and liabilities incident to that relation attach to its members, as well between the members themselves." Chastain v. Baxter, 31 P.2d 21.

We are warned about those who purport to be "the church," but are engaged in the activities of the world:

"Give no heed to a worthless woman; for honey drops from the lips of a harlot, who for a season pleases thy palate; but afterwards thou wilt find her more bitter than gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword. For the feet of folly lead those who deal with her down to the grave with death; and her steps are not established. For she goes not upon the paths of life; but her ways are slippery, and not easily known." Proverbs 5:3-6 (LXX)

The harlot (in the Greek porne) spoken of above is the same harlot spoken of in Revelation 17.

"4204. Harlot. pornh. 1. prop. a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain, (Arstph., Dem., al.). 2. Hebraistically" Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 632.
"Harlot. porne, (fem. of pornos, from pernaw, to sell) a harlot, (occ. Rev. xvii. 1, 15, 16; xix. 2)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 353.
"Harlot. 4204. porne (por'-nay); feminine of 4205; a strumpet; figuratively, an idolater: KJV-- harlot, whore." Strong's Greek Dictionary.
"Harlot. 2181. zanah (zaw-naw'); a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):" Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dict.
"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh." 1 Corinthians 6:15-16

The Spiritually Dead

and the tools of their trade

Part Four

written solely by the Grace of God in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ,

by John Joseph and Randy Lee

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are at the end of this article)

If men needed only hermeneutics (the letter, and not the Spirit), theology and seminary morphosis, what was the cause for Christ's revelation (not conjecture, theory, speculation, interpretation, presupposition, ad nauseam) of Him? For what cause would the Christ have sent the Comforter to guide us? Bear witness, if you can. The Spirit witnesses, to wit;

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?" Job 38:4 & 36. See also Jeremiah 31:33.
"Where wast thou when I founded the earth? Tell Me now, if thou hast knowledgeAnd who has given to women skill in weaving, or knowledge of embroidery?" Job 38:4 & 36 (LXX).
"Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it." Job 40:2.
"Will any one pervert judgment with the Mighty One? and he that reproves God, let him return it for answer." Job 39:32 (LXX).
"Because the foolishness{1} of God is wiser than men [*and their philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis]; and the weakness{2} of God is stronger than men [*and their philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis]." 1 Corinthians 1:25.

Further, the Spirit of God witnesses that hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis are dead and quench the Spirit, and not to be used by the bondman in Christ, to wit;

"Who also hath made us able{3} ministers {4} [*executors{5}] of the new testament; not of the letter{6}, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life [*see also Hebrews 4:12; John 6:68]." 2 Corinthians 3:6.

It is God Who makes His ministers--not seminaries. See also John 1:12.

"who also made us competent servants [*executors] of a new covenant; not of letter, but of Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens [*see also Hebrews 4:12; John 6:68]." 2 Corinthians 3:6 (Berry).

Note the glaring lack of seminary certificates, diplomas, or qualifications to be a competent minister (executor) of the Word of God for Him Who calls, for all called and chosen by Him are His ministers--not those who graduate with consciences seared in the fires of Molech evidenced by sheepskins burned with letters, (Th.D., LL.D., D.D., Ph.D., ad nauseam) on them. What letters did Peter and John present to the Sanhedrin when they were brought before it? The Spirit witnesses, to wit;

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned{7} and ignorant{8} men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus [*not with the ways of the world]. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard [*Bear witness of the hermeneutics or theology used in this simple answer]. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God [*see Matthew 5:16] for that which was done." Acts 4:13-20.

What degree did or does Christ give you? And note that they could not prove they had knowledge of any thing in particular. But Peter and John could prove that the Pharisees had knowledge of God and the Christ, for they were with the Christ when He testified against them, and that they had studied the Scriptures. There is always joinder in Law through the Word of God that no man escapes. And, this is the Achilles heel of those who are of the world because they cannot escape the Testimony of God. See Romans 1:16-20--"for they are without excuse."

Further, the Word of God corroborating the Spirit, witnesses, to wit;

"It is the Spirit that quickeneth [*see also Hebrews 4:12; 2 Corinthians 3:6]; the flesh [*and its works of scholasticism, philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis] profiteth nothing [*see also Galatians 6:8] the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit [*not philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, reason, theory, logic, ad nauseam], and they are life [*and give Life not death]. But there are some of you that believe not [*the theologicians, schoolmen, those seminary morphosed of His day and our day]. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him." John 6:63-64.
"The Spirit it is which quickens, the flesh profits nothing [*see also Galatians 6:8]; the words which I speak to you, Spirit are and the life are; but there are of you some who believe not. For Jesus knew from beginning who they are who believe not, and who is he who shall deliver Him up." John 6:63-64 (Berry).

The Spirit of God witnesses that hermeneutics, philosophy, theology and seminary morphosis are vain babblings and confusion, to wit;

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Ecclesiastes 9:5.
"In Thee, O LORD, do I put my trust: let me never be put to confusion." Psalm 71:1.
"Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame, and the trust in the shadow{9} [*that which has appearance of Truth] of Egypt your confusion [*that builds the prison of sin]." Isaiah 30:3.

And those who put their trust in such dead convolutions are just like those dead convolutions, the Spirit bearing witness, to wit;

"our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the LORD [*not in theology, hermeneutics--all divinations--the ways of the heathen]: He is their help and their shield." Psalm 115:3-9.
"The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 135:15-18.

The Christ also chided the hermeneutically sound theologians and the seminary morphosed of His day, the Word bearing witness, to wit;

"And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased, And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?{10} And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and He lodged{11} there." Matthew 21:15-17.

And He shortly thereafter bore witness that they were spiritually dead;

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites{12} for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27.

And He also exposed their spiritually dead seminary doctrines, to wit:

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, 'What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He?' They say unto Him, 'The Son of David.' He saith unto them, 'How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, 'The LORD said unto My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool?' If David then call Him Lord, how then is He is Son? And no man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions." Matthew 22:42-46. See also Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-45. Note the number of this account--three.

And again, He bore witness that their hermeneutically sound theological doctrine is and was without power, and therefore, dead, to wit:

"And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?{13} But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him." Mark 3:4-6.14
"Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful{15} on the sabbath days to do good{16}, or to do evil{17}? to save life{18}, or to destroy{19} it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored{20} whole{21} as the other. And they were filled with madness{22}; and communed{23} one with another what they might do to Jesus [*the Way, the Truth, and the Life--John 14:6; and the light of the world--John 9:5]." Luke 6:9-11.

In other words, the pharisees witnessed that their philosophy, hermeneutics, and theology were opposed to the Word of God.{24}

And again, He bore witness that they were thieves of God's inheritance and that those in and of Him did not and do not hear them;

"All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them [*and their hermeneutically sound theological doctrines of death]." John 10:8. [*See also Ezekiel 34:1-3; Matthew 23:14 (devour widows' houses); 2 Timothy 3:5-7].

And again, He bore witness that they were blind leaders knowing nothing, having only a smattering of knowledge, not of God, but of men, and therefore not the Truth,

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:16 & 24.

And again, He bore witness that they hounded the flock of Christ to make merchandise of them, by destroying them, and to create more theologically-correct seminary morphosed Pharisees like themselves,

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell{25} than yourselves." Matthew 23:15.

And again, He bore witness that they were of the evil one sowing bad seed of philosophy, hermeneutics, and theology; and that they were leading others to their destruction, through their hermeneutically sound Spiritually dead theology, the Word bears witness, to wit;

"Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But He answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." Matthew 15:12-14.

And again, He bore witness that their doctrine was adulteration of the Word of God, and that we His bondmen are to avoid their ways, to wit;

"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." Matthew 16:6, 11 & 12.
"And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod{26}." Mark 8:15.
"In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy{27}." Luke 12:1.29

And again, He bore witness that they had not the witness of God our Father either in their works or in them because they never heard Him, to wit;

"And the Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Ye have neither heard{28} His voice{29} at any time, nor seen His shape{30} [*for God is a Spirit--they were natural men not having received the things of the Spirit of God--see 1 Corinthians 2:14]." John 5:37.

How do we know the pharisees were seminary morphosed hermeneutically sound theologians? The Spirit through our Brothers writing the Glad Tidings witnessed the Trial of our Master before the chief priests of the Sanhedrin composed of them, and later before Pilate. Also, the Spirit speaking through Brother Stephen bears witness, to wit;

"Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned{31} men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
"Then said the high priest, Are these things so?Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch{32}, and the star of your god{33} Remphan{34}, figures which ye made to worship them [*philosophy, theology, theory, speculation, presupposition, opinion, dogma, ad nauseam]: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." Acts 6:9-11 & 7:1, 42-43, 54. See also Amos 5:26-27.{35}

Dead hermeneutics, theology, and seminary morphosis are not knowledge in and of God; they are a smattering of or pretension to knowledge--sciolism. Who, then, will be entering the kingdom of God? The Word witnesses;

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3.
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14.
"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness [*not philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, and seminary morphosis], and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." Matthew 21:28-32.
"Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21. [*See also Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35; Romans 8:29. When was it our Father's will to follow the ways of the heathen?]

Those who put their faith in such fables, tales, fictions, ipsal dixal, vain babblings, Irish evidence, absurdities, vulgarities, pretensions and smatterings of knowledge found in hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis are cut off from the Promise, the Spirit and the Word witnessing, to wit;

"And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them." Isaiah 3:4.
"A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary." Jeremiah 17:12.
"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions [*see Genesis 1:28], and over all the power of the enemy [*philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, seminary morphosis]: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight." Luke 10:19-21.
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour [*through the acceptance of the things or ways of the world--philosophy, theology, hermeneutics, seminary morphosis], wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5:13.

Not those who put their faith in dead philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis--the ways of the heathen--again the Word witnessing,

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness{36} shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes{37} and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20.
"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matthew 21:43.
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation [*KJV marginal note: outward show--morphosis]:" Luke 17:20.

This is the deadly record of philosophy, hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis--powerless to give Life and therefore it is death being of sin. See Romans 14:23 and Romans 6:23 because it is from the forbidden tree--Genesis 2:17.

"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see [*by divinations, i.e. philosophy, hermeneutics, theology, theory, sciolism, prognostication, speculation, dogma, presupposition, ad nauseam]; therefore your sin remaineth." John 9:41.

What was the sin Christ referred to? Their empty and deceitful self-righteousness, the mark of Cain (see Genesis 4). The Spirit and the Word bearing witness, to wit:

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain{38}; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." Exodus 20:7. [*See also Deut 5:11].
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14.
"And He said unto them in His doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation." Mark 12:38-40.

Therefore, place not your faith in the ways of the heathen, i.e. divinations, a.k.a. hermeneutically sound theology, which the natural man learned during the days of captivity in Egypt, Babylon, and later under the Romans (see Pages thirteen and fourteen).

In all the reading and searching the Scripture, we have never found where God's people ever had seminaries. We have read where the pagans had seminaries and places of worship; the bondman of Christ Jesus needs none of them, for he and his brethren, His Body, are the temple of the Holy Ghost of God and the Spirit dwells within them, not in or from places made with the hands of men. See Acts 7:48; 17:24; 19:26; 2 Corinthians 5:1.Hebrews 9:11 & 24.

"Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:31.
"Ye shall not attend to those who have in them divining spirits, nor attach yourselves to enchanters, to pollute yourselves with them: I am the Lord your God." Leviticus 19:31 (LXX).

Endnotes

{1} "3474. MOROS. Probably from the base of 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{2} "772. ASTHENES. From 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4599; strengthless (in various applications, literal, figurative and moral):--more feeble, impotent, sick, without strength, weak(-er, -ness, thing)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{3} "2427. HIKANOO. From 2425; to enable, i.e. qualify:--make able (meet)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"hikanow, to make sufficient, or fit, to make competent, to qualify." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 19.

{4} "1249. DIAKONOS. For which see DEACON and Note there on synonymous words, is translated 'servant' or 'servants' in Matt. 22:13 (RV marg., 'ministers'); 23:11 (RV marg., ditto); Mark 9:35, KJV (RV, 'minister'); John 2:5, 9; 12:26; Rom. 16:1." William Edwy Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"1249. DIAKONOS. Probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands; compare 1377); an attendant, i.e. (genitive case) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess):--deacon, minister, servant." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{5} "Testament is an appointment [*see John 13:18 & 15:16] of some person [*bondman in Christ], whom we call an executor, to administer them for him after his death. For without naming executors, or [*168] if they all refuse it, it is no will at all;therefore executors represent the person of the testator [*note John 10:30]." Finch, Law or a Discourse Thereof (1767), pp. 167-168.

"Things accessory [*His bondmen] are of the nature of the principal [*the Christ in whose name they are sent]. Finch, Law, b. 1, c. 3, n. 25." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957 & 1968), p. 1650.

{6} "gramma, a picture, literally, the written, i.e. something written or cut in with the stylus in the ancient manner of writing, a letter of the alphabet; hence, any thing written, a writing, a bill, bond, note, letter." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 451.

{7} "62. AGRAMMATOS. From 1 (as negative particle) and 1121; unlettered, i.e. illiterate:--unlearned." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Unlearned (agrammatoi). Or, very literally, unlettered. With special reference to Rabbinic culture, absence of which was conspicuous in Peter's address." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies.

{8} "2399. IDIOTES. From 2398; a private person, i.e. (by implication) an ignoramus (compare 'idiot'):--ignorant, rude, unlearned." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"Ignorant=obscure. Greek idiotes. Literally unprofessional. Only here, 1 Corinthians 14:16, 23, 24." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1584.

"Ignorant (idiwtai). Originally, on in a private station, as opposed to one in office or in public affairs. Therefore, one without professional knowledge, a layman; thence, generally, ignorant, ill-informed; sometimes plebeian, common. In the absence of certainty it is as well to retain the meaning given by the A. V., perhaps with a slight emphasis on the want of professional knowledge. Compare 1 Corinthians 14:16, 23, 24; 2 Corinthians 11:6." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies.

In light of the foregoing, the Pharisees knew that,

"Ignorantia praesumitur ubi scientia non probatur--Ignorance is presumed when knowledge is not proved." Ballentine, Ballentine's Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary (1948), p. 394.

{9} "6738. TSEL. From 6751; shade, whether literal or figurative:--defence, shade(-ow)." Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary.

{10} See the Septuagint (LXX) for this quote--it does not read this way in the KJV. Did the Christ establish the KJV by this quote?]

{11} "Lodged=passed the night (in the open air)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1356. [*This implies a temporary location--not a residing].

{12} "5273 HUPOKRITES. Hypocrite. Corresponding to the above, primarily denotes 'one who answers'; then, 'a stage-actor'; it was a custom for Greek and Roman actors to speak in large masks with mechanical devices for augmenting the force of the voice; hence the word became used metaphorically of 'a dissembler, a hypocrite.' It is found only in the Synoptists, and always used by the Lord, fifteen times in Matthew; elsewhere, Mark 7:6; Luke 6:42; 11:44 (in some mss.); 12:56; 13:15." William Edwy Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"Hypocrites (upokritai). From uJpokrinw, to separate gradually; so of separating the truth from a mass of falsehood, and thence to subject to inquiry, and, as a result of this, to expound or interpret what is elicited. Then, to reply to inquiry, and so to answer on the state, to speak in dialogue, to act. From this the transition is easy to assuming, feigning, playing a part. The hypocrite is, therefore, etymologically, an actor." Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1891), vol. I, p. 150.

{13} The question of the Christ is a familiar one to the natural man. The natural man knows from his own maxims that,

"La ley favour la vie d'un home--The law favors the life of a man." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1014.

Therefore, the issue before the pharisees was the same one in Genesis 3 and the one James presents to us in his epistle: "Show me your faith without your works [*a pretension of faith], and I will show you my faith by my works [*a working living faith in Spirit and Truth]." Because the pneuma of God is life, Christ was showing us here that theology has not life and is incapable of giving life because it opposes God, the Giver of all Life. Christ also testifies to us that,

"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10.

Theology, then, is a tool of a thief. See also 1 Kings 18 and Acts 19.

{14} Christ was fulfilling what the Pharisees of His day and our day could not and can not by their doctrines of vanity, to wit,

"Behold the voice of the cry of the daughter of my people because of them that dwell in a far country: Is not the LORD in Zion? is not her king in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities? The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved [*note the fig tree where Christ passed by seeking fruit!]. For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me. Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Jeremiah 8:19-22.

{15} "1832. EXESTI. Third person singular present indicative of a compound of 1537 and 1510; so also exon {ex-on'}; neuter present participle of the same (with or without some form of 1510 expressed); impersonally, it is right (through the figurative idea of being out in public):--be lawful, let, X may(-est)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{16} "15. AGATHOPOIEO. From 17; to be a well-doer (as a favor or a duty):--(when) do good (well)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{17} "2554. KAKOPOIEO. From 2555; to be a bad-doer, i.e. (objectively) to injure, or (genitive) to sin: --do(ing) evil." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{18} "5590. PSUCHE. from 5594; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit, abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the one hand from 4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other from 2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to the Hebrew 5315, 7307 and 2416):--heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"5590. PSUCHE. gen. psuches, fem. noun from psucho (5594), to breathe, blow. Soul, that immaterial part of man held in common with animals. One's understanding of this word's relationship to related terms is contingent upon his position regarding Biblical anthropology. Dichotomists view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), material and immaterial, with spirit and soul denoting the immaterial and bearing only a functional and not a metaphysical difference. Trichotomists also view man as consisting of two parts (or substances), but with spirit and soul representing in some contexts a real subdivision of the immaterial. This latter view is here adopted. Accordingly, psuche is contrasted to soma (4983), body, and pneuma (4151), spirit (1 Thess 5:23). The psuche, no less than the sarx (4561), flesh, belongs to the lower region of man's being. Sometimes psuche stands for the immaterial part of man made up of the soul (psuche in the restrictive sense of the life element), and the spirit pneuma. However animals are not said to possess a spirit; this is only in man, giving him the ability to communicate with God. Also breath (Sept.: Gen 1:30; Job 41:12), and in the NY, usually means the vital breath, the life element through which the body lives and feels, the principle of life manifested in the breath." Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament (1992), pp. 1494. [*Compare Strong's Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary number 5315 (w, nephesh). Accordingly, the soul is the receiver of the Spirit of God through Christ; or the spirit of Satan through anti-Christ].

{19} "622. APOLLUMI. From 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{20} "600. APOKATHISTEMI. From 575 and 2525; to reconstitute (in health, home or organization): --restore (again)." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{21} "5199. HUGIES. From the base of 837; healthy, i.e. well (in body); figuratively, true (in doctrine): --sound, whole." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{22} "454. ANOIA. From a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and 3563; stupidity; by implication, rage: --folly, madness." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{23} "1255. DIALALEO. From 1223 and 2980; to talk throughout a company, i.e. converse or (genitive case) publish:--commune, noise abroad." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

{24} Note the following from Job, and this is why the Christ was angry with them,

"How hast thou helped him that is without power? how savest thou the arm that hath no strength?" Job 26:2. [*An arm that has no strength is a withered arm].

This exposes their non-execution of His righteousness and the execution of their self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement. Clearly hermeneutics, theology and seminary morphosis are powerless to execute His Testimony. See also Ezekiel 34:4.

{25} "1067. GEENA. Of Hebrew origin [1516 and 2011]; valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment:--hell." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"geenna, Gehenna. [Greek for cntyn, Ghi-Hinnom, or valley of Hinnom, Joshua 15:8, where was the scene of the Moloch worship tpt (tophet, i.e. abomination.) 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 2:23; 7:31; 19:6 &c. Hence desecrated by Josiah, 2 Kings 23:10. The name was not derived from the worship of Moloch, but from the later use of the burning of carrion, by means of ever-burning fire, Jeremiah 31:40; Isaiah 66:24; Malachi 4:1, with Luke 17:29, 30; Matthew 13:40,) for the notion of a devouring judgment fire, which was current prior to the possible employment of Gehenna in this sense, (Leviticus 10:2; Numbers 16:35; 2 Kings 1, &c.)]." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 367.

"1067. HELL. Noun. Geenna. Represents the Hebrew Ge-Hinnom (the valley of Tophet) and a corresponding Aramaic word; it is found twelve times in the NT, eleven of which are in the Synoptists, in every instance as uttered by the Lord Himself. He who says to his brother, Thou fool (see under FOOL), will be in danger of 'the hell of fire,' Matt. 5:22; it is better to pluck out (a metaphorical description of irrevocable law) an eye that causes its possessor to stumble, than that his 'whole body be cast into hell,' v. 29; similarly with the hand, v. 30; in Matt. 18:8, 9, the admonitions are repeated, with an additional mention of the foot; here, too, the warning concerns the person himself (for which obviously the 'body' stands in chapt. 5); in v. 8, 'the eternal fire' is mentioned as the doom, the character of the region standing for the region itself, the two being combined in the phrase 'the hell of fire,' v. 9. To the passage in Matt. 18, that in Mark 9:43-47, is parallel; here to the word 'hell' are applied the extended descriptions 'the unquenchable fire' and 'where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.' That God, 'after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell,' is assigned as a reason why He should be feared with the fear that keeps from evil doing, Luke 12:5; the parallel passage to this in Matt. 10:28 declares, not the casting in, but the doom which follows, namely, the destruction (not the loss of being, but of well-being) of 'both soul and body.' In Matt. 23 the Lord denounces the scribes and Pharisees, who in proselytizing a person 'make him two-fold more a son of hell' than themselves (v. 15), the phrase here being expressive of moral characteristics, and declares the impossibility of their escaping 'the judgment of hell,' v. 33. In Jas. 3:6 'hell' is described as the source of the evil done by misuse of the tongue; here the word stands for the powers of darkness, whose characteristics and destiny are those of 'hell.' For terms descriptive of 'hell,' see e.g., Matt. 13:42; 25:46; Phil. 3:19; 2 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 10:39; 2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 13; Rev. 2:11; 19:20; 20:6, 10, 14; 21:8. Notes: (1) For the rendering 'hell' as a translation of hades, corresponding to Sheol, wrongly rendered 'the grave' and 'hell,' see HADES. (2) The verb tartaroo, translated 'cast down to hell' in 2 Pet. 2:4, signifies to consign to Tartarus, which is neither Sheol nor hades nor hell, but the place where those angels whose special sin is referred to in that passage are confined 'to be reserved unto judgment'; the region is described as 'pits of darkness.' RV." William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

"GEHENNA. The Greek transliteration of the Aramaic gehinnam, which itself goes back to the Hebrew ge hinnom: 'Valley of Hinnom' (also 'valley of the son (sons) of Hinnom'; cf. II Chr. 28:3; II Kings 23:10, etc). Original reference was to a valley to the south and west of Jerusalem. Near where this valley joined the Kidron Valley, on the south and east, was Topheth, early site of Baal worship and the abominable practice of sacrifice of children to Molech (cf. II Kings 16:3 and 21:6 for involvement respectively of Ahaz and Manasseh; and II Kings 23:10 for condemnation by Josiah, the reformer king). In Jer. 7:32 and 19:6 is the prophecy that this place of shame will become the place of punishment by God.

"Because of such associations, by the first century B.C. gehenna came to be used metaphorically for the hell of fire, the place of everlasting punishment for the wicked. This understanding is discernible in Jewish apocalyptic literature (e.g. II Esd. 7:36). Talmudic literature abounds in references to gehenna with fascinating opinions, e.g., that the depth of gehenna is immeasurable or that the sinner is relegated to a depth commensurate with his wickedness. References to a fiery hell are found in both Philo and Josephus and also in the Qumran literature.

"Of the twelve occurrences of gehenna in the NT eleven are in the Synoptic Gospels and one in James. All the Synoptic references are to words of Jesus and have the same meaning as above. In addition to the word itself, scholars agree that there are several occurrences of the concept, e.g., Matt. 25:41 and Rev. 20:4. Gehenna shares some common ground with Hades/Sheol; however, the latter is more consistently the interim abode of both good and bad souls after death prior to judgment, while gehenna is the final and everlasting place of punishment for the wicked following the last judgment.

"The numerous references to gehenna tell forcefully against a doctrine of universalism. Attempts to soften or ignore this material concerning the lot of those who refuse to repent of sin constitute distortion of the biblical witness. V. CRUZ. See also ETERNAL PUNISHMENT; HELL; HADES; SHEOL. Bibliography. H. Bietenhard, NIDNTT, II, 205-10; L. Blau, Jewish Encylopedia, V, 582-83; H. Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment; L. Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment." Elwell's Evangelical Dic tionary.

"HINNOM, VALLEY OF. Known also as the valley of the son of Hinnom or of the children of Hinnom. A valley at Jerusalem, near the gate of potsherds (Jer. 19:2, R.V. marg.; not east gate as in the A.V.). The boundary between Judah and Benjamin passed from En-rogel to the valley of the son of Hinnom to the s. side of Jerusalem, and thence to the top of the mountain which faces the valley of Hinnom from the w., and is at the outermost part of the vale of Rephaim (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). If the term 'shoulder of the Jebusite (the same is Jerusalem)' includes the hill on the w. of the Tyropoeon Valley, and not merely the Temple hill; in other words, if the term denotes the plateau which juts out s. between the great encircling wadies, and which was not only crowned by the citiadel of the Jebusites, but also occupied by their dwellings without the walls and by their fields, then the description in the Book of Joshua identifies the valley of Hinnom with at least the lower part of the valley which bounds Jerusalem on the s., and is now known as the wadi er-Rababi, near its junction with the ravine of the Kidron. At the high place of Tophet, in the valley of Hinnom, parents made their children pass through the fire to Molech. Ahaz and Manasseh were guilty of this abomination (2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6). Jeremiah foretold that God would visit this awful wickedness with sore judgment, and would cause such a destruction of the people that the valley would become known as the valley of slaughter (Jer. 7:31-34; 19:2, 6; 32:35). Josiah defiled the high place to render it unfit for even idolatrous rites and thus to stop the sacrifices (2 Kings 23:10). From the horrors of its fires, and from its pollution by Josiah, perhaps also because offal was burnt there, the valley became a type of sin and woe, and the Heb. name Ge ben-Hinnom (in Ge-Hinnom), corrupted into Gehenna, passed into use as a designation for the place of eternal punishment." Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944), p. 247.

"the child of hell=a son of Gehenna. A Hebraism=Gehenna's people." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1362.

This is the prison that Isaiah 61:1-3 refers to and from which all who have received Him and do His Will are set at liberty, their righteousness being of Him alone, and not the dead of the Valley of Hinnom and its hermenutically sound seminary morphosed.

{26} "2264. HERODES. Compound of heros (a 'hero') and 1491; heroic; Herod, the name of four Jewish kings:--Herod." Strong's Greek Dictionary. [*This says it all concerning "hero-worship"=Herod worship].

{27} "5272. HUPOKRISIS. Hypocrisy. Primarily denotes 'a reply, an answer' (akin to hupokrinomai, 'to answer'); then, 'play-acting,' as the actors spoke in dialogue; hence, 'pretence, hypocrisy'; it is translated 'hypocrisy' in Matt. 23:28; Mark 12:15; Luke 12:1; 1 Tim. 4:2; the plural in 1 Pet. 2:1. For Gal. 2:13 and anupokritos, "without hypocrisy," in Jas. 3:17, see DISSIMULATION." William Edwy Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

{28} "191. AKOUO. A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): --give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"akouw, to hear, intransitive, to have the faculty of hearing; transitive, to hear, perceive with the ears; to give ear, listen; to hear, i.e., to learn by hearing, be informed." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 360.

{29} "5456. PHONE. Probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure; a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by implication, an address (for any purpose), saying or language:--noise, sound, voice." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"fwnh, a sound, a tone, as given forth or uttered; hence, a voice, a cry." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 850.

{30} "1491. EIDOS. From 1492; a view, i.e. form (literally or figuratively):--appearance, fashion, shape, sight." Strong's Greek Dict- ionary.

"eidoj, the thing seen, external appearance, form, shape." Ethelbert William Bullinger, è A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 690.

"Voice-Shape. Not referring to the descent of the dove and the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism, but generally and figuratively to God's witness in the Old Testament Scriptures. This is in harmony with the succeeding reference to the word." M. R. Vincent, Vincent's New Testament Word Studies (1888), vol. II, p. 960.

{31} "SUBORN. hupoballo 5260, "to throw or put under, to subject," denoted "to suggest, whisper, prompt"; hence, "to instigate," translated "suborned" in Acts 6:11. To "suborn" in the legal sense is to procure a person who will take a false oath. The idea of making suggestions is probably present in this use of the word." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words.

{32}"Molech. Always has the article (except 1 Kings 11:7, which is probably a copyist's omission) denoting the king, or the king-idol." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 159.

"IDOLS OF THE MIND. The four idols distinguished by Francis Bacon are the idols of the tribe, den, market, and theatre. Idols in this sense are eidola, the transient, and therefore to Bacon erroneous, images of things. (I) Idols of the tribe are general tendencies to be deceived, inherent in our nature as human beings. They include uncritical reliance on sense perception, and tendencies to over-generalize or jump to conclusions and ignore countervailing evidence against our views. (II) Idols of the den are distortions arising from our particular perspectives (the metaphor is that of Plato's myth of the cave); the corrective is to remember that whatever our mind 'seizes and dwells upon with peculiar satisfaction is to be held in suspicion.' (III) Idols of the market-place are errors that come in the course of communication with others: misunderstanding arising through abuses of words. (IV) Idols of the theatre are the errors introduced by theories: the abstract schemata of Aristotelianism, and the introduction of theological notions into science. Bacon here compared philosophical and religious systems to theatrical, and therefore fantastical, representations of the world." Oxford's Dictionary of Philosophy (1994), p. 186.

{33} "the star of your god, or, your star-god." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1239. (B)

{34} "REMPHAN, Acts 7:43, and CHIUN, Amos 5:26 have been supposed to be names of an idol worshipped secret ly by the Israelites in the wilderness. Much difficulty has been ocasioned by this corresponding occurrence of two names so wholly different in sound. The most reasonable opinion seems to be that Chiun was a Hebrew or Semitic name, and Remphan an Egyptian equivalent substituted by the LXX [*Septuagint.]. This idol corresponded probably to Saturn or Molech. The mention of Chiun or Remphan as worshipped in the desert shows that this idolatry was, in part at least, that of foreigners, and no doubt of those settled in lower Egypt." William Smith, Smith's Bible Dictionary, p. 561.

"CHIUN. The Egyptian or Greek equivalent was Remphan (Sept. Raiphan; anothe r spelling preserved in the Sept. and in Acts 7:43)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Companion Bible, p. 1239.

{35} The avoidance of religion keeps the church as it is meant to be:

"CHURCH. The word church and its synonyms. The church is designated in Scripture sometimes by the Greek term ecclesia (hence French eglise), sometimes by figures of speech. Ecclesia was current in the Hellenistic world for the regular assemblages of a particular social group or even of the whole population (cf. Acts 19:39f.). But ecclesia was never used by the Greeks in a religious context. For religious meetings they employed other terms, not one of which is retained in the New Testament to signify the church.

"For the mission of the church is not that of withdrawing from the world [*aion--the age] but of being present within the world to con- è vey to it the summons of God. The church is by definition the opposite of a sect of the Pharisaic kind [*creeds, confessions, articles of faith, ad nauseam]." Vocabulary of the Bible (1958), pp. 50-51.

{36} "dikaiosunh, the doing or being what is just and right; the character and acts of a man commanded by and approved of God, in virtue of which the man corresponds with Him and His will as His ideal and His standard; it signifies the sum total of all that God commands and approves. As such it is not only what God demands, but what He gives to man, and which is appropriated by faith; and hence it is a state called forth by God's act of justification, viz., by judicial deliverance from all that stands in the way of dikaioj." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 648.

{37} "1122. GRAMMATEUS. From 1121. a writer, i.e. (professionally) scribe or secretary:--scribe, town-clerk." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"grammateuj, a writer, a scribe (latin) lxx. for rpc, the king's scribe, Secretary of State, 2 Samuel 8:17; 20:25. Military clerk, 2 Kings 25:19; 2 Chronicles 26:11. Later, in lxx. and New Testament a scribe, i.e. one skilled in the Jewish law, an interpreter of the Scriptures, a lawyer. They are also called nomikoi, nomodidaskaloi. Compare Mark 12:28 with Matthew 22:35. So, lxx. for cyrp]c, 1 Chronicles 27:32; Ezra 7:6; Nehemiah 8:1. Hence, one instructed, a scholar, a learned teacher, (occurs Acts 19:35--townclerk)." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), p. 670.

{38} "7723. SHAW; this masc. noun is probably derived from the same Hebrew root as sho (7722). It means nothingness, emptiness, vanity, any thing which disappoints the hope which rests upon it (Job 15:31; Ps 31:6; Mal 3:14); falsehood (Job 31:5; Ps 12:2; 41:6), lying, vainness, 'in vain' (Jer 2:30; 4:30; 6:29), sin wickedness, iniquity (Job 11:11; Is 5:18); calamity, destruction (Job 7:3; Is 30:28). The term designates any thing which is insubstantial, unreal [*pretence, fiction or lie], or worthless (whether materially or morally [*full of dead men's bones]). Taking the name of the Lord 'in vain' (Ex 20:7; Deut 5:11) is a very serious matter in deed. Not only does shaw mean profanity or swearing falsely, but it also includes using the Lord's name (reputation) lightly or without thinking (cf. Matt 12:31, 32, 36, 37). It could even mean habitual, rote, verbal expressions used in prayer (cf. 'meaningless repetition,' Matt 6:7). The Sept. translated it as epi mataio [1909, NT]; mataios [3152, NT], 'thoughtlessly.' It is interesting that two meanings are found in the same verse (Job 15:31)." Zodhiates, Complete Word Study, Old Testament (1994), p. 2371.

"7723. DECEIT. Saw 'deceit; deception; malice; falsity; vanity; emptiness.' The 53 occurrences of saw deceit are primarily in poetry.

"The basic meaning of this word is 'deceit' or 'deception,' 'malice,' and 'falsehood.' This meaning emerges when saw deceit is used in è a legal context: 'Put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness' (Exod. 23:1). Used in cultic contexts, the word bears these same overtones but may be rendered variously. For example, in Ps. 31:6 the word may be rendered 'vain' (KJV, 'lying'), in the sense of 'deceitful' (cf. Ezek. 12:24). Eliphaz described the ungodly as those who trust in 'emptiness' or 'deception,' though they gain nothing but emptiness as a reward for that trust (Job 15:31)." William Edwy Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words.

The Religion of the Romans

Transcribed from Easton's Bible Dictionary.

The religion of the Romans was originally a simple animism, that is, a belief in spirits or powers (numina) associated with all things about man and with all of man's acts. These spirits were not personified and were not conceived of as human in form. There were no temples and no statues of gods. Rites were clean and simple, performed with a scrupulous exactness felt as pleasing to the gods [*see also John M. Zane, The Story of Law, pp. 145-146], who were friendly when thus worshiped. It was the religion of a simple agricultural people. Study of the calendars that have come down to us shows that the older festivals that kept their places in such calendars were marked by larger letters. These were rural festivals, marking the year of the country people. But as the Romans came in contact with other peoples and their religions, and as they developed from a small Italian community to an imperialistic nation, their religion inevitably changed. Gods of conquered communities were brought in. In times of stress gods were imported to meet the emergency [*the emergency powers doctrine; ecumenical councils]. It is believed that the Etruscan kings built the first temples and set up the first statues of gods. Contact with the Greeks led to the introduction of Greek gods and Greek ritual and to the identification of the old Roman gods with Greek gods that seemed most like them. The exactness in the performance of the proper rites led naturally to a deadening formalism [*phariseeism, creeds and confessions of faith]; hence, before the end of the Republic, the educated classes were turning instead to philosophy [*natural reason]. Others turned to the mystical or orgiastic cults of Greece and the Orient, naturally, as the native stock was more and more displaced by Orientals. Under the Empire the Oriental religions became more firmly established, while the cult of the emperors came to be the distinguishing feature of the state religion [*rites by imperial decree], until finally both made way for Christianity.

The Work of Numa.

Roman tradition ascribed to Numa, second of the seven kings, the organization of the worship and the assignment to the calendar of the proper festivals in due order. Whether or not we choose to believe that a great priest-king left his personal impress on ritual and calendar, 'the religion of Numa' is a convenient phrase by which to designate the religion of the early State. Numa was supposed to have organized the first priestly colleges [*seminaries] and to have appointed the first flamines, or priests of special gods [*Supreme Court Justices]. The most important of these were the Flamen Dialis, or priest of Jupiter, and the flamines of Mars and Quirinus.

When the kingship was abolished, the office of rex sacorum was instituted to carry on the rites once in the charge of the king. He, the three flamines [*the U.S. Supreme Court] mentioned above, and the college of pontifices [*the Congress], with the Pontifex Maximus [*the President of the United States] at its head, constituted the body controlling and guiding the State religion. Under the Empire the emperor was regularly Pontifex Maximus.

Priestly colleges.

The Salii, or dancing priests [*military Generals in the field], were priests of an old and famous college who worshiped Mars, the god of war. A similar college, the Salii Collini [*Joint Chiefs of Staff], was in charge of the worship of Quirinus. The pontifices were in charge of the calendar. The augures [*the Legislature] interpreted the will of the gods as shown when the auspices were taken by the magistrates before any public occasion or action. Among other official colleges were the quindecemviri, in charge of the famous Sibylline Books [*traditions of the elders, i.e. creeds, confessions, articles and oracles of faith, etc.]. Unofficial or private associations or colleges [*religious societies, corporations, seminaries, etc.] carried on the worship of various gods. In this connection might be mentioned the burial societies, ostensibly organized to further the worship of some god. [*These are the origins of today's seminaries.]

One of the oldest and most famous colleges was that of Vesta, whose worship was in care of the six Virgines Vestales. The sacred fire upon the altar of the Aedes Vestae symbolized the continuity of the life of the State. There was no statue of the goddess in the temple [*she was alive and molded in the hearts of her worshippers]. The temple itself was round and had a pointed roof, and even in its latest development of marble and bronze had not gone far in shape and size from the round hut of poles and clay and thatch in which village girls had tended the fire whose maintenance was necessary for the primitive community. To light a fire then had been a toilsome business of rubbing wood on wood, or later striking flint on steel to get the precious spark. But the modern invention of flint and steel was never used to rekindle the fire. Ritual demanded the use of friction.

Each Vestal must serve thirty years. Any vacancy in the Order must be filled promptly by the appointment of a girl of suitable family, not less than six years old nor more than ten, physically perfect, of unblemished character, and with both parents living. Ten years were spent by the Vestals in learning their duties, ten in performing those duties, and ten in training the younger Vestals. In addition to the care of the fire the Vestals had a part in most of the festivals of the old calendar. They lived in the Atrium Vestæ beside the temple of Vesta in the Forum. At the end of her service a Vestal might return to private life, but such were the privileges and dignity of the Order that this rarely occurred. A Vestal was freed from her father's potestas.

The Religion of the Family.

The pater familias was the household priest and in charge of the family worship; he was assisted by his wife and children. The Lar Familias was the protecting spirit of the household in town and country. In the country, too, the Lares were the guardian spirits [*"guardian angels"] of the fields and were worshiped at the crossroads (compita) by the owners and tenants of the lands that met there. In town, too, the Lares Compitales were worshiped at street-corner shrines [*today's huge edifices] in the various vici or precincts. For the single Lar of the Republican period we later find two. Pompeian household shrines (207) show frequent examples of this. They are represented as boys dressed in belted tunics, stepping lightly as if in dance, a bowl in the right hand, a jug upraised in the left. In place of the old Penates, the protecting spirits of the store-closet, these shrines show images of such of the great gods as each family chose to honor in its private devotions. The Genius of the pater familias (96) may be represented in such shrines as a man with the toga drawn over his head as for worship. Often, however, at Pompeii the Genius is represented as a serpent. In such shrines we find two, one bearded, for the Genius of the father, the other for the Iuno (96) [*the month called June] of the wife. Vesta was worshiped at the hearth as the spirit of the fire that was necessary for man's existence [*worshiped the creation rather than the Creator].

The shrine, originally in the atrium when that was the room where the household lived and worked, followed the hearth to the separate kitchen (203), though examples of shrines are found in the garden or peristyle and occasionally in the atrium or other rooms.

The devout prayed and sacrificed every morning, but the usual time for the family devotions was the pause at the cena before the secunda mensa, when offerings to the household gods were made (311). The Kalends, Nones, and Ides were sacred to the Lares. On these days garlands were hung over the hearth, the Lares were crowned with garlands, and simple offerings were made. Incense and wine were usual offerings; a pig was sacrificed when possible. Horace a pretty picture of the 'rustic Phidyle' who crowns her little Lares with rosemary and myrtle, and offers incense, new grain, and a 'greedy pig.' The family were also bound to keep up the rites in honor of the dead (34-35, 483). All family occasions from birth to death were accompanied by the proper rites [*birthday festivities, etc.] Strong religious feeling clung to the family rites and country festivals even when the State religion had stiffened into formalism and many Romans were reaching after strange gods.

The gens or clan of which the family formed a part had its own rites (19). The maintenance of these sacra was considered necessary not merely for the clan itself, but for the welfare of the State, which might suffer from the god's displeasure if the rites should be neglected.

The Religion of the State.

Of the early gods, Jupiter (Iuppiter), Diovis Pater, was the light-father, worshiped on hilltops, whom men called to witness their agreements. Saturn was a god of the crops, and Venus had to do with gardens. Mars was worshiped in connection with agriculture and with war, for the farmer was fighter, too. Vesta was the spirit of the hearth. There were others of whom we know little. The first temple at Rome was built by the Etruscans on the Capitoline Hill, for Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Minerva had come in from Falerii as patron of craftsman and their guilds [*labor unions], and had also her own temple on the Aventine. Diana was a wood-spirit from Aricia. Hercules came from Tibur as a god of commerce, and Castor from Tusculum. Mercury, god of commerce, as his name shows, came from Cumæ. These last three were of Greek origin, naturalized to Italy. Because of the famine in 493 B.C., the Sibylline oracle at Cumæ advised bringing in Bacchus, Ceres, Proserpina. Apollo came from Cumæ as god of healing, and his temple was built in 432 B.C. In 293 B.C. Aesculapius was brought from Epidaurus to the island in the Tiber, which is still the sight of a hospital.

The Magna Mater [*Great Mother] was brought by the State from Phrygia in 205 B.C., during the Second Punic War, but, when the orgiastic nature of the cult became known, it was ordained that her priests should never be Romans. However, this was the beginning of the movement toward the Oriental religions.

Naturally, new modes of worship came in with new gods. More and more Greek gods came in and were identified with the older gods. Greek craftsmen built temples and made statues of gods like those of Greece [*Demetrius in Acts]. Acquaintance with Greek mythology, literature, and art finally made the identification complete.

The study of Greek philosophy supplanted the old religion among the upper classes, as has been said (484). As interest waned in the old religion, some forms and ceremonies and even priesthoods were discarded, especially during the troublesome Civil Wars. When Augustus restored order, as part of his [*re-]constructive policy he stressed a religious revival, repairing and rebuilding temples and reviving old priesthoods.

Religion in the Imperial Age.

The cult of the emperors developed naturally enough from the time of the deification of Julius Cæsar [*and all other American presidents]. The movement for this deification was of Oriental origin. The Genius of the emperor was worshiped as the Genius of the father had been worshiped in the household (490). The cult, beginning in the East, was then established in the western provinces and finally in Italy. It was under the are of the seviri Augustales (459) in the municipalities. The worship of the emperor in his lifetime was not permitted at Rome, but spread throughout the provinces taking the place of the old State religion. It was this that caused the opposition to Christianity, for the refusal of the Christians to take part was treasonable. Their offense was political, not religious (420, note 1).

The weakening of the old stock (129) and the constantly increasing number of Orientals in the West, along with the campaigns of the armies in the East naturally encouraged the introduction of eastern cults and the spread of their influence. The cult of the Magna Mater found a reviving interest among the people of her part of the world (495). The mystery religions [*Egyptian/Babylonian] gained strength, with their rites of purification and assurance of happiness after death. Among them the worship of Isis had come from Alexandria with the Egyptians and spread among the lower classes. Mithraism came in from the eastern campaigns with the captives, and later with the troops that had served or had been enlisted in the East. It established itself in Rome and in other cities and followed the army from camp to camp. There were many Jews at Rome, and their religion made some progress. Christianity appeared at Rome first among the lower classes, particularly the Orientals, and finally made its way upward." Harold Whetstone Johnston, The Private Lives of the Romans (1932), pp. 395-404.

The following establishes the link between Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman religions, to wit,

"'The literal Babylon was the beginner and supporter of tyranny and idolatry.This city and its whole empire were taken by the Persians under Cyrus; the Persians were subdued by the Macedonians, and the Macedonians by the Romans; so that Rome succeeded to the power of old Babylon. And it was her method to adopt the worship [*hermeneutically sound theology] of the false deities she had conquered; so that by her own act she became the heiress and successor of all the Babylonian idolatry, and of all that was introduced into it by the immediate successors of Babylon, and consequently of all the idolatry of the earth. 'Rome, or 'mystical Babylon,' is 'that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth' (17:18)." Easton's Bible Dictionary. [*Rome reigns spiritually by the system of law developed by the Cæsars, and not physically].

The 2000 Census Form

by Randy Lee

We have received many telephone calls in recent months concerning the 2000 Census Form, but until now we were unable to write about it because we had not acquired a copy of it. We now have a photocopy of the front of the envelope (see below) and some information contained inside.

It must first be noted that we know of no one calling forth their First-Class mail matter in general delivery or in the general post-office that has received this form through the mails. Some have found this form hanging on their fence or door-post.

Secondly, this form is only required to be filled out and returned to The Department of Commerce by "persons" and "residents." It applies to no one else. For those that know that they are not a person or a resident, they will not be filling it out. For those who are not sure, the following articles from past Issues of The Christian Jural Society News should be reviewed: "To Be or Not To Be a Human Being" in Issue the Sixth, "That Knock on the Door" in Issue the Fourteenth, "The Law of Identification" in Issue the Fifteenth, "To Be or Not To Be: Home-less" in Issue the Sixteenth, and "Minimum Contacts" in Issue the Seventeenth.

For those that do know that they are not a "person" or a "resident," and they live, move, and have their being in Christ Jesus only, and depend on Him alone, the following may be taken into consideration:

The cover letter inside of the Census envelope reads as follows:

"This is your official form for the United States Census 2000. It is used to count every person living in this house or apartment. All the people of all ages, citizens and non-citizens.
Your answers are important. First, the number of representatives that each State has in Congress depends on the number of persons living in the State.
The second reason may be more important to you and your community.
The amount of government money your neighborhood receives depends on your answers. The money gets used for schools, employment services, assistance, roads, services for children, and the elderly, and other local needs."

It goes on to tell "the resident" that their privacy is protected by law (Title 13 of the United States code), which also requires that they answer the questions, blah, blah, blah.

Title 13, like all codes made according to "the will" of the Legislators, applies to creatures of the State, i.e., natural persons and others of the world.

For those who, according to the Will of God, determine not to partake of the 2000 Census, the photocopy of the envelope below will give you direction as to how it can be returned if you receive it through the mail. A rubber stamp can be made from the impression below.

If the census-taker leaves it on the gate or door-post were you are "staying," there is usually a trash can not far away that it may find its way into.

If you are confronted at the door or in the yard where you are "staying," you can simply state that "there are no persons that reside here".

The Missing Zip Codes of

the general post-office

by Randy Lee

Following the printing of the article concerning the general-post office in Issue the Forty-sixth (The Simplicity in Christ, Part two), we began to notice that many of the pieces of mail matter that we were calling forth from the general post-office in Piru had something missing on the faces of the envelopes that were always there, in one way or another, when we were located in general delivery in Canoga Park.

It may be noted that there are no Zip Codes written in by the Postal Service or bar codes printed on their face by them, as is the usual case when the Zip Code is not written or typed in by the sender.

And it may also be noted that these two examples are from Texas and Indiana, i.e., they "found their way" all the way across the country, from post office to post office, without a "directional indicator."

This has only occurred when the return location was either blank, through general delivery or through the general post-office. There have not been any "zip code-less" pieces from an address.

We leave the reader to ponder the question, "why is the necessity for a Zip Code absent when going from general post-office to general post-office?"

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Synagogue

"SYNAGOGUE. [Greek, assembly, place of meeting, synagogue.] A Jewish place of worship. The building served also for local law court and school. Previous to the Captivity, worship of the highest kind could be performed only at the Temple at Jerusalem. Of course, the Scriptures could be publicly read elsewhere (Jeremiah 36:6, 10, 12-15), and the people could resort to the prophets anywhere for "religious instruction" (2 Kings 4:38). Worship at Jerusalem was impossibly when the people were in captivity in Babylon, and it seems to have been then and there that synagogues first arose. They were designed to be places, not of sacrifice, but of Scriptural instruction and prayer. The English word synagogue occurs only once in the Old Testament (Psalm 74:8). The margin of the R.V. has 'places of assembly' instead of synagogues, and the LXX renders by heorte (a feast, a festival, a holiday). It is not, therefore, certain that there is any reference to a synagogue in the Old Testament. In the first century they were found wherever Jews dwelt. Even small communities of Jews in the lesser cities outside of Palestine had their synagogues; as in Salamis in Cyprus (Acts 13:5), Antioch of Pisidia (v. 14), Iconium (ch. 14:1), Berea (ch. 17:10). In large cities synagogues were often numerous; as in Jerusalem (ch. 6:9) and Alexandria. These religious communities maintained an existence separate from the state and managed their own religious and civil affairs, subordinate, of course, to the law of land (Josephus, Antiquities xix 5, 3). A board of elders managed the affairs of the synagogue and of the religious community which it represented (Luke 7:3-5). The special officers, who directed the worship, maintained order, and looked after the temporalities, were: 1. The ruler of the synagogue (Acts 18:8). In some synagogues several rulers were in office (Mark 5:22). The ruler presided at the service; appointed or permitted suitable members to pray, read the Scriptures, and exhort; and was responsible for the proprieties (Luke 13:14). The services were not conducted by permanent officers set apart for the duty, but by private members who had shown qualifications for it. Thus Jesus read the Scriptures in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:16), and he often taught in the synagogues (Matthew 4:23). Paul and Barnabas were called on by the rulers of the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia for words of exhortation (Acts 13:15). 2. One or more attendants for the humbler and menial duties. They brought the Scriptures to the reader and replaced the roll in its depository (Luke 4:20), and they inflicted the corporal punishment to which the authorities sentenced a member. 3. Dispensers of alms (cf. Matthew 6:2),. 4. Wealthy men of leisure [*see Job 21:7-15], if possible ten or more, who represented the congregation at every service. The congregation assembled every Sabbath for worship (Acts 15:21), and on the 2d and 5th days of the week to hear a portion of the Law read. At the Sabbath service prayer was offered by a member of the congregation. It consisted chiefly in reading Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41; and offering some or all of the eighteen prayers and benedictions. The people were accustomed to stand during this prayer (Matthew 6:5; Mark 11:25), and united in saying 'Amen' at its close. A lesson from the Law was read (Acts 15:21) by several members, each taking a short paragraph in turn. This reading was prefaced and concluded by thanksgiving. Then came a lesson from the Prophets, read by the person who had opened the service with prayer. The reading was followed by an exposition and an exhortation given by the reader or some other person (Luke 4:16-22; Acts 13:15). The service was concluded by a benediction, which was pronounced by a priest, if one were present, and the congregation said, 'Amen.' The synagogue was called by the Jews in their own language 'assembly house.'

"The Great Synagogue denotes a council, said to have been organized by Nehemiah about 410 B.C. It consisted of one hundred twenty members (Megilloth 17, 18). Ezra was its president. To this body the prophets transmitted the Law of Moses (Pirke Aboth, i. 1). Simon the Just, who died about 275 B.C. was one of the last of its members. It was succeeded by the sanhedrin (Aboth, x. 1). Its special work was to reorganize religious worship among the returned captives and to gather together the canonical books. Such is the Jewish tradition. The existence of the Great Synagogue was probably a council of scribes for the decision of theological questions, contained from first to last, during an existence of a little more than a century and a half, about one hundred twenty prominent members, and numbered among them all the leading scribes from Ezra to Simon the Just." Westminster Bible Dictionary (1944), pp. 585-586.

Bits and Pieces

His calling

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called (Ephesians 4:1), with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love (v. 2).

Giving diligence to KEEP the spiritual unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace (v. 3)."

Only by the strict observance of these solemn injunctions can that spiritual union of the members with one another in Christ be preserved and maintained in peace.

What this "lowliness" means is shown in Phil. ii. 3, "in lowliness of mind let each esteem the other better than themselves." It does not say 'nearly as good,' or 'as good,' but "BETTER than themselves." How difficult then must be the duty! How necessary must be this diligence! How earnest must be this exhortation!

If there be not this mutual humility and meekness, mutual long suffering, mutual forbearing of one another, and the exhibition of mutual love, there will be no real spiritual unity, and no peace. Instead of "one Body," there will be many Bodies; gendered by pride, and fostered by and exhibiting envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. It is just in this point that the saints have failed from the beginning, and all through the ages." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit (1905), pp. 154-155.

The Natural man's Favorite god

" Mammon, n. The god of the world's leading religion. His chief temple is in the holy city of New York.

He swore all other religions were gammon,

And wore out his knees in the worship of

Mammon. Jared Oopf.

--Ambrose Bierce The Devil's Dictionary, (1911), page 79.

Patriolatry

"Vote, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 133.

The State's Rule

"The State shall undertake the education of the children (of the higher classes), following a definite plan of instruction, which shall be the same for the first twenty years of life and apply to both sexes, and shall include: bodily exercises (in infancy); the narration of myths with a view to ethical culture; gymnastics, which develops not only the body but the will; reading and writing; poetry and music, which arouse the sense of beauty, harmony, and proportion and encourage philosophical thought; mathematics, which tends to draw the mind from the sensuous to the real; and military exercises." History Of Philosophy, (1927), pp. 72-73.

Serving three masters

"Religion in Higher Education. The practice by certain officials or others of wearing distinctive robes or gowns in court, in church, or at university functions reflects symbolically the medieval idea of the whole of human society unified under a threefold authority.

Derived from the kingly, priestly, prophetic roles of Christ, this authority is exercised by three earthly but divinely established institutions: the state, representing law; the church, representing revelation; the university, representing reason.

This idea of the coordination of the spheres of society, religion, and culture is not simply a novel theological concept developed by the mediaeval mind.

It is preceded, and partly conditioned, by the Hellenistic assumption underlying the whole of classical education in the West that human fulfillment is to be found in the fullest and most complete realization of man's personality.

This is to be achieved primarily through paideia, that is, "training," or "education." The Westminster Dictionary Of Church History (1971), p. 701.

Political Success

"Push, n. One of the two things mainly conducive to success, especially in politics.

The other is Pull." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911) page 30.

The Abode of Humanity

"Hell. 1. The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the grave; -- corresponding to the Hebrew Sheol, and the Greek Hades.

2. The place or state of punishment for the wicked after death; the abode of evil spirits, corresponding to Gehenna, Tartarus, Nifihel. Hence, any place or state of misery, anguish, turmoil, or wickedness. "Within him hell." Milton.

3. The evil spirits who dwell in torment; the powers of darkness; an infernal concourse.

4. A place where outcast persons or things are gathered; as: a. A dungeon or prison; also, in certain running games, as barleybreak, a place to which those who are caught are carried for detention. b. A gambling house. "A convenient little gambling hell for those who had grown reckless." W. Black. c. A receptacle into which a tailor throws his shreds, or a printer his broken type." Webster's New International Dictionary, (1931), p. 1001

The Sealing of the Holy Spirit

"In whom (Christ) ye also [were allotted an inheritance] on hearing the true word of the gospel of your salvation: in whom Christ on believing also, ye were sealed [by the Father] with the promised pneuma (Lit., the pneuma of the promise)--the hagion." The first occurrence of sealing is in John xi. 27 and it is attributed to the Father. This gives us the key to this sealing in Ephesians. It is the fulfillment of "the promise of the Father" (Lu. xxiv. 49, Acts i. 9). There is nothing about "after" in the Greek; neither "after that ye heard," or "after that ye believed."

The articles are used here: but the words "pneuma" and "hagion" are separated (in the Greek) by the words "of the promise"; which looks as though the Father was the Sealer, sealing them with pneuma, by the bestowal of the new nature, and with other spiritual gifts which the Gentiles received, as well as the Jews.

The Jews are mentioned in v. 11 ("we"); and the Gentiles, in v. 13 ("ye").

Both had been allotted the same inheritance in Christ; and the earnest or pledge of it (v. 14) was the promised gift of pneuma hagion,which had been promised by the Father, and is hence, called the promised pneuma." E. W. Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, p. 151.

Issue the Fifty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

How Unlawful Courts Gain Jurisdiction...

The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part two...

From the Beginning it was not so, Part One--Judaism's Child...

The Power of His Word...

Abandonment of the Old Paths...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

How Unlawful Courts Gain Jurisdiction

by Greg Loren Durand

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are at the end of this article)

The following is Appendix Seventeen from Greg Loren Durand's excellent 380 page book "America's Caesar -- Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire." The full book can be requested by writing to: Crown Rights Book Company -- c/o U. S. Post Office Box 769 -- Wiggins, Mississippi C. S. A.

Persona designata is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as, "A person pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class [a political or religious community, or state], or as filling a particular [military or commercial] character."{1} In his Dictionary of Latin Synonymes, Francis Lieber likewise wrote, "Persona was the name given to 'the mask of the actor... that covered his whole head.'"{2} Two maxims of Law applicable in this case are Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus,{3} and Homo vocabulum est naturie; persona juris civilis.{4} Further understanding of this important legal concept may be derived from the following:

A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the [civil] rights and duties are attributed.{5}
A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law [statute] itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his "personality" [military character], that is to say, the "man-person"; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.{6}
A juristic person is domestic in the state [forum] by which it was created (or by which it was expressly authorized). This theory has met with considerable support, especially in the United States, where indeed it may be said to be the accepted doctrine. Nationality [i.e. "U.S. citizenship"] in the present sense, as the factor which determines by what rules of law its legal constitution and capacities must be governed, is a juridical and not a political quality, and should therefore be determined by the legal and not by the political characteristics of the juristic person.{7}

Those who followed the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles, California will remember that the perjured ex-police officer, Mark Fuhrman, repeatedly invoked his "Fifth Amendment privilege" when asked self-incriminating questions. It should be noted that the protection against being compelled to be a witness against oneself in the Fifth Amendment is included under what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights, not the "bill of privileges." "Persons," which are "fictitious" and "purely legal conceptions or creations," are granted privileges ("civil rights") by the "law" (statute) which creates them, whereas "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." We clearly see this distinction made in the Act of Congress of 3 March 1863, which rubber-stamped Lincoln's unlawful suspension of habeas corpus:

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present rebellion, the president of the United States, whenever, in his judgment, the public [bondholders'] safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof. And whenever and wherever the said privilege shall be suspended, as aforesaid, no military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ of habeas corpus, to return the body of any person or persons detained by him by authority of the President....

If a man is necessarily a "person," then it would be highly unusual to speak of returning "the body of any person or persons detained," as if man may be imprisoned while his body is set free. However, once the fact is understood that a persona, represented by the nom de guerre, must first be assigned to a man, and accepted by him, before he may be detained under martial law, then the wording of this Act makes sense.

All "warrants" issued by William H. Seward "by the authority of the president" ordered the arrest of fictitious "persons," not men. Of course, the difference between the two was apparently understood by few, if any, of Lincoln's "political prisoners." Even today, the number of "warrants" successfully served would drop to zero if the intended recipients would decline to answer to the "name" written in all capitals on the document. The courts-martial also cannot lawfully proceed against or collect "war reparations" from any man or woman who does not allow themselves to become surety for the persona:

...[A] court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence with the state, except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. The modern law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant ["person"] is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will render judgment against him for default of appearance.{8}

Perhaps the simplest method to abate the process of such tribunals, then, is to insist that one's lawful Christian [*God Given] name (or appellation) and surname (family name) be spelled in the court's documents in proper English:

A person's name consists in law, of a given or Christian name, and a family surname. It has been said that a description or abbreviation [initial] is not the equivalent of a name....

The Christian or first name is, in law, denominated the "proper name," and has been used from early times to distinguish a particular individual from his fellows.... Originally, it was the only name which was recognized in [the common] law, and consequently, it has always been considered an essential part of a person's name. The giving of a wrong Christian or given name to a person, in legal proceedings or in conveyances, generally constitutes an error which may invalidate a judgment or deprive the record of an instrument of its effect as notice. It has been held that the law knows but one Christian name of a single individual.{9}
Misnomer. Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Under rules of practice in some states, such is ground for dismissal by motion. In most states, however, as well as in the federal courts, such misnomer can be corrected by amendment of the pleadings.{10}
Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody.{11}
If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to all legal instruments, as well declarations and pleadings as grants and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the rules of the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian without a name of baptism, or that such a person should have two Christian names, since our church allows of no re-baptizing....{12}

It is in the process (paperwork) of these courts that they depart from the common Law and all the rights that are protected therein. The common Law, from which the writ of habeas corpus issues, is concerned with justice between men, and does not deal with fictions. In a literal sense, the common Law, then, is the law of the land (substance, public Law), not the purported law (fiction, private contract law) which is generated by paper. On the other hand, "it is precisely those enterprises [persons] that are 'creatures of the law' to which the fourteenth amendment is addressed."{13} The venue of such courts is necessarily in equity, because they serve to enforce contractual obligations between fictions (the corporate United States and its "citizens"), not to decide on constitutional matters.{14} The quotations provided below are relevant to an understanding of what is actually happening in these courts:

Fictio.... In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. Such was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse [challenge].... The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction.{15}
Fictitous. Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object [i.e. to trick the unsuspecting into submitting themselves to an unlawful court].{16}
Both in Roman and English [statutory, civil] law there are certain obligations which were not in truth contractual, but which the law treats as if they were. They are contractual in law, but not in fact, being the subject-matter of a fictitious extension of the sphere of contract [jurisdiction] to cover obligations which do not in reality fall within it.{17}
Constructive/quasi-contracts are created by statute on the premise that they are needed as a matter of reason and justice [when martial law is in force], and are allowed to be enforced ex contractu.{18}
Ex contractu is a form of action under the civil [roman] law, whereas under the common law it would arise from actions of case, trespass, replevin, trover, or detinue. Ex contractu actions are from the civil law, not the common law, and are enforced by actions in personam [against the "person"].{19}

Thus, by assigning a person designata or a "fictitious name" to a living, breathing man, the military tribunal is able to view him as having been "born" (created) within the corporate United States and therefore, through the subsequent process-known as "novation,"{20} he is rendered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and becomes obligated to pay his "fair share" of the unlawful debt legalized by the Fourteenth Amendment. Although this is done "to deceive or mislead," under the laws of war, deception is legal, and the United States Government is therefore under no obligation to reveal its most useful ruse de guerre. Synonyms of this statutory "person" are "natural person," "U.S. citizen," "individual," "taxpayer," "consumer," "resident," etc.

Endnotes

{1} Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 1143.

{2} Francis Lieber, Dictionary of Latin Synonymes (Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Co., 1854).

{3} A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status.

{4} Man is a term of nature; person of civil (Roman) law.

{5} Pollack, First Treatise on Jurisprudence, quoted in Black's Law Dictionary (fourth Edition, 1968), page 1300.

{6} American Law and Procedure, (1910), Volume XIII, page 137.

{7} E. Hilton Young, article: "The Nationality of a Juristic Person," 22 Harvard Law Review 1, 3, 7.

{8} Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook on Common Law Pleading (1923), page 23.

{9} 57 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections 1 and 4.

{10} Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 1000.

{11} Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Davis, 1832), Volume IV, page 7.

{12} Bacon, ibid. (1846), Volume VII.

{13} Pollack, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity (1959), 108 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1.

{14} A court is required to give some kind of notice to those present as to the nature of the proceedings. Most often, this notice is given in the type of flag that is flying in the court room. The gold-fringed military flag of the United States, with either an eagle or spear finial, will always accompany proceedings in equity under the fourteenth amendment.

{15} Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), page 623.

{16} Ibid., page 624.

{17} Salmond on Jurisprudence (England: Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd., 1937; Ninth Edition).

{18} Kraft Foods Co. of Wise v. Commodity Credit Corp., 266 F.2d 254; Hill v. Waxberg, 237 F.2d 936.

{19} Indep. School District of White Bear Lake v. City of White Bear Lake, 292 N.W. 777.

{20} Novation is defined as "a type of substituted contract that has the effect of adding a party, either as obligor or obligee, who was not a party to the original duty" (Black's Law Dictionary [Sixth Edition], page 1064).

The Unincorporated Church so-called

Part Two

by Randy Lee

"Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Proverbs 29:26 (LXX).

We must first point out that when our Lord was offered, by Satan, the glory and powers of the kingdoms of the world, recorded for our edification at Luke 4:5-8, the word for world written down by the Spirit of God there, in the Greek, is oikoumenh, or oikoumene (oy-kou-men'-ay), meaning the Roman Empire, to wit:

"3. oikoumene=the world as inhabited. It is from the verb oikeo= to dwell. It is used of the inhabitable world, as distinct from the kosmos. Hence, it is used in a more limited and special sense of the Roman Empire, which was then predominant. See Luke 2:1; 4:5; 21:26." The Companion Bible, Appendix 129, page 162.
"Luke 4:5, the world (phn oikoumenh). Lit., the inhabited (land). The phrase was originally used by the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves, in contrast with barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, the entire Roman empire." Vincent's Word Studies on the New Testament, page 266.

And Satan revealed whose domain the glory and power of the Roman Empire belongs to and is dispensed by:

"And the devil said unto Him, All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it." Luke 4:6

And we must remember our Lord's response to the offer:

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind Me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Luke 4:8

Therefore, it is mandatory that we, just as He has shown to us by example, must refuse and avoid the things of the world; those self-designed and self-gratifying glories and powers of the Roman Empire.

In this portion on the subject of The Unincorporated Church (so-called), we will evidence the fact that if and when a particular "Church" or "individual" partakes of the commercial modes and instruments (sorceries, see Isaiah 47 and Revelation 18) "created" by the Babylonian and Roman merchants of the earth (their created purpose always being "for the sake of personal profit"), it gives that necessary "appearance of evil" which the State, (knowingly or unknowingly) being God's rod of correction, looks for in its regulating capacity.

The intrusion by the State into the affairs of the subject "Church," or in their language, "religious society," is justified under the world's lex mercatoria; for the esoteric modes and instruments (sorceries) of that system of man's law are private in nature, being an abomination unto the Lord and the partakers of them ultimately destroyed by Him (see Isaiah 23 & 47, Ezekiel 27, Hosea 12, Nahum 3, Zephaniah 1, and Revelation 18).

The lex mercatoria's sorceries are from the natural man (Satan's ministers), and are therefore foreign law to the Law of our Father:

"FOREIGN LAW. The laws of a foreign country, or of a sister state. People v. Martin, 38 Misc.Rep. 67, 76 N.Y.S. 953; Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge, 8 Barb.(N.Y.) 233. Foreign laws are often the suggesting occasions [*from the whisperer] of changes in, or additions to, our own laws, and in that respect are called 'jus receptum.' Brown." Black's Law Dictionary (4th. ed. 1957), pp. 775-776.

Being received and accepted modes and instruments (sorceries) of the world, they are already under the regulation of the State previous to being partaken of; for, as Luke 4:6 shows us, it is Satan's domain. When used, the user automatically becomes regulatable according to the ways of the world. Until it is understood that those modes and instruments (sorceries) belong to, and are regulated by, a private law, the partakers of them will continue to err in their ways.

The following short example of the history of the law merchant may give a helpful insight into its origins and the implications of using its dead tools. For a more detailed account of its history, see Issue the Thirty-ninth of The Christian Jural Society News:

"THE LAW MERCHANT. Although much of the present law of sales, partnerships, insurance and bankruptcy is derived from the customs and usages of the law merchant (lex mercatoria), the law of negotiable instruments was, undoubtedly, the most remarkable development of the law merchant. The Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law to this day provides that "In any case not provided for in this act the rules of the law merchant shall govern." (Section 196, N.I.L.)
"The law merchant, or mercantile law, was the comprehensive body of privately administered rules and customs enforced as law by merchants throughout the medieval commercial world, and, especially, in the Italian city-states. Each market, fair and seaport had local merchant courts where a jury of merchants would settle controversies with efficient dispatch upon the basis of mercantile custom. From Italy, the law merchant spread to England, where it gradually underwent a centralization." Teevan and Smith, Business Law (1949), vol. II, p. 329-330.

And we find in its history that it is a product of the Roman Empire:

"The merchants of the Italian city states and of the cities that were members of the Hanseatic League rejuvenated general European trade in the 12th and 13th centuries following its almost total abandonment after the Fall of Rome. These traders took precepts from the ancient law of the Roman Empire, adapted them to their times, and created customs of trade and ways of doing business, that became accepted among the merchants of all Europe, and hence this body of business or commercial law obtained the name Law Merchant.
"The law of agency, sales, negotiable instruments, insurance, carriage, debt, guaranty, stoppage in transit, liens, partnership, and bankruptcy was made by these traveling international private merchants." Stone, Smith, Frank, Romig, Fundamentals of Business Law (1950), p. 8.

We are told, not in the King James version, but in the Septuagint, that:

"Evil ways are before a man, and he does not like to turn away from them; but it is needful to turn aside from a perverse and bad way." Proverbs 22:14

And again from Proverbs, and again conspicuously missing from the King James, we are warned:

"If thou sit to sup at the table of a prince [*Satan is the prince of this world], consider attentively the things set before thee: and apply thine hand, knowing that it behoves thee to prepare such: but if thou art very insatiable, desire not his provisions; for these belong to a false life." Proverbs 23: 1-3 (LXX)

As stated in last month's article on this subject, some of the insatiable desires, or major sorceries partaken of in that false life are:

Bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, receipts, employees, and salaried pastors.

These are just a few of the major engagements that are condemned by the Word of God. Why? Because they all represent "wants," not "needs." Only the discontented partake of the insatiable desires of their "wants":

"Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:11-13

And without the poetic license of the King James, we see, through the literal words in the Greek, a clear spirit:

"Not that as to destitution I speak; for I learned in what I am, content to be, And I know to be brought low, and I know to abound. In everything and in all things I am initiated both to be full and to hunger, both to abound and to be deficient. I am strong for all things in the Christ Who empowers me."

The "wants" attempted to be satisfied by the ways of the Roman Empire's law merchant all represent allegiance to the ways of the world, and are not representative of "the old paths," which, at Jeremiah 6, we are admonished to walk in. And also at Proverbs we are warned:

"Become not surety from respect of a man's person. For if those have not whence to give compensation, they will take the bed under thee. Remove not the old [*eternal] landmarks, which thy fathers placed. It is fit that an observant man and diligent in his business should attend on kings, and not attend on slothful men." Proverbs 22: 26-29 (LXX).

[For a short example of how the old paths have been abandoned in modern times by the slothful, see Pages fifteen and sixteen in this Issue]. And,

"(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:" Roman 11:8-9.
Table; at Romans 11:9. Put by Fig. Metaphor for material prosperity." The Companion Bible, page 1684.

And we are instructed on the nature of one who reverences and attends on the slothful men of the lex mercatoria:

"He that shares with a thief, hates his own soul; and if any having heard an oath uttered tell not of it, fearing and reverencing men have been overthrown, but he that trusts in the Lord shall rejoice. Ungodliness causes a man to stumble: but he that trusts in his Master shall be safe. Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Proverbs 29: 24-26. (LXX)

-------------------------

We will now evidence the relationships that are created through partaking of the sorceries of the lex mercatoria, and the resulting repercussions:

Bank Accounts

Again, it is recorded for our edification in the books of Matthew, Mark, and John, our Lord revealing to us the true nature of those who engage in business for personal profit, one of them being banking, to wit:

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12-13 (see also Mark 11:15-17 and John 2:13-16)

It must first be noted that those whom He engaged in this account were a "den of thieves (robbers)" before they entered the Temple; bringing their activities inside of the Temple only transferred the den from the outside, to the inside.

To evidence that "the den of thieves" are, in fact, the bankers and their banks, we see the first word above that is highlighted is "table," the original word in the Greek being Trapeza, (trapeza) meaning:

"5132. Trapeza, (trapeza) a table, an eating table, Matt. 15:27; Mark 7:28; Heb. 9:2; by impl. a meal, feast, Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 10:21; a table or counter of a money changer, Matt. 21:12, a bank, Luke 19:23; by impl. pl. money matters, Acts 6:2." The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 411.
"5132 trapeza (trap'-ed-zah); probably contracted from 5064 and 3979; a table or stool (as being four-legged), usually for food (figuratively, a meal); also a counter for money (figuratively, a broker's office for loans at interest): Strong's Concordance.

The second (set of) words highlighted above is "money changers," the original word in the Greek being kollubisthj, (kollubistes), meaning:

"2855 kollubisthj, -ou, o, (fr. kollubuoj (i.q. a. a small coin, cf. koloboj clipped; b. rate of exchange, premium), a money-changer, banker: Mt. xxi. 12; Mk. xi. 15; Jn.ii. 15." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 353.
"1.kollubistes (kollubisthj, 2855), from kollubus (lit., "clipped), "a small coin or rate of change" (koloboo signifies "to cut off, to clip, shorten," Matt. 24:22), denotes "a money-changer," lit., money-clipper, Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, page 96.

Concerning John 2:14, Vine adds:

"In the court of the Gentiles, in the temple precincts, were the seats of those who sold selected and approved animals for sacrifice, and other things. The magnitude of this traffic had introduced the bankers' or brokers' business, <John 2:14>." Ibid.

And in Matthew, a second Greek word meaning money-changer is:

"5133. Trapeziths (Trapez-it-hs) A money changer, broker, banker, who exchanges or loans money for a premium, Matt. 25:27." The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 412.

And the same connection of the "den of robbers" is recognized in the secular dictionaries:

"Bank. n. 1. Orig., the table, counter, or place of business of a money changer; now, the building or office used for banking purposes." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 178.

And we must note the difference between thieves and robbers:

"Mat. 21:13, Thieves. Correctly, robbers. In classical usage mostly of cattle. The robber, conducting his operations on a large and systematic scale [*the Federal Reserve System], and the aid of bands [*member banks], is thus to be distinguished from the thief who purloins or pilfers whatever comes to hand. A den would be appropriate to a band of robbers, not to thieves." Vincent's Word Studies on the New Testament, Vol. 1, page 215.

Considering the above, we see that our Lord revealed to us for our instruction, edification, and comfort, that "the den of robbers," or more specifically, "the bankers," are an abomination unto the Father, and therefore are never to be allowed within the Temple--that new Temple being His body, His assembled:

"Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is Holy, which Temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

The defilement of His Temple by those who partake of the ways of "the den of robbers" becomes obvious when we see the relationship created thereby:

"The relation between a bank and a depositor therein is that of debtor and creditor." Bank of Marin v. England, Cal., 385 U.S. 99.
"It has been said that a certificate of deposit amounts to a loan by a depositor to the bank for an agreed period of time at a specific rate of interest." Spratt v. Security Bank of Buffalo, 654 P.2nd 130.
"A deposit creates a contract." Petersen v. Cartensen, 249 N.W.2d 622
"A signature card constitutes a contract." Western Assur. Co., Inc. v. Star Financial Bank of Indianapolis, C.A(Ind.), 3 F.3d 1129
"Contract. A promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other..." Lamoureux v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n, 91 R.I 94.

But we are warned and instructed by the Spirit of God to:

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8-14

And, it has also been written:

"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Proverbs 22:26

And:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

But, when consorting with the den of robbers, we further see that:

"The relation between a bank and a depositor therein is generally not that of agent and principal, although it has also been said that the bank discharges its obligation as a debtor subject to the rules obtaining between principal and agent, and that a bank's authority to receive money on behalf of a customer derives from its authority to act as the customer's agent." Department of Retirement Systems v. Kralman, 867 P.2d. 643

The condemnation of the above, and the hardness of the hearts of those who love in vain the things of that world and reject the Suretyship of the Sure Foundation, is clearly seen:

"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood [*that false life] have we hid ourselves:
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
And your covenant with death shall be disannuled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." Isaiah 28:15-18

We will now look at evidence showing the lawlessness of the lex mercatoria's employee/employer relationship disclosed to us by the natural man, and the implications created thereby when a bondman in and of Christ or an area church becomes either an employee or an employer. These disclosures also apply to a salaried pastor:

"The relation of employee and employer is that which arises out of a contract of employment, express or implied, between a master or employer, on the one hand, and a servant or employee, on the other." Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Capolino, 65 N.E. 2d.

When that express or implied contract is entered into, the State becomes the regulating master through their Imperial decrees:

"It is one of the functions of the State to decree the legal consequences that shall attach to a contract of employment made within the state, regardless of a stipulation of the parties" Miller v. National Chair Co., 22 A.2d 804.
"The relationship of employer and employee is substantially the same as that of master and servant." Pennsylvania Cas. Co. v. Elkins,70 F.Supp. 155.
"In its broadest sense the term "servant" includes any person over whom personal authority is exercised (Toronto v. Hattaway, 122 So. 816) or who exerts himself or labors for the benefit of a master or employer (In re Caldwell, 164 F. 515); and anyone who works for, and under the direction or control of, another for salary or wages." Kiser v. Suppe, 112 S.W. 1005.
"In a more restricted sense a servant has been defined to be a person employed to labor for the pleasure or interest of another; especially, in law, one employed to render service or assistance in some trade or vocation, but without authority to act as an agent in place of his employer (Rendleman v. Niagra Spray Co., 16 F.2d 122); one who is employed to render personal service to his employer otherwise than in the pursuit of an independent calling and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of the other, who is called his master." Brosius v. Orpheum Theater Co., 60 P.2d 156.

When entering into a contract of employment, both the employer and employee also enter into a contract with the police State, and are thereby militarily bound by the benefit/duty relationship between them and the State:

"Statutes that preclude a contract for personal service are for the benefit of the employee, and are in the nature of police regulations or expressions of public policy." Shaughnessy v. D'Antoni, 100 F.2d 422; Hill v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. 8 F.Supp. 80.

In America, the prerequisite for a police regulation to apply to a given situation stems from "the permanent state of national emergency" instituted by F. D. R. in 1933, which made all "persons" within the U. S. government's territory "alien enemies" and therefore subject to the Trading with the Enemy Act. But the behavior of those "persons" must align with certain criteria for the Act to take effect in a given situation:

"Residence or doing business in a hostile territory is the test of an 'alien enemy' within meaning of Trading with the Enemy Act and Executive Orders thereunder. Executive Order March 11, 1942, No. 9095, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix 6; Trading with the Enemy Act 5 (b)." In re Oneida Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Utica, 53 N.Y.S.2d 416, 420, 421, 183 Misc 374.

From the above, we see that residency is a major factor in the State's police regulating capacity against persons. But what constitutes residency:

"There are three concepts of especial importance in connection with the presence of a person within a state: residence, domicile, and citizenship. Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation. It involves a more or less fixed abode but ignores the intent of continuance or political affiliation.
Every natural person has a domicile. A domicile of choice is acquired by the concurrence of physical presence (usually residence) and an intent to make the place his more or less permanent home."The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III p. 358 footnote.

From the above, we see that one who resides is deemed to be a natural person (natural man). The determination of residency is based on the prerequisite of a permanent home. What is a home?:

"Home: That place or country in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains either residence or the intention of residence." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1449.
"Home: That place in which one in fact resides with the intention of residence, or in which he has so resided, and with regard to which he retains residence or to which he intends to return. Place where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social and civil life." Restatement of Conflicts, Second, 12.

And in the State's taxing scheme, we find that business and residency are of utmost importance:

"Since travel expenses of an employee are deductible only if the taxpayer is away from home, the deductibility of such expenses rests upon the definition of 'tax home.' The IRS position is that 'tax home' is the business location, post or station (military terms) of the taxpayer." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., page 1461.

Next month, by the Grace of God, we will continue this subject, and look into alternatives to banking, employee/employer relationships, residency, etc.

From the Beginning it was Not So

Part One - Judaism's Child

by Daniel Nile and Randy Lee

"And this is love, that we walk after His commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it." II John 1:6
"Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." I John 2:24

Since it is of a truth that our Father is the Potter in Whose hands all of His remnant are the clay, it is not our intent to mold or shape anyone to accept what is presented here. Its purpose is simply to bring the information and sources to everyone's attention; and in shining the Light of the Word on the subject matter, all can follow the admonition given to us by the Spirit of God:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." I John 4:1

At all times we must look to Him for the Truth, for in and of Him is the only place you will find the Truth; for He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, for all.

In last months article on "The Unincorporated Church so-called," it was stated that "our Lord did not found a Christian Church, the Christian religion or Christianity." These designations are not found to be spoken by Him in His Word, therefore "from the beginning it was not so." Matthew 19:8

We hope and pray that the following information will illustrate the fact that He indeed did not found a Christian religion; wherein it may be seen that the natural man is the designer and inventor of that religion, through the philosophy and vain imaginations of his natural reason.

We first find the word Christian in the Acts of the Apostles:

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26.

It has been well documented that it was in fact the heathen calling them Christians, as a term of derision.

We find no instance of any of the Gospel writers calling themselves "a Christian" or referring to "the Christian religion." It was not until the second century that these designations were accepted by the "Church fathers" of "the Christian religion," as titles of "honor." Therefore, "from the beginning it was not so."

In the following account by Tacitus (52-117 A.D.) of the first widespread persecution of Christ's elect (64 A.D.), it was still only the heathen that called them Christians.

The bondmen of Christ at Rome were falsely accused by Nero of burning Rome, in order to turn public suspicion from himself as responsible for the fire:

"Neither by works of benevolence nor the gifts of the prince nor means of appeasing the gods did the shameful suspicion cease, so that it was not believed that the fire had not been caused by his command. Therefore, to overcome this rumor, Nero put in his place as culprits, and punished with most ingenious cruelty, men whom the common people hated for their shameful crimes and called Christians. Christ, from whom the name was derived, had been put to death in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." Tacitus, Annales, XV, 44. Preuschen, Analecta, I, 3:1. Mirbt, n. 3, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), page 6.

Note that Tacitus did not say that Christ called His elect Christians, but that it was derived from His name, by the common people (the heathen), showing again that "from the beginning it was not so."

In 95 A.D., we find that Clement of Rome in his First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians had many opportunities for the use of the designations Christian, Christianity, the Christian Church or the Christian religion in his account of the deaths of Peter and Paul, but they were not used, to wit:

"Ch. 5. But to leave the ancient examples, let us come to the champions who lived nearest our times; let us take the noble examples of our generation. On account of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles: Peter, who on account of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two, but many sufferings, and so, having borne his testimony, went to his deserved place of glory. On account of jealousy and strife Paul pointed out the prize of endurance. After he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had been a preacher in the East and in the West, he received the noble reward of his faith; having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having borne witness before rulers, he thus departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having become a notable pattern of patient endurance.
Ch. 6. Unto these men who lived lives of holiness was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who by many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set the finest examples among us." Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinthios, I, 5, 6. Funk, Patres Apostolici, 1901. (MSG, 1:218.) Preischen, Analecta, I, 3:5, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), pages 7-8.

And still as late as 117 A.D., we find The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch to the churches in Asia glaringly devoid of any "Christian" designations in the following edifying example shortly before his martyrdom:

"I write to all the churches and impress on all, that I will willingly die for God unless ye hinder me. I beseech you not to show unseasonable good-will toward me. Permit me to be the food of wild beasts, through whom it will be granted me to attain unto God. I am the wheat of God and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb and leave nothing of my body, so that when I have fallen asleep I may be burdensome to no one. Then I shall truly be a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world sees not my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God. Not as Peter and Paul do I issue commandments unto you. They were Apostles, I a condemned man; they were free, I even until now a slave. But if I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise again free in Him. And now, being in bonds, I learn not to desire anything." Ignatius of Antioch, Ep. ad Romanos, 4, quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), page 23.

We find the designations of Christian, Christian Church, etc., were not used by any writers within the "church world" until approximately 150 A.D. when the "converted" Platonic/Stoic philosopher Justin Martyr in his first "Christian" Apologia used these designations. One of his own admirers fully disclosed what his true intentions were, to wit:

"His intention as a Christian teacher was to press philosophy into service of faith; he thus stood at the beginning of the line of those who developed philosophical theologies. Even the latter writers who criticized philosophy... made use of his method and of his works, for his theology was intended to be both biblical and rational." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 469.

So, beginning at approximately 150 A.D., we see that the accepted "Christian" designations were the "pressed" product of a "rational" philosopher and that those purporting to represent Christ's body went from walking and worshipping "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24), to biblical and rational theology, methodology, and philosophy. These "ologies" are not found in the Word of God, therefore "from the beginning it was not so."

A typical example of the admiration Justin Martyr held towards philosophers and other pagans of the time is seen in the following:

"Whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men." Justin Martyr, Apologia, I, 44, (MSG, 6:394) quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), page 135.

Compare what he said above with what our Lord has told us concerning the philosopher Pharisees:

"Why do ye not understand My speech? even because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:43-44

And again, we can see the change in spirit brought about through Justin Martyr as compared with the Apostles and the elect up to his time:

"I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of others, Stoics, poets, and historians. Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians." Justin Martyr, Apologia, II, 13. (MSG, 6:466) quoted in A Source Book for Ancient Church History (1913), pp 73-74.

With that, we will move on and search for the foundation of such "thinking." As pointed out last month, there are two religions mentioned in Scripture. The first is the religion of the Jews (Judaism, see Acts 26:5 and Galatians 1:13-14) and religion pure and undefiled before God described at James 1:26-27.

Taking into consideration the above, we will now look at whose child the Christian religion is, from one of that religion's own sources:

"Judaism. One of the oldest existing religions, and a strict form of monotheism, the religion of Jews and the parent religion of both Christianity and Islam.
Following the destruction of the Temple (A.D. 70), the Pharisees, now called rabbis, emerged as the undisputed leaders of the covenant community. Although they canonized the Hebrew Bible (A.D. 90), the Pharisees' contribution to Judaism is enshrined in that vast Talmudic compendium of law (halakah) and lore (haggadah) containing the teachings of some two thousand rabbinic sages from the 3d century B.C. to the 6th century A.D." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 462.

Is it any wonder after seeing the above description of the Christian religion's foundation, that the adherents to the institution known as Christianity involve themselves with the concoctions known as Judaeo-Christian ethics, morals, science, philosophy, etc., since all of these sorceries that the natural man looks to come directly out of the Talmud. Taking note of the above dates of the development of Judaism, again we see "from the beginning it was not so."

And further:

"Religion. For 1,500 years and more, Christianity has been the chief religion of the Western World, which includes the countries of Europe and later of the Americas. Christianity grew out of the Jewish Religion, and together they are called the Judaeo-Christian religion." The Illustrated World Encyclopedia, (1966), p. 1303.

To further illustrate the origins and development of the Christian religion, we see from the same "Christian" source that:

"Christianity and Judaism in the Middle Ages. Though the first Christians retained their Jewish observances and regarded their faith as fundamentally Judaic, differing only in their concept of Messianic fulfillment, the rift with traditional Judaism developed early and spread widely.
Intellectually, however, the atmosphere of constant hostility was occasionally lightened, and Christian scholarship owed much to Jewish and Islamic thought. The writings of Philo (d. A.D. 40), who found some grounds for reconciling Jewish theology and Greek philosophy, were much studied by the church fathers. From the 8th century, Talmudic schools were established in several countries of western Europe, and many of their lines of inquiry penetrated into medieval Scholasticism. A 10th-century resurgence of Greek culture within the Moslem world affected Christian thought largely by way of Judaic philosophy, as reflected, for instance, in the Sefer ha-Kuzari, or "Book of Arguments," by Judah ha-levi, of Toledo (d. 1140); the 'Emunah Ramah ("Exalted Faith") of Abraham ibn Daud, of Toledo (c. 1180); and the Rabbinical commentaries of Solomn ben Isaac, of Troyes (d. 1105), or Rashi, as he is often known, who offered practical advice on the problems of Jewish-Christian relations. Perhaps greatest of all was Maimonides, of Cairo (b. 1135), and his seminal Guide for the perplexed, which in it's use of Aristotelian reasoning profoundly influenced scholars such as Thomas Aquinas. The more speculative and symbolic Kabbalistic philosophies, such as the Sefer Chassidim ("Book of the Pious") attributed to the German Judah ha-Chasid (d. 1217), and the Sefer ha-Zohar ("Book of Splendor") assigned to Moses de Leon, of Granada (d. 1305), proved fruitful sources for the esoteric Christian mysticism that reached a special popularity in the 14th century. Jewish Biblical commentaries were extensively drawn upon by Christian Hebraists of the later Middle Ages and the Reformation. In particular, Rashi's commentary, constantly quoted as early as the Commentaries of the Christian Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1349), and the lucid textual studies of David Kimchi, of Narbonne (d. 1235), were among the main sources for both Luther's and the King James translations." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 187.

Take note that the spirit spoken of above was not confined to the Roman Catholic Church, but was continued in the Protestant "religion." The best evidence of that fact is found in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (1535 & 1559) by John Calvin (Jean Chauvan). A "Christian" source reveals his true nature, to wit:

"Calvin's intellectual and religious development had taken him from nominalism through law and humanism to Protestantism. His "conversion" probably occurred in 1533, but he still thought of himself as--and was--a Christian humanist, not a reformer." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 148.

And we further see the Roman Catholic/Protestant connection from the same source:

"Calvin often read the biblical text through the eyes of Augustine, whom he sighted continually, especially in the doctrines of free will, grace, and predestination. He was also influenced by Erasmas and Budé." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 148.

In the earlier quote on Christianity and Judaism in the Middle Ages, also note that Jesus, the Christ, is not mentioned as the foundation of Christianity; but Philo is mentioned. And who was Philo?:

"Philo (25 B.C. - A.D. 45). Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of Alexandria. A voluminous writer, Philo tried to correlate the Old Testament revelation with philosophy (largely Platonic) and Greek piety by means of the allegorical method, thus opening the way (especially with his Logos doctrine) to the Christian school of Alexandria, which preserved his works." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 657.

And in the following, we find the Philo/Justin Martyr connection:

"Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.). Roman Apologist. His philosophical approach was not unlike that of Philo and it was carried forward in the Christian school of Alexandria, especially by Clement." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 468.

And who was Clement of Alexandria?:

"Greek theologian of the early Christian church. He was born about the middle of the 2d century A.D., probably in Athens, of pagan parents.
He believed that the Greeks expressed something of the true philosophy (Christianity) by chance, but that chance is subject to Divine Providence, and hence Greek philosophy must have something of the nature of prophecy. Clement also picked up the theory of the Jew, Aristobulus, to which he devoted an inordinate amount of space (in his writings), that the Greeks stole their wisdom from Moses, having plagerized it from the New Testament. Thus he viewed Greek philosophy as really a dim reflection of the divine wisdom of the Jews.
Clement's great merit is that he saved Christianity from intellectual alienation from culture. With a sure grasp of the fundamental Christian realities, his comprehensive mind brought all the human learning of his day into the service of the Church. He made Christianity a religion that could stand on its own intellectually and compete with the rival claims of the other philosophical and religious positions of his time, and he was himself an able teacher of his fellow Christians and a guide to the Christian life." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), pp. 211-212.

And what has this philosophical product known as the Christian religion, conjured up by the natural reason of Justyn Martyr, Philo, Clement, and others, left as a legacy for its followers:

"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:7-9

And a hypocrite is defines as:

"Hypocrite. 5273 hupokrites (hoop-ok-ree-tace'); from 5271; an actor under an assumed character (stage-player), i.e. (figuratively) a dissembler ("hypocrite"): KJV-- hypocrite." Strong's Greek Dictionary.

Considering all of the above, we see the Christian religion, or "Christianity," is based on the dissembling leaven of the Pharisees, that being the philosophies and traditions of men, and the hypocrisy thereof (see Luke 12:1) and the following:

"As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him: Rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:6-10

But when the Head is no longer obeyed and the disobedient child looks elsewhere for truth, we see the results:

The Disobedient Child

Forsaking the Christ, he resorts to philosophy.

With philosophy as his truth, he finds morality.

Now moralized, his new master is humanity.

And humanity demands faith and loyalty,

one way or the other.

But His obedient children have a Faithful promise:

"For He is not the God of disorder, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33 (Berry)

To be continued next month.

The Power of His Word

by Joseph Robert

Our Brother, Joseph Robert, now sojourning in the area of Washington state, or thereabouts, sent us the following three accounts of his encounters while sojourning in a place called The State of Arizona in previous times. We hope and pray that all are edified by the testimony given, showing that the Power of the Word does, in fact, slay the principalities and powers of the world.

In 1976 "my world" as a "human being" was falling apart. So I "hit the highway" as a "hitchhiker." My biggest fears (remember the story of Job in the Old Testament) were perverts and thugs in uniform. Perverts were easy, I simply said "the next stop is mine" and got out of the car. Police, well, they were something else. I hitchhiked from 1976 until 1994, at which time I stopped asking men for a ride, and began to ask God, who has, without a doubt, always provided me with the spiritually correct ride.

Over the years I never went to jail or got roughed up, but I did get intimidated and was left feeling "emotionally raped." Something wasn't right; I could just feel it in my bones.

By 1994 my relationship with God was beginning to truly develop, and as such I began to ask Him for more advice and information on this "legal" dilemma that was troubling me, which was about "I.D." and its "law." At first I tried to "travel" without any "I.D." (and sometimes not), but I was always being confronted by Johnny Good Boy only to end up never completely satisfying their curiosity; for they were never satisfied. Always, they wanted to know more. They were just like a machine: how old are you? when were you born? what's your address, etc. I then tried getting them to agree up front by asking them if they would be content with just the name?

Then in 1996, no doubt in response to my prayers to the Lord to help me with this matter, a ride opened my eyes with knowledge and information about "sovereign citizen" stuff. He was associated with the "freemen" of Montana at the time. At first it seemed to work, but right away I was beginning to find flaws in their "system." Besides, you had to carry a lot of paperwork quoting codes, rules, and regulations. Still in search of the truth, I was directed by this same man to the Jural Society in California. Once I discovered the true nature of I. D., through them, I set out to test it by going to my nemisis, the State of Arizona.

Arizona has, in my book (and in the book of the local people there), the epitome of the Gestapo resurrected in the United States. Arizona has on its statutes a bazaar "law" that says in effect, that when an officer asks for I.D. and you don't present it, they can arrest you, even if you're doing everything else "legal" according to their "law." To accommodate them, I generally remain behind the "No Pedestrian" sign located on the freeway on-ramps; or, as is the case of the account in Oro Valley (read on), I walk facing the traffic on a busy street.

The following are accounts of recent dealings with Johnny Good Boy and Jilly Good Girl of the Arizona Highway Patrol and the Oro Valley Police and Sheriff near Tucson, Arizona.

-------------------------

In the seventh month of the one thousand and nine hundred and ninety eighth year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ I was waiting for my ride on the on-ramp of Dysart Road and Interstate ten, about twenty miles west of Phoenix, when hear came two Johnny Good Boy's in the guise of the Arizona Highway Patrol. As they stepped out of the car I could see one was the senior officer and the other appeared to be a young rooky in training, and I had the feeling that I was supposed to be his next lesson.

"Good morning," said the senior officer.

"Greetings and salutations in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ," I said.

"Do you have any I.D.?" was his response in a gruff voice.

So that we all knew we were talking about the same thing, I begin by defining what it is the man was looking for.) I said:

"Identification: that which is used to describe the status of the holder as a citizen, resident, driver-- (they were starting to nod their heads),-- operator, passenger, pedestrian-- ("yeh, yeh," he murmured),-- hitchhiker-- ("got any," he said?);-- none of which I am; and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my father God. But, I do have something better..."

"What's that?," again in a gruff voice.

I continued, "I have here the Holy Scriptures which describes me as a good and lawful Christian."

"Where are you going?" said one.

"Wherever my Lord and Master leads me," said I. At which point, the senior officer turned to the junior officer and said:

"We're not going to get anywhere here." Then turning to me he said:

"Have a nice day sir," and they turned to walk away. Halfway to their car, the senior officer turned to me and said:

"And don't go beyond that sign (pointing to one of six "NO PARKING" signs along the ramp, not realizing I was already standing at the "NO PEDESTRIANS" sign.

I do believe he was left a little confused by my responses.

-------------------------

It was the fourth month of the one thousand nine hundred and ninety ninth year of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.

Oro Valley, Arizona.

A blessed and comfortable warm day, and Johnny Good Boy was out in force stopping people left and right. So in hopes of being left alone, I decided to walk facing the traffic. And no sooner thinking that I didn't want to be harassed, here she came, Jilly Good Girl with red and blue lights aflashin'. When I saw her coming, I got out my glasses and Bible and waited for her.

"Good morning," she said.

"Greetings in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ," said I.

Her response - "Do you have any I.D.?"

My response - "Identification: that which describes the status of the holder as a person, resident, citizen,-- (she began to nod her head)-- driver, operator, passenger....

"Yeah," she said as I continued.... pedestrian, hitchhiker... "Yeah," she said again, "do you have any..." and I continued, "none of which I am."

Her chin fell to her chest with mouth wide open. As she stood there with her mouth agape, I said:

"But I do have something better..."

"What's that," she said.

"The holy scriptures (holding up my Bible) describes me as a Good and Lawful Christian, are you?"

"Yes," she said.

With this being her answer, the Spirit of God put the following response on my lips:

"Good, maybe you would like to sit down and discuss the Scriptures for a moment.

With her heart being hardened to this, she said, "Some other time. What's your name?"

At that time, there was only one answer to such a question:

"Name: the note, mark, or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those in subjection, and I am only in subjection to my Lord and Master Jesus the Christ. Only my Father knows my name, for it is written in His book of Life; but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

"Well Joseph Robert, what's your last name?"

Standing fast in the Word, I could only respond-- "No, no. You don't understand. I don't have a name, but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

For the next several minutes she kept pounding away at this "name" thing. Finally, she said, "Well you had a family name at one time, didn't you?" To which I had to honestly say, "yes."

"What was it?" she asked.

"Emmett," I said. "And that's with a colon between the "Joseph Robert" and the "Emmett."

By now, a second Jilly Good Girl had arrived and was standing next to the first one. This second one, I thought at first, was a supervisor of some kind.

Their military noose began to tighten:

"If you don't show me some I.D. I'm going to have to arrest you."

Again, our Shield and Buckler was with me-- "You do what you must. I can only tell you what our Lord and Master has said."

"What's that?"

With the Lord beginning to open her heart with this question, I was moved to say, "Not to fear those who can harm the body, but fear only Him who has the power to cast both body and soul into hell."

By this time, a third officer, a Johnny Good Boy, had arrived and sat on the front fender of the lead car observing the goings on.

At that point, our "Good and Lawful" Christian "girl" asked me, "Is there anybody here (in Tucson or Oro Valley) who can verify who you are?"

Again, the Spirit of God bearing witness, "My Father knows me, and if you knew my Father as you say you do, then you already know me, for he sends me. The Holy Spirit knows me, and all of the saints of heaven bear witness and I bear witness of myself. Which, even you must admit, makes it a majority.

Without showing any "emotion," she continued to pound away, "Where do you live?"

"Wherever our Lord and Master sends me."

Unrelenting, she asked, "Where did you sleep last night?"

"In the bushes," said I.

"What bush? There's lot's of bushes around here."

"Would you like to see?," I asked.

"No. Just tell me where."

With no purpose to conceal, I said, "Near the local shopping center."

Having satisfied her curiosity, she moved on to, "How old are you?" The only answer being, "I don't know."

"Well," she continued in a perturbed tone, "when were you born?"

Again, the only answer being, "I don't know, I wasn't exactly conscious at the time, and my Father has never told me. Besides, in your law, that's hearsay and irrelevant."

She, of course, tried to convince me otherwise but I wasn't going to volunteer to be the fiction she wanted me to be, so I remained in the Truth.

At this point, she left me with her "sister" officer and went back to her car and the other officer to call in for advice, no doubt, and to see if there was something to arrest me for, other than just being one of their "usual suspects" walking down the street minding the Lord's business.

During this break in the "action," I turned to the "sister" and ask her, "What's this all about? I don't quite understand. Even in your law I was doing no wrong, so why all of the hoopla and commotion?"

In typical bureaucratic fashion, her response was, "I don't know, you'll have to ask the initiating officer." (With this, I knew she was not a supervisor).

I said, "Well, I'm here to execute Christ's Testament and bear witness to somebody, so perhaps you're here for that purpose. Her eyes got real big when those words were spoken. So I continued:

"How are you with the Lord?

"Oh, I'm ok," she said in a low voice.

"Well, that doesn't sound too enthusiastic," said I. "Do you go to "Church" or something?

"No," she said, "I don't have time. I'm a working single mother with two jobs and a seven year old boy."

For the next couple of minutes her and I developed a good rapport and were in good spirits when the first officer returned.

"Well, you can go Joseph Robert," she said.

"Of course," said I, and turning to the second "sister" standing there, I said, "be sure and take some time to study, if not for yourself, then for the boy's sake."

Wishing them a Good day in the Lord, they left, and I continued on to go where the Lord led me.

-------------------------

The next day...

About twenty five miles north of Oro Valley in a deserty place where the nearest house is about two miles away it was just me and the jackrabbits having a long wait on a blessed day for the next ride, and along came another Johnny Good Boy from the sheriff's patrol.

On went the flashing lights.

Out came the Bible.

He got out of his car and started with "good morning," which is always their way of getting you off guard.

"Greetings and salutations in the name of our sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ," said I.

And, of course, he said "Got any I.D.?"

And, of course, I said "Identification, that which describes the holder as a citizen, resident, driver, operator-- (his head was beginning to nod)-- passenger, pedestrian, hitchhiker--

"Got any?"

--none of which I am, and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my Father God, for it is written, thou shalt not bear false witness. But, I have something better."

"What's that?"

"I have here the Holy Scriptures which describe me as a Good and Lawful Christian. Are you?"

"Yes. What's your name?"

And again, "Name: a name is a note, mark or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those in subjection, and I am only in subjection to our Lord and Master Jesus the Christ. My name is written in the Book of Life, sealed by the Holy Spirit, and known only to my Father God. However, if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond.

And again, "Well, Joseph Robert, what's your last name?"

"As I have said, I don't have a name, but if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond."

This officer could not get past "the name thing," and finally used his radio to call in to see if there were any warrants. While waiting, he had the audacity to say to me, "I'm not here to harass or hurt you."

I could only bite my lip and say, "right."

I was tempted to say more but thought otherwise under the circumstances. The radio dispatch said, "we have no warrants or wants for Joseph Robert, but we do have one for a Joseph Robert Davis." The officer looked at me with a sardonic grin and said,

"Well, Joseph Robert Davis..."-- thinking that he had me. But I simply said, "nope, not me."

He was a little puzzled but had nowhere to go with it, made a few notes on his pad, and said "have a nice day," and left the scene.

I do not mind telling you that each one of these experiences has had my heart pounding in my chest and my knees, and sometimes my whole body shakes. Everything shakes but my neck and mouth which are calm and smooth. I usually continue to shake for five or ten minutes after the incident. I attribute all of this shaking to the movement of the Holy Spirit through me. Each one of these experiences has left me with the stark realization that the Word, and Work, of God does "slay the enemy." His Word is powerful and is the only way to keep the "land sharks" at bay.

In the past, each encounter with Johnny Good Boy usually lasted up to twenty or thirty minutes. Now, they're usually out of my face in five minutes or less. This is a testimony for the remarkable Testament of our Lord and Savior, to whom I attribute all good that has come out of these encounters, and all other experiences in my life. Hallelujah, and Amen. Glory be to God forever.

Abandonment of the Old Paths

transcribed from

Our Nation (1942), pages 491-502, by Barker and Commager

"During the colonial period business differed little from that of biblical days. It was conducted on a small scale, and was carried on almost wholly by individuals, rather than by companies or corporations. For a quarter century after the close of the Revolutionary War [Colonial War] there was little change in the character of American business. Agriculture [commercial term] continued to be the largest industry. Men worked on farms [commercial term] not only from force of habit, but because farming was profitable and because it seemed a good way of life. Manufacturing remained largely a household occupation, carried on by the family at odd hours snatched from other employment [commercial term]. Commerce dribbled through old channels. A few banks were organized, but these were not numerous enough or large enough to change the old ways of doing business [commercial phrase].

"About 1808, however, a transformation began to take place in American business. At that time, the factory began to displace household manufacturing. Commerce was influenced by the same conditions. During the next fifty years, that is by 1860, business took on many of the modern aspects with which we are now familiar. The change was largely due to the use of mechanical inventions; to the discovery of new natural resources; to improved methods of transportation; and to the development of banking and the use of stock companies and corporations for financing large enterprises. At the same time came faint beginnings of governmental regulation and supervision of business in the interests of society.

"factory manufacturing gained a foothold in the northern states during the period of 1808 to 1814, when European [primarily English and French] were closed against American foodstuffs and raw materials, or greatly restricted. As in England, the rise of industry--the Industrial Revolution--began in the clothmaking and iron industries. Encouraged by a high tariff and by an expanding home market, manufacturing developed rapidly. In 1810 the value of products manufactured in the United States was about 200 million dollars. By 1860 their value had increased to almost 2 billion dollars--an increase of 1000 percent!

-------------------------

"The growth of manufacturing increased the volume and complexity of commerce. It was the task of the merchant [mercatura, deceiver; a middleman] to find a market for the products of factories and farms--and there were so many things to sell! Fortunately the task was simplified in a measure by the fact that agriculture and manufacturing supplemented each other. The factory used the raw materials of the farm and the factory workers consumed the food, while the farmers bought the output of the factories. But as the [commercial] nation expanded and population grew, the marketing problem required enlarged and improved means of transportation. At the same time the increase in the number and complexity of the financial transactions of business men demanded the creation of a banking system.

"There are no exact figures to show the annual value of domestic commerce; but a clue to its value in 1860 is furnished by the estimates of the value of manufactures and exports. From these we can discover that the value of home manufactures [those items made for homes--a commercial term] consumed in the United States reached nearly 2 billion dollars. Nor did this sum represent the whole of domestic exchange. A vast amount of trade was still carried on by barter, and was never recorded by the census. Foreign commerce was more picturesque than domestic trade in 1860. It was picturesque because by 1860 it was already world-wide. Cotton, woolen, and linen fabrics came from England, as did fine china, cutlery, and tools.

"The economic importance of this foreign commerce is obvious; its cultural and political importance was also great. It did much to acquaint Americans with ways of living and thinking in other lands. At the same time it created American business interests abroad, and helped to make the United States known and respected by the peoples of other countries.

-------------------------

"A banking system was created to serve the needs of business. The rapid growth of industry and of foreign and domestic commerce made necessary the establishment of banks to assist the exchange of money and credit. The beginnings of banking in the United States were on a very modest scale. When the first bank of the United States was established, in 1791, there were only three other banks in the entire country--one a Philadelphia, one in New York [Chase Bank], and a third in Boston [the Boston Five Cent Bank]. But it is to be remembered that the population was also very small.

"Backed by the support of the government [it saw banks as a source of revenue], and refusing to accept over its counters the notes of unsound banks, the first bank of the United States held banking, as it developed, to a safe and conservative standard. When its charter expired in 1811 there were still only 88 banks in the country. But with the removal of the check that it had maintained, an era of 'wildcat' banking began which ran the number up to 246 by 1816. [The banks were stimulated to grow to allow government to move into the lives of people, whenever they volunteered into their venue.]

"Most of the 'wildcat' banks were organized chiefly to print paper money and lend it [deception]--often to their own stockholders. Very few of these banks had gold and silver, or other sound securities, to exchange for the notes that they printed. The result was that the notes of all banks depreciated, and the notes of some had only a local circulation.

-------------------------

"Corporations were created to finance large enterprises. But banks alone were not sufficient to finance the expansion of business by loans. New forms of business organizations had to be developed. The cost of building turnpikes, canals, railroads, telegraph lines, and other large enterprises was beyond that of any thing heretofore undertaken by American business. No one man, nor any bank, was rich enough to finance such enterprises. They were financed, therefore, in two ways--by the formation of companies and by government aid.

"The joint-stock company--a company in which individuals bought shares of stock--could finance large undertakings. Granted a charter by a legislature, it became a corporation. [*This describes the descent into commerce.]

"The government gave aid to transportation companies. Even in the colonial period it had been thought proper for the government to aid private business in constructing roads, bridges, or ferries. In the nineteenth century government aid--city, county, state, and federal--took the form of purchasing stock in turnpike or canal companies. [Thus government started entering into commerce instead of regulating it.]

"In 1847 Congress began the practice of giving public land to canal companies, and three years later extended the practice to railroads by a generous grant to the Illinois Central, which was building a railroad from Chicago to New Orleans. By 1860 Congress had granted more than 30 million acres to various states, to be regranted by them to railroad and canal companies. Counties frequently gave right of ways, and towns generally granted land for stations and yards.

"Earlier methods furnished a model for later business development. By 1860 nearly all the basic elements of modern 'big business' had come into operation. The agricultural yield [commercial] had been greatly enlarged by increased population, increased acreage, and improved farm [commercial] implements. Manufacturing had passed definitely into the factory state, and the output of American factories was supplying the greater part of the domestic need, as well as the foreign demand for certain sorts of machinery--notably sewing machines and harvesting machinery. Commerce and trade in the products of farm and factory were stimulated and made easy by the opening up of more extensive transportation systems, by the rapid spread of the telegraph system, by the increasing formation of stock companies to finance large enterprises, and by the multiplication of banks.

7"Business of the future was to deal in larger units than those of this earlier period, but its basic elements and the agencies through which it was to operate were developments and adaptations of these earlier methods rather than new inventions.

"The War between the North and the South aided business. As we have already seen the War between the North and the South caused great and rapid expansion in all forms of industry and business in the North. Farms and factories had to supply the needs of the armies. Mines and furnaces had to furnish material for building engines and rolling stock and for the rapidly lengthening railroad mileage.

"The discovery of new resources of oil, coal, and iron ore; the rapid expansion of our foreign commerce; and the creation of the national banking system all furnished new opportunities for speculation and for profits. [Shows the false bottom of Lincoln's world which exists today.] The tremendous expansion thus begun in the later 1860's continued through the first third of the twentieth century.

"The national banking system was inaugurated by Congress in 1863 chiefly to restore order to the currency. By this law, a bank wishing to issue notes must first buy government bonds and deposit them with the Treasurer of the United States. It could then issue bank notes to the value of the bonds, which were held by the government as security. Thus the notes were safe. In order to make them more secure and give them ready circulation, the law required each bank to keep in its vaults a certain amount of specie with which to redeem its notes on demand.

"The important banking tendencies in the twentieth century were the decrease in the great number of banks, the concentration of banking capital in a small number of banks in the large cities, and extension of banker control over industry, business, and transportation. [Which gives the president more control over it through the interstate commerce clause.]

-------------------------

"Regulation of business began in the states. The story of the regulation of business in the United States began in the states. By 1890 twenty-seven states and territories had taken steps to curb business combinations and break up trusts. State regulation of business, however, shortly proved ineffective. It was ineffective for two main reasons. In the first place, the larger business corporations that arose after the War between the North and the South were interstate in character. Incorporated in only a single state, they did business in several states--sometimes in all the states. This made regulation by a single state very difficult. In the second place, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution made the federal government the protector of the rights and property of 'persons'--which included corporations. A great deal of state legislation fixing rates or charges or hours of labor was declared void by the courts on the ground that it deprived such corporate 'persons' of rights or property contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of these two factors, the task of regulating business and transportation companies had to be assumed by the federal government." Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), pp. 491-502. [*Emphasis and insertions added. The Fourteenth Amendment's policy was carried out previous to its enactment, but its greatest effects are felt in how fast and complete commerce overtook the nation.]

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Repent, Repentance.

"3340 METANOEO. From 3326 and 3539; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider:--repent.

"3341 METANOIA. From 3340; (subj.) compunction (for guilt, includ. reformation); by impl. reversal (of [another's] decision):--repentance. Strong's Greek Dictionary.

"3340. REPENT, REPENTANCE. A. Verbs. 1. "Metanoeo (metanoew, 3340), lit., "to perceive afterwards" in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke 17:3, 4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, 2:5 (twice), 16, 21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" [*Ricker Berry, "and she repented not"] (2nd part); 3:3, 19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 12:21. See also the general note below." 2. "Metamelomai (metamelomai, 3338), meta, as in No. 1, and melo, "to care for," is used in the passive voice with middle voice sense, signifying "to regret, to repent oneself," Matt. 21:29, RV, "repented himself" [*Ricker Berry, "having repented"]; v. 32, RV, "ye did (not) repent yourselves" (KJV, "ye repented not") [*Ricker Berry, "but ye having seen did not repent"]; 27:3, "repented himself"; 2 Cor. 7:8 (twice), RV, "regret" in each case; Heb. 7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God."

B. Adjective. "Ametameletos (ametameletos, 278), "not repented of, unregretted" (a, negative, and a verbal adjective of A, No. 2), signifies "without change of purpose"; it is said (a) of God in regard to his "gifts and calling," Rom. 11:29; (b) of man, 2 Cor. 7:10, RV, "[repentance (metanoia, see C)]... which bringeth no regret" (KJV, "not to be repented of"); the difference between metanoia and metamelomai, illustrated here, is briefly expressed in the contrast between "repentance" and "regret."

C. Noun. "Metanoia (metanoia, 3341), "afterthought, change of mind, repentance," corresponds in meaning to A, No. 1, and is used of "repentance" from sin or evil, except in Heb. 12:17, where the word "repentance" seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac's mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau's birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss.

As regards "repentance" from sin, (a) the requirement by God on man's part is set forth, e.g., in Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 20:21; 26:20; (b) the mercy of God in giving "repentance" or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Acts 5:31; 11:18; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Matt. 9:13 and Mark 2:17, as in the RV.

Note: In the OT, "repentance" with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one's action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a "repentance" attributed both to God and man, e.g., Gen. 6:6; Exod. 32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God's immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).

In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to "repentance" from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to "repentance," Matt. 4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, "repentance" is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist's preaching; in John's gospel and 1st epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (John 3:3; 9:38; 1 John 1:9), as in the NT in general. W.E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. page 525.

Bits and Pieces

The New Nature

"The new nature is called "pneuma," just as the old nature is called "flesh": because, "as the body (the flesh) without pneuma is dead" (Jas. ii. 26), so man, without this real pneuma, the new nature, is counted dead before God (Eph. ii. 1, 5) because he is "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. IV. 18).

All men (physiologically) have material flesh and immaterial pneuma (Gen. ii. 7). But man is a fallen creature; and is mortal. A new pneuma has therefore to be given to him to make him a "partaker of the Divine nature" (2 Pet. i. 4). The saved sinner has this pneuma now; but his new body he will not get till resurrection. Then, that body will itself be a pneuma- body (see 1 Cor. xv. 44).

As long, therefore, as the believer is in this mortal body ("this body of death," Rom. Vii. 24), there must be the conflict between the old nature and new. With the new nature the believer is serving the law of God; and with the old nature, the law of sin (Rom. Vii. 25).

This pneuma is here called "the pneuma of life"; for it gives, not mortal life (as in Gen. ii. 7), but spiritual life, Divine life, eternal life. And having this, we have been made free from the law of sin; yea, from that death which came by sin." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit (1905), p. 112.

On a Wing and a Promise

"The designation "professor" comes to us from the Greek sophists, who drew their pupils by promises: to "profess" was to "promise," and to promise was the characteristic of the class of teachers with whom in the fourth century B.C. Greek education began. The title lost its original force, and became the general designation of a public teacher, superseding the special titles, "philosopher," "sophist," "rhetorician," "grammarian," "and ending by the synonym of "doctor." Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, (1957), page 44.

The Traditions of Men

"Ritualism. Religious worship conducted according to established ritual practices. Rite is religious ceremony. Since public ceremonies must be organized and since religious traditions [*of the Pharisees] try to preserve their vessels for the sacred, ritual comes to mean the prescribed patterns in word and action for ceremonies. As such, it is inevitable; but ritualism implies a concern for the structure of rite with sometimes less than appropriate attention to its purpose." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), page 720.

Talmudic Oral Traditions

"Catechism, n. A manual for religious instruction. The catechesis, or oral instruction, of catechumens, i.e., those who were being trained in doctrine [*dogma] and discipline in the early church in connection with Christian baptism, occasioned the writing of manuals to aid in this religious instruction, or catecheses. Thus the catecheses denominated primarily a system of religious instruction but applied secondarily to the documents used in such instruction. Ancient texts relating to the catechumenate resemble in content and plan in modern [*i.e. born yesterday] writings which have been called catechisms." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), p. 167.

The Prognostication of Persons

"Promise:

1.To give assurance by or as by a promise.

2.To afford or give ground for hopes or expectations; as, the day promises well; his habits promise badly." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), p. 1716.

Morally Obliged Revenue

"Tithes. Contributions or taxes consisting of a tenth part of some specific thing, paid in kind or in money, usually in support of religious establishments. From patristic times churchmen stressed that on the basis of Biblical texts all Christians were morally obliged to tithe their entire income as an essential part of their recognition of God's sovereign rights and of the dedication of themselves and their goods to him. Although this primitive ecclesiastical tithe disappeared in the Christian East [*the seven churches of Asia], it became well established in the west that tithes must be paid regularly into the hands of the clergy so that they would have the wherewithal to perform the corporal works of mercy in the name of the Christian community [*not in Christ's Name]." By the 12th century, tithes were simply a form of clerical revenue." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), p. 824.

The Highest Wisdom of the World

"Absurdity, n. A statement of belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 3.

The Gangster Banksters

"'It is stated as a fact by a gentleman from Kentucky, and we believe correctly, that a bank has been established in the Indiana Territory, and above 100,000 dollars [in banknotes] circulated, although the company which established it had to borrow from a bank in Ohio the small sums necessary to buy books and bank note paper. If this is not swindling upon a large scale we are ignorant of the meaning of that word.' The St. Louis, Missouri Gazette, October 23, 1815." quoted in Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 498.

It Seems Mathematically Reasonable

"Philosophy is the work of reason; it deals with abstract notions derived from impressions of sense; and in the composition and divisions of these notions, according to the law of nature and fact [*not according to God's Law], its business lies. It embraces: primary philosophy, revealed theology, natural theology, metaphysics, physics, mechanics, magic, mathematics, psychology, and ethics."

"Mathematics is of great importance to metaphysics, mechanics, and magic." History of Philosophy (1914), p. 260.

Hermeneutically Speaking

"Interpreter, n. One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said. The Devil's Dictionary (1911), page 63.

Issue the Fifty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

From the Beginning it was Not So, Part Two...

Abatement and Default Update...

The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part Three...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

From the Beginning it was Not So

Part Two - The State's "church"

by Randy Lee and Daniel Nile

"For all the words of God are tried in the fire, and He defends those that reverence Him. Add not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be made a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6
"Trust not in yourselves with lying words, for they shall not profit you at all, saying, It is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord." Jeremiah 7:4

Since it has been written from the beginning that...

"...every idle word whatsoever men may speak, they shall render of it an account in the day of judgment, for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

...it is a certainty that one of the duties of all bondmen in and of Jesus, the Christ is to diligently look at the words used to describe His Body. In so doing, His bondmen can be assured in Him that they will not join with or be partakers of those that have attached idle and unclean words to His called-out ones, His ekklesia, His elect.

For those readers that have at one time or another diligently looked into the true meaning of the word "church," we can now say that we deeply sympathize with the confusion you have found there.

It has also become obvious to us through that same study in confusion, that the natural man certainly knows how to use his "theory of evolution" to take something unclean and make it to appear clean; in this case, being the word "church" to describe the Christ's ekklesia.

As a side note before we begin this study, we know that there may be those that say, "oh, your just mincing words; you know what I mean when I use the word 'church.' To that kind of comment, we can only say that if words and the diligent use of them were not of vital importance, we would not have the instruction and admonitions from the Proverbs, Jeremiah and Matthew quoted above, and dictionaries and etymologists and their volumes of word studies would not exist, and everyone concerned would be no better than the confounded of Babel.

To clarify the above statements and to evidence the fact "the church," the Church," or any other derivation thereof can never describe the Christ's ekklesia, we must first begin by looking into the etymology of each of these words.

We begin with the word "ekklesia," which it is recorded in the New Testament so-called that our Lord uttered this word three times only, all three times in the Glad Tidings according to Matthew. The first time, He said:

"p taÚth tÁ ptrv okodomsw mou tn kklhsan" --Matthew 16:18.

In the literal English being:

"on this Rock I will build My assembly."

The Word in the Greek for assembly is ekklesia, meaning:

"Assembly. ekklesia (kklhsa, 1557), from ek, "out of," and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call")." Vine's Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p 42.

The verse's Latin equivalent being:

"ka ep ta tee te p tra oikodome soo mou te n ekklees an."

All of the modern word studies state, erroneously, that ekklesia denotes "the whole community of professed believers." This cannot be correct, for when we diligently look at the original "calling out" of "the called ones" (His ekklesia) by our Father, being written from the beginning and recorded in the book of Isaiah, we can through diligence, see the true meaning of His ekklesia, avoiding the contrived meaning by the commercial "Church world." The following is the KJV rendering from the 5th-8th century A.D. Masoretic/Babylonian Hebrew text:

"Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD." Isaiah 52:11 (KJV)

And our Brother Paul reiterated the "calling out" of "the called-out ones," quoting Isaiah, in his second letter to the Corinthians. Take note in the following that "be separated" is not in the Masoretic text above:

"Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, says the Lord, and the unclean touch not, and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:17 (Berry)

But from the Septuagint, we have the original and uncorrupted calling-out which Paul quoted from:

"Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord." Isaiah 52:11

Note that Paul's quote is translated "out of the midst of them," not "of her," as is recorded in Isaiah. In Isaiah, the Greek word translated of her is aÙtÁj (autos, 846, meaning 'self' [feminine singular]), and the Greek word translated of them at 2 Corinthians is aÙtên (autos, 846, meaning 'selves' [feminine plural]). For an extensive study on the word autos, see Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, pages 85-87, and Zodhiates New Testament Word Study Dictionary, p. 291-294.

And now we come to the substance of the issue. In the Greek, out from the midst means 'out from the centre,' and the word of her and of them in Isaiah and 2 Corinthians is autos, both meaning 'self.' Therefore, His called-out ones, His ekklesia, are those called by Him to "depart and separate themselves (sever and remain severed) from their 'selves' (the flesh, self-will, those 'wants' of the world), and touch not the unclean (impure)." It does not include those that 'hear' the call only, but do not shed the Old nature; those that "try" to come in another way without full obedience to our Father's will and without remaining in the Christ at all times. For it has been written from the beginning, "as the body apart from pnuema is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." Those who answer His call daily in full obedience to "deny himself and take up his cross, and follow Me,"--these are His, truly Lawful, assembly--His ekklesia.

The church??? Except for the first printed New Testament in English from the Greek, which was the Tyndale Bible (1526) and the Berry Interlinear Greek-English (1897)), we find that all other Bibles translate Matthew 16:18:

"on this Rock I will build My church."

Now, where did this word 'church' come from; this word that was, and continues to be, made a substitute for the Christ's assembly, His ekklesia:

"The English word 'church' derives from the late Greek word kyriakon, 'the lord's house,' a church building. In the [*King James] NT the word translates the Greek word ekklesia. Throughout most of history the nature of the church has been defined by divided Christians trying to establish the validity of their own existence." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary, p. 231.
"Church. 1. The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kyriakon (kuriakÒn), 'the lord's house.' But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with (Scottish) kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos (kØkloj), because the congregations were gathered in circles [*pagan ritualism]." Smith's Bible Dictionary (1884), page 117.
"Church. 1. A house consecrated to the worship of God, among christians; the lord's house. 2. The collective body of christians, or of those who profess to believe in Christ, and acknowledge him to be the Savior of mankind." Webster's Dictionary (1828).
"Church. 1. A building set apart for public Christian worship. 2. A place of worship of any religion, as a Jewish or heathen temple or a mosque. 3. The collective body of Christians. 4. A body of Christian believers holding the same creed, observing the same rites, and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority. 5. The organization of Christianity, as in a nation. 6. The clerical profession. 7. A formally organized body of Christians worshipping to gether. 8. Church service. 9. Any body of worshippers; a religious society or organization not Christian." Webster's New Int. Dict. (1931) p. 397.

The above definitions are just a cross-section of the thousands of definitions that say basically the same thing; that this modern (born yesterday) word means "the lord's house" or "circle gathering-circus," and that it can mean whatever you want it to mean; for a Christian, a Jew, or a pagan.

But here, we are looking at the word 'church' as it relates to "The Christian Church." So we need to look at what "lord" might that house belong to? We must also point out that the word kyriakon or kuklos is never found in the Greek texts of the New Testament to describe anything. But we must look at the possible reasons why the Christ's ekklesia has been transformed by the natural man into a lord's house, "a church."

Though we've not been able to find an exact time when the transformation was implemented, we do see from the following that it began with (and is therefore a conjuration of), the tradition of the elders (the so-called 'church fathers') and did not begin from the beginning with the Christ, or with the Apostles through Him:

"1 Corinthians 11:18. In the church (n kklhsa). Not the church edifice, a meaning which the word never has in the New Testament, and which appears first in patristic writings. The marginal rendering of the Revised is better: in congregation." Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. III, page 249.

We see from the above, concerning the the church edifice, that 'from the beginning it was not so,' therefore it has nothing in the Christ. And the edifice is the original meaning of church, before it was evolved by the natural man to purportedly include the Christ's ekklesia.

Firstly, we see that kyriakon may mean the lord's house. But can the Christ's ekklesia be construed to be the lord's house? Since the term lord's house is used only three times in the Old Testament so-called at Genesis and Isaiah to denote a secular lord's house, and is never used in the New Testament, we get another clue as to what kind of "lord" kyriakon denotes.

But to eliminate all speculation, we simply need to go to the historical evidence of what kind of lord's house "the Christian Church" is, and therein find out who has jurisdiction over that house.

We would normally start with the year 325 A.D. when 'the Church" engaged in a corporate merger with the Roman State under Constantine at the Council of Nicea. With this corporate merger, Caesar Constantine became the overseer and protector of his church.

But four years before the corporate merger of 325, we see from the following that Caesar Constantine was already preparing his lordship over the church, by establishing "Sunday services" for the slaves on his commercial plantation:

"All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable Day of the Sun. Country people, however, may freely attend to the cultivation of the fields." Codex Justinianus, III, 12, 3. 321 A.D.

It should be noted here that Constantine's father, Constantius, was attached to the monotheistic pagan cult of The Unconquered Sun.

Following the division of the Roman Empire in 395 A.D., a long succession of pontifex maximus', or imperial Pontiffs (Popes), reigned over their church and state in the East. The word Pope is derived from the colloquial Greek word pappa, an endearing term for "father," "overseer," or "lord."

Next month, by the Grace of God, we will look at the succeeding 'lords' of 'the church,' and the current 'lord' of it in America.

Non-Statutory Abatement

Update

by Randy Lee

With the completion date of the Fifth Edition of the Book of the Hundreds being uncertain and somewhat distant at this time, we have been led to present the newest update of the abatement process for those in need of it at this time.

In the continuing effort to strengthen the abatement process in its current form, which has been one of our duties here in the past six years or so, we present the following Non-statutory Abatement and Default on Pages five through thirteen.

What is presented hereafter is the diligent labors, in the Christ, by many Brothers and Sisters of His Body too numerous to detail here. Without their vast and continuing fellowship, exhortation, and knowledge concerning His Word and the power thereof as it relates to the abatement process, the following update would not be presented here.

It must also be said that, through their trials and tribulations related to the process of setting the record in our Fathers court for His judgment and pleasure, they have evidenced for all to see, as we all should, one way in which the running of the race to "be diligent to present thyself approved to God, a workman not ashamed, straightly cutting the word of truth" can be achieved.

To most of those that are familiar with the previous forms of it, this newest update may appear to be a "radical" change from the earlier editions. We do not consider it radical, but one further step on the long road back to the old paths where all of the Christ's called-out ones must return, all for His purposes and for His glory; and not their own.

Various Changes

One. The first notable change is the placement of the seals and signatures. They have been moved to the top in accordance with the ancient writs which were always signed and sealed before the Law and Facts were presented. In this way, His court's process also remains separate and distinct from the modern commercial modes which are signed after the fact.

Two. The process is issued through the area assembly for the purpose of "covering" the accused Brother or Sister.

Three. It is made clear to all receiving the Abatement process that it is being issued in our Master's court, thereby avoiding any accusations of issuing "false" process. Though no one to our knowledge has ever been prosecuted for doing so, as it relates to the abatement process, their have been many statutes passed at the State level as a deterrent.

Four. All reference to "the church" has been eliminated, and replaced with the true descriptions of the Branches on His Vine, i.e., His ekklesia, the Christ's Lawful assembly at .................., His Lawful assembly at .................,etc. These are interchangeably used throughout the process so that their is no misunderstanding about who the process is issued by. This also eliminates any presumption of legal personality.

Five. The process is no longer served through the mails, but is now served by two Brother's as messengers from the area assembly. They are to also return on the Rule Day to receive an answer from the Defendants. At that same time, if there is no answer, they can serve the Default. This mode has been found to be very effective, and also eliminates any presumption of evil as to the use of the commercial "U.S. Postal Service" for serving Lawful process.

Six. The prosecuting attorney, or District Attorney, has been added to the Defendant list in all cases. This has now been found to be of utmost importance, for he or she is as much a party to the action as all of the other Defendants. We have even had confirmation in one case from the judge, stating that, "if the District Attorney had been made a Defendant and served with the process, the warrant would never have been re-issued."

Seven. Since it is a fact that our Lord and the Apostles quoted the Septuagint directly, and not the 6th century A.D. Masoretic text of the King James version, all Scripture quotes in the abatement and default pertaining to "the Old Testament" are taken from the Septuagint. In addition, "Amen" has been replaced with "So be it, so be it," which is also the Septuagint terminology.

Eight. All periods (.) have been eliminated and replaced with colons (:), semi-colons (;), and commas (,) to avoid any break in the continuous spirit of thought, as is found in the original Greek texts of Scripture.

Nine. "Nom de guerre" as it relates to the Accused has been replaced with "legal fiction," which, technically, describes a name in all capital letters. A name in all caps is also a persona designata; therefore that term has also been retained to describe the legal fiction.

Ten. "It has been written from the beginning" now precedes Scripture verses in place of "it is written" in order to make it clear to all that God's Word is from the beginning and for everlasting, and that anything the natural man invents has no standing, even according to his own maxim of law, "first in time is first in right."

Eleven. There is no longer a "dating" of the process. All current calendars used by the natural man are in error, therefore it serves no purpose to use them. Additionally, using his dating system, to some extent, allows a presumption of recognition of him and his ways, and approval of his error.

For those who are without an assembly in their area, the previous method of issuing the process on your own through the mail can still be used, but we have found that the newest procedure is a much more effective method.

For those that have been led to seek others of like mind in their local area, or within a larger area, please let us know here and we will try to put you in contact with others that are seeking the same thing.

Additionally, for those that are led to use this process, and have any questions on its use, please call or write for fellowship any time.

(Updated Non-statutory Abatement)

By the Authority and Power delegated to us solely by the Grace of God, in and through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with His Commandments, Precepts, Judgments, Statutes, Ordinances, and Testimonies in and of His Holy Writ, solely by and under the Leading of His Warrant in Law and by His Will, do we in and of His Body issue this Non-statutory Abatement in His court:

Locus sigilii ekklesia:

(signature and right thumb print of a member here), a bondman of Jesus, the Christ

Sealed under Authority of the Christ, by His Direction of our own hands on this Glorious day of His Eternal Reign:

Comes Now, His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles, grateful to Almighty God for our Liberty in the Christ, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from our Sovereign Lord, Saviour and Testator Jesus, the Christ, and ourselves by Visitation, to exercise His Ministerial Powers in this Matter, in His Name, by His Authority, under Direction of His Warrant, Mandate and Will contained in His Holy Writ, revealed from the beginning both in His Testament written of Him in Holy Scripture and in Him everlasting:

superior court

at Los Angeles

the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles,

Demandant

J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY

PATROL Officer, I.D. #14858; and,

James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE,

SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and,

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants.

(

) Part One:

( Non-statutory Abatement

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

Non-statutory Abatement

By the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles:

In the accusation of our Sister: Abandoned paper marked with the numerals BC255231 and the dead in Law legal fiction and persona designata EDNA JANE ALBERTSON:

Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come, and May Concern:

Declaration of Authority

By Authority of all Power in Heaven and earth being given from the beginning unto our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, Who died and rose again that He might be Lord both of the dead and living; and, all things having been delivered of God our Father to Him; all Power over all flesh having been given unto Him; all Judgment having been committed unto Him by God our Father, for it has been written from the beginning, The Kingdom is the Lord's, and He is the Governor among the nations; and, all government is upon His shoulder and of the increase of His Government there is no end; and it has also been written from the beginning, His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey Him; and,

Page One of Six

By and through His sanctification, having sent His ekklesia into the world to bear Witness of Him to the world, and delegating to all who sojourn in Him power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all power of the enemy, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ by and through His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles proclaims:

This Non-statutory Abatement is issued by and under the Ministerial Power and Authority vested solely in and appertaining to the Ministerial Office of the Christ, established from everlasting and forever in Truth by the Grace of God through the Christ, Who is the Foundation of Law, in and among all those sojourning bondmen and servants in and of Him, being co-Heirs and appointed co-Executors of His Testament governing His Estate brought into being by His original Act sworn to by Him in His Testament in and from the beginning, and in Lawful execution of His Judgments, against J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Officer I.D. #14858; and Harvey Steinberg, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE, SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, having proclaimed by their acts that they are enemies of, and alien to, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ for Whom we minister and serve. Said Defendants are attempting to plunder His Body in the nature of a Praemunire, imperium in imperio, using unproven strange and alien purported process not recognized by, but outside, the Law of our Sovereign Master:

The aforesaid unproven strange and alien purported process is outlawed in His Kingdom because it disturbs His Peace that He bestowed upon His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles, and it conflicts with His Law He put into our inward parts: for it has been written from the beginning, This is My covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put My Laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people; and,

It has been written from the beginning, All shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them; for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more; and,

It has been written from the beginning, In that day a man shall trust in Him that made him, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And they shall not at all trust in their altars, nor in the works of their hands, which their fingers made, i.e., the legal fictions EDNA JANE ALBERTSON, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, for it has been written from the beginning, The workman made them, therefore they are not God; and,

Conflicts with the Law of the Land are not acceptable, for it has been written from the beginning, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and the Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist;

Wherefore, it has been written from the beginning, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation;

Therefore, the Law He put on our inward parts, known by all to be the lex non scripta, is the jus publicum and lex et consuetudo regni in His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles, for it has been written from the beginning, That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them, so that they are without excuse; and

It has been written from the beginning, For where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them; and, I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me:

Non-statutory Abatement

Discourse:

Chapter one:

Return of abandoned paper and expurgation of record; and Averments

Your abandoned paper is invalid for Cause, and is herewith returned and the purported record is to be expurgated because it is irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following, to wit:

Your abandoned paper and purported record contain the following Marks of Deceit:

First:

Mark: Your abandoned paper is a corruption of Law having no thing in and is distinct and separate from, and strange and alien to, the Law we minister in the Name and by the Authority of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; nor does your abandoned paper have corroboration of Witness by the Spirit of our Father in His Creation and in our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and cannot apply to our Sister, whom God our Father in the Christ knew before she was formed in the womb, was sanctified to Him before she came forth from the womb, whose spirit is quickened in His Image and Likeness, and who has fulfilled the Perfect Law by loving the Brethren in Him; and,

Page Two of Six

Second:

Mark: Your abandoned paper alleges violations of an unproven purported law, alien and strange to the Law governing the Venue in which our Sister is found, and which our Sister occupies solely by the Grace of God in the Christ; and your abandoned paper has no Oath, Vow, Promise, or Law attaching our Sister to, or bringing her within, your alien and unproven purported venue from which it originates; and,

Third:

Mark: Your purported agency, its fiduciaries, and the nom de guerre J. Robertson, are created and established by an entity dead in Law because it has, and they have, no breath of Life breathed into it by the Spirit of God and therefore have no lineage or right to the Tree of Life and are persona non standi in judicio, for, all those who trust in such spiritually dead entities are like those dead things; and,

Fourth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper has no foundation in Law; for Cause: One, it is not from an office in Law having lineage from the Tree of Life establishing it in and by the Law in and of Him and His ekklesia at Los Angeles, because God our Father in the Christ knows it not, and therefore we know it not; and Two, it is from a purported agency which is of the same nature and constitution of its principal, that of an entity dead in Law having not the breath of Life from the Spirit of God in the Christ, and therefore is of the same capacity of persona non standi in judicio; and,

Fifth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper lacks jurisdictional facts, if in Truth and deed the spiritually dead can obtain jurisdiction, attaching to our Sister, who abides, lives, moves, and has her being in the Christ, and not in the darkness of your unproven purported venue, your aforesaid unproven purported venue being dead in Law and sans recognition in the Law and Testament of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; and,

Sixth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper is unintelligible and unfamiliar to us and our Sister, and is alien to the Law and Testament of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom we minister and serve, based upon the following: It is not written in the language ordained and established by our Father in His Kingdom, which evidences its strange and alien origin; being such, the purported law governing it must be laid and proven in His court in which our Sister is found, before it can be noticed and acted upon in and by His Lawful assembly; and, it fails to apprise us and our Sister of the nature of any matter alleged, if any matter alleged therein has standing in Law; for He has not said He knows it, nor that He knows the legal fictions J. Robertson, EDNA JANE ALBERTSON, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, nor that your purported process is Lawful, nor that it originates in and is of Him; therefore it violates the Law in the Will of Our Sovereign Lord; and has no force, effect, or operation outside the venue of darkness from which it originates; and,

Seventh:

Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon its face, Authority in Law for your presence in the Venue of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in Whose Peace our Sister rests from her own labours and self-will, doing all things solely by and under His Leading and Direction in an anointed Ministerial capacity,--all doctrine, dogma, ethics, expediency, morality, moralisms, morals, necessity, orthodoxy, opinion, philosophy, sciolism, sophism, or other traditions originating in the vain imaginations of men in legislative deliberation or dispensation not with standing in Law in and of the Christ and His Lawful assembly; and,

Eighth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon its face, any Lawful Warrant or Lawful Cause, --all belief, reason, conjecture, supposition, presumption, speculation, opinion, probability, hearsay or other vain imaginations of men not with standing in Law, --for your invasion of His Dominions and the disturbance of His Peace Inherited through Him by our Sister according to His Testament, for it has been written from the beginning, "as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that

Page Three of Six

believe on His Name," which we have been delegated that aforesaid Ministerial Power appertaining to the High and Sacred Office of the Christ to minister the aforesaid Inheritance in His Name and by His Authority, for His Glory and Majesty; and,

Ninth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon its face, your Authority or Warrant in Law to assault, violate, or disparage the High and Sacred Office of the Christ which we have been Commanded and Warranted from the beginning by Him in His Holy Writ to hold, occupy and minister till He comes; and,

Tenth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper does not evidence any Warrant or Authority in Law, has no evidence of standing in the Law we execute and minister pursuant to His Writ, Command, under Lawful Warrant of the same; and,

Eleventh:

Mark: Your abandoned paper is not sealed with Authority evidencing lineage through His Body traceable to the Tree of Life, and is, therefore, a Trespass into the Dominions and a breach of the Peace of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in a vain attempt to circumvent His righteous Judgment upon the world and its darkness; and,

Twelfth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper, which appears to tender some purported issue, fails to disclose or establish any Lawful connection between our Sister and your purported office or agency; and,

Thirteenth:

Mark: Your abandoned paper, upon its face, lacks sufficient evidence of Warrant and standing in the Law we minister, because it does not speak according to His Law and Testimony; and, it has no Light originating in and coming from Him; and, there is no Law commanding the Living to join themselves to the dead, or, the children of Light to be unequally yoked with unbelievers who are dead to Him and stumble in darkness;

Chapter Two:

Firstly:

Whereas, the Law in and of Him and His Lawful assembly is one and the same, for it has been written from the beginning, The glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one: I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made complete in one; and,

Whereas, by the Law in and of Him governing His Estate, said enemies alien to Him and His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles cannot Lawfully invade His Dominions with defective and nugatory paper designed for the aggrandizement and lusts of said aliens and their father; and,

Whereas, said alien enemy agents through their alien agencies are tempting our Sister to move from the protection in and of Him through His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles, contrary to the mandate given to all men, for it has been written from the beginning, Thou shalt not pervert the sentence of the poor in his judgment; and to subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not; and an unjust witness kindles falsehoods and brings on quarrels between the brethren; and,

Whereas, His Peace and Inheritance is the Law in His Lawful assembly, for it has been written from the beginning, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His Government and Peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this;

Now therefore, your abandoned paper and purported record is attempting to usurp His Authority, are a disturbance of His Peace, and are a Trespass upon Him and His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles;

Secondly:

Whereas, all Estates originate in and are of Inheritance vested by the Testament of our Sovereign Testator Jesus, the Christ, because it has been written from the beginning, By Him all things consist; therefore, His Act establishing the original Estate and state is the highest in Law, for all other inferior estates are derivative from and

Page Four of Six

dependent upon His original Act, for it has been written from the beginning, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth; and His Cause for bringing His Estate into being always governs all within and every part derived from His Estate which He created, and any act done against His Cause is not Lawful, for His Law by which His Estate is created governs all within and is derived from it, for it has been written from the beginning, He is Perfection, and in Him is no corruption, evil, error, or sin; and,

Whereas, in His original Act, there is no Precept, Provision, or Warrant for a person dead to Him, to have any Inheritance or any part in the Estate which is formed by, in, or from His original Act, for it has been written from the beginning, Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie; and,

Whereas, it has been written from the beginning, The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and all that dwell in it; wherefore no executor can convey that which he or she does not possess, because there is no provision or Warrant in the Testament of our Sovereign Testator the Christ of which we are several joint-Heirs and appointed co-Executors, for it has been written from the beginning, Our God is a jealous God and He will not give His Glory to strangers; and,

Whereas, we can ratify no engagements that prejudice either our Testator, His Testament, or His Estate of Inheritance therein, which bind either Him or us to any obligations with any natural persons dead to Him, for said natural persons have not the right to the Tree of Life, not knowing the Law of God in the Christ, because it has been written from the beginning, The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned; and,

Whereas, all engagements outside Him are void, and your purported consideration is un-Lawful, because any purported contract which is of the fruit of the poisoned tree of morality has no standing, force or effect in, of, or from our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for Whom we minister and remain in at all times and places; and,

Whereas, contracts commercia belli are condemned by His righteous Judgment from the foundation of the world, for it has been written from the beginning, Get thee behind Me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve; and,

Whereas, those persons created or established by a purported law made with man's hands, and which from its own record is created by acts contrary to the Law of the Estate established by the original Act of our Sovereign Testator; and partakes of the same, are dead to Him, for it has been written from the beginning, The dead know nothing, and there is no longer any reward to them; for their memory is forgotten; and,

Whereas, actions by nobody are odious in Law; and,

Whereas, the Law revealed in the Christ is witnessed both by and in His Creation and His Word, and is the general Law in His Lawful assembly and state: only that Law can be invoked and moved, legal fictions and other lies having no standing in His court, for it has been written from the beginning, Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord; and,

Whereas, the lex mercatoria, or mercantile law, moral law, natural law, and international law, are only like or similar to Law, for it has been written from the beginning, He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress; Therefore those creations made with man's hands and privately administered as law, are alien to the Christ's Lawful assembly and state;

Now therefore, your abandoned paper and purported record, and their purpose, are righteously Judged by our Master to be dead to Him and His ekklesia at Los Angeles, and to be of no force because of His condemnation of them:

Thirdly:

Whereas, your abandoned paper contains the alien and strange symbols or images, such as Nov 16 1999, 12/10/99, 12/13/99, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar to us for Cause: we Measure time in years of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with His Glorious Reign; for it has been written from the beginning, The fourth beast shall think to change times and Law; and it has also been written from the beginning, At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that is written in the Book; and He has declared, It is finished; and,

Whereas, it is has been written from the beginning, No man can serve two masters; and by Him we are forbidden to partake of the things of the world, for it has been written from the beginning, Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world; and,

Page Five of Six

Whereas, your abandoned paper and purported records contain scandalous and libelous matter all to the harm His Lawful assembly in general, and to our Sister in particular, who is one of and with us in the Christ, for it has been written from the beginning, Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it,

Now, therefore:

The Law of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ righteously Judges, and has righteously Judged your abandoned paper and purported record to have nothing in Him, His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles, and our Sister; and, to be without Him, without Life, without Law, and without Truth; and, we shall, henceforth, by the Grace of God in fulness of faith in and to the Christ our Sovereign Lord and Saviour, Lawfully avoid you, your unproven, strange, alien purported process; for Lawful Cause: they are irregular, unauthorized, misnomered, defective in Law upon their face, and are, herewith, abated for being destructive of His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles and His Inheritance herein; and to be one of several works of darkness:

There appear to be no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a conflict of Law, for it has been written from the beginning, God divided the light from the darkness and the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not: Therefore, Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand, and thereafter lay and prove in His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles that you bear the Seal and Testimony of the Most High in the Christ;

Chapter three:

Ordering Clause;

"Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order."

His Lawful assembly, in the Name and by Authority of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, so orders the said Defendants to abate the matter of their abandoned paper and purported record marked with the numerals BC220231, which proposes to impose suretyship upon our Sister, through the attempt of an unlawful attachment to her, of a dead in Law legal fiction and personal designata EDNA JANE ALBERTSON, within ten days of the ordering of this Non-statutory Abatement, or show Cause in the Law in and of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ why this Abatement should not lie--belief, reason, necessity, presumption, speculation, opinion, morals, morality, moralism, philosophy, sophism, or sciolism not with standing. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and supporting documentation, having standing in His Law. If more time than ten days is needed to respond, it may be granted on written request to this Lawful assembly's messengers on the Rule Day.

Because it has been written from the beginning that, All are without excuse, failure to obey this Lawful order of and from this His Lawful assembly or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in Default and Judgment.

All remittance of this instant Cause should be given over to His messengers in His Lawful assembly, sent with Letter of Appointment in hand by Him through us, on the Rule day of this Non-statutory Abatement.

For the next eight weeks concerning this instant Lawful Cause, to edify in particular all our Brothers and fellow-bondmen sojourning in and with our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and for public viewing in general, a Public Notice of this Non-statutory Abatement and Default Rule day is posted, in the Public Record, in the general post-office at Diamond Bar, Pomona, and Walnut, in California, and in other places for all our Brothers and fellow-bondmen in His Body to Witness, Record, and have Knowledge:

Attachment: abandoned paper of: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;

Our Sister who sojourns among us solely by the Grace of God in fulness of faith and love to the Christ shall continue to do so, unless and until such Lawful Cause is laid before and proven in Law to the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles that she did in deed do evil in the eyes our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, for it has been written from the beginning, Prove all things; and she shall maintain The Law of Peace in Him, and shall stand upon the grounds set out above, for it has been written from the beginning, Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid; So be it, so be it.

Page Six of Six

-------------------------

(Updated Default)

Locus sigilii ecclesia:

(signature and right thumb print of a member here), a bondman of Jesus, the Christ

Sealed under Authority of the Christ, by His Direction of our own hands on this sixteenth day of the first month, in the two thousandth Year of His Sovereign Reign:

superior court

at Los Angeles

the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles,

Demandant

J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY

PATROL Officer, I.D. #14858; and,

Harvey Steinberg, LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and,

James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE,

SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and,

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants.

(

) Part Two:

( Non-statutory Abatement:

) Notice of Default,

( Default Judgment, and

) Praecipe

(

)

(

)

(

Part Two of this Matter contains the following, titled: One, Notice of Default; Two, Default Judgment; and, Three, Praecipe:

To: SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and all above named Defendants, jointly and severally:

By the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles:

In the accusation of our Sister: Abandoned paper marked with the numerals BC255231 and the dead in Law legal fiction and persona designata EDNA JANE ALBERTSON:

Page One of Three

Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come, and May Concern:

This Notice of Default, Default Judgment, and Praecipe is issued by and under the Ministerial Power and Authority vested solely in and appertaining to the Ministerial Office of the Christ, established from everlasting and forever in Truth by the Grace of God through the Christ, Who is the Foundation of Law, in and among all those sojourning bond-servants in and of Him, being co-Heirs and appointed co-Executors of His Testament governing His Estate brought into being by His original Act sworn to by Him in His Testament in and from the beginning, and in Lawful execution of His Judgments against J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Officer I.D. #14858; and Harvey Steinberg, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE, SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, that have proclaimed by their acts that they are enemies of, and alien to, our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ for Whom we minister and serve. Said Defendants are attempting to plunder His Body in the nature of a Praemunire, imperium in imperio, using unproven strange and alien purported process not recognized by, and outside, the Law of our Sovereign Master;

One. Notice of Default

Take notice that Demand of our Sovereign Testator, in His Name, by His Direction, Mandate, Will, and Testament, and under Warrant of the same, through His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles was heretofore Lawfully made upon you and each of you to answer or otherwise make supplication in this Lawful assembly to the plaint on file herein, a copy of which has been served upon you, and each of you, and of which you, and each of you, have knowledge and personal knowledge of the matter or matters therein contained; and,

Take further notice that your failure to answer, make supplication in His Lawful assembly, or otherwise perfect the Record in Law in response to the foregoing notice and plaint served upon you, within the time stated, the Demandant will forthwith cause your Default to be entered and moves for Judgment against you personally and officially for the relief demanded on the plaint;

Two. Order for Entry of Default and Default Judgment:

The Non-statutory Abatement in this Lawful Cause having been personally served upon Defendants J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Officer I.D. #14858; and James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE, SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and Harvey Steinberg, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA by messengers sent by the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles on the third day of the first month, in the two thousandth Year of the Glorious Reign of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and the Record showing no answer or other supplication to the plaint having in any manner been made on or before the Rule Day to His Lawful assembly at Los Angeles by said Defendants; and,

It appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, the aforesaid Defendants have abandoned prosecution in Truth of their accusations against our Sister, a Ministerial Officer by the anointing of the Christ, by Him in His Testament and Will, thereby bearing witness that their accusations are false, and of themselves that they have no Light in them, for it has been written from the beginning, To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them; because our Father is not in all their thoughts, therefore they walk in darkness bearing no True witness against our Sister; for, the Christ has declared, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of Life; and,

It appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, the Defendants have admitted all matters of Law well pleaded in the plaint of the Demandant commenced by and under Direction of the Christ, thereby bearing witness of themselves that they are not our Brothers in Christ and that they are not of His Lawful assembly, for it has been written from the beginning, Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brothers way; and it has also been written from the beginning, He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him; and,

Page Two of Three

It appearing from the Record, that the lineage of the purported process bears witness that the Defendants are outside His Body; and, it appearing from the Record, without evidence standing in Law to the contrary, that the Defendants aforesaid bear witness of themselves that they have acted in an evil and Lawless manner in and by showing and displaying contempt for this Honourable court, its Sacred Law, and its Blessed Judge, a manner inconsistent with the Mark of the Holy Spirit sealing and bearing True Witness of a serving sojourner in the Christ having, possessing, and executing Truth established in Law, thereby condemning themselves; for it has been written from the beginning, For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only Begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the Light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God;

Now, therefore, on motion of the Demandant, in accordance with the Law of this Honourable court, and by Direction of its Blessed Judge:

It is ordered that the clerk of this Lawful assembly shall be, and is hereby, directed to enter the Default of the aforesaid Defendants, and Default Judgment nihil dicit in favor of Demandant and against Defendants for the relief demanded in the plaint, and as follows:

That all records and purported process containing the dead in Law legal fiction and persona designata EDNA JANE ALBERTSON, and all information they contain, be expurgated from all systems for the Lawful Cause given in the plaint; and,

That a true and correct copy of this Judgment be posted for the next three weeks in all places where this Body gathers itself together from time to time under direction of the Christ; and,

That all who have been edified and have knowledge of this Lawful Cause mark that man and have nothing more to do with him that he might be ashamed and let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord and His Lawful assembly, for it has been written from the beginning, Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them; and,

That a true and correct copy of this Judgment be sent to all said Defendants, and the same be sent to our Brothers abroad for their edification and knowledge of this Lawful Cause;

Let Judgment prayed for enter accordingly:

Three: Praecipe:

The clerk of said court will please enter the Default of the Defendants aforesaid; and Default Judgment nihil dicit against the aforesaid Defendants in the above entitled cause for the following Lawful Causes established by Record in Law through conduct of the Defendants:

One, Defendants J. Robertson, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL Officer I.D. #14858; and Harvey Steinberg, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; and James Cane, PRESIDING JUDGE, SAN FERNANDO MUNICIPAL COURT; and THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA failure to respond in Law on the Rule Day of the fourteenth day of the first month, in the two thousandth Year of the Glorious Reign of our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ; and,

Two, the abandonment of prosecution by the Defendants to lay, evidence, and prove in Law before this Honourable Court the Truth of their accusations against our Sister; for the Law is the same in regard to matters not shown as to those which do not exist; and,

Three, the admission by the Defendants to all matters of substance in Law well pleaded by the Demandant; for it has been written from the beginning, We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth; and,

Four, the failure of the Defendants to evidence, lay, and prove before the Christ's Lawful assembly at Los Angeles the lineage of their purported process to the Tree of Life; for the Law is the same in regard to matters not shown as to those which do not exist; and,

Five, the Record of the willful and Lawless contempt by the Defendants towards this Honourable court, its Sacred Law, and its Blessed Judge; for he who contemns the Law contemns the Giver of it; So be it, so be it.

Page Three of Three

The Unincorporated Church so-called

Part Three, by Randy Lee

"And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hated bird.
Because of the wine of the fury of her fornication all nations have drunk; and the kings of the earth with her did commit fornication, and the merchants of the earth through the power of her luxury were enriched.
And I heard another voice out of the heaven, saying, Come ye out of her, My people, that ye may not have fellowship in her sins, and that ye may not receive of her plagues.
For her sins followed as far as the heaven, and God hath remembered her unrighteousness." Revelation 18:2-5

Through the blessings of fellowship with our Brothers and Sisters in the Christ, the Spirit of our loving Father has shown unto us here a day by day increase of His working in the hearts and minds of His children to seek ways in which to come out of Babylon the great and no longer partake of her plagues.

As all of His children know, the ways in which to begin, to continue in, and to fulfil that exodus can never be accomplished in accordance with the wisdom of the world; for, as it has always been, only through unwavering faith in Him and His Word and by His Grace and Direction alone can anyone walk in His ways and reap the Blessings therein:

"To whom dost thou attach thyself, or whom art thou going to assist? is it not He that has strength, and He who has a strong arm? "To whom hast thou given counsel? is it not to Him who has all Wisdom? whom wilt thou follow? is it not the One who has the greatest power? To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose breath is it that has come forth from thee?" Job 26:2-4

In this discourse, therefore, we will look only to His Word and the direction by His Spirit in seeking the alternatives to bank accounts, check writing, debt based credit, employment, salaried pastors, etc., hereafter referred to as "unrighteous activities." In that way, we will all remain in the Truth together, and not err separately.

Firstly, we must always keep in mind the Instruction, Assurance and Wisdom given to us by the Way, the Truth, and the Life:

"Be not careful as to your life what ye should eat, nor as to the body what ye should put on. The life is more than the food, and the body than the raimant. Consider the ravens, for they sow not nor reap, to which there is not storehouse nor granary, and God feeds them. How much more are ye better than the birds? And who of you by being careful is able to add to his stature one cubit? If therefore not even the least ye are able to do, why about the rest are ye careful?" Luke 12:22-26
"For all these things the nations seek after. For your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Be careful not therefore for the morrow: for the morrow shall be careful about the things of itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil of it." Matthew 6:32-34

Within the above, which is from Above, all of the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" are found.

We see that the "unrighteous activities" are pursued in vain, and are all for naught. Firstly, they do nothing more than fuel the insatiable appetite and give power unto the beast, of which, otherwise, it would not have. Secondly, they all represent dependence on man. Thirdly, those engaged in such activities deny the Truth of His Word when we have been told from the beginning:

"To no one owe ye anything, unless to love one another: for he that loves the other, law is fulfilled." Romans 13:8.

And,

"Without love of money, let your manner of life be, satisfied with present circumstances; for He has said, In no wise thee will I leave, nor in any wise thee will I forsake." Hebrews 13:5

In seeking alternatives to the "unrighteous activities," we must adhere to the following admonition by our Lord and Saviour, thereby avoiding all contractual relationships and the evil derived therefrom:

"I say unto you not to swear at all; neither by the heaven, because the throne it is of God; nor by the earth, the footstool it is of His feet: neither by Jerusalem, because the city it is of the great King. Neither by thy head shalt thou swear, because thou art not able one hair white or black to make. But let your word be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: but what is more than these, from evil is." Matthew 5:34-37

Therefore, the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" must be accompanied with resistance and avoidance of all temptations to do that which is contrary to His Will, i.e., making promises; the result of which when ignored brings you back under the control of the natural man and his "law," and gives the beast power that it would not otherwise receive:

"The relation of master and servant arises out of contract, and a contract of employment usually involves the agreement of one party to render services or labor for the benefit of another, who in turn becomes obligated to pay a consideration therefor." Rickenbaker v. Layton, 59 F.Supp. 156.

The result of falling into a commercial agreement with, or making a promise to any man, is seen in the connected death between the above and the following Word:

"No one is able serve two lords: for either the one he will hate, and the other he will love; or the one he will hold to, and other he will despise. Ye are not able to serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24

But, when we are moved by Him to completely avoid these "unrighteous activities" through doing His Perfect Will, He knows that it is needful for us to work with Brothers and Sisters in the Lord in a non-commercial character, and therewith, all can be partakers of that which is needful; that which our Father approves of:

"As many bondmen as are under yoke, let them esteem their masters worthy of all honor, that not the name and teaching of God be blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because brethren they are; but rather let them serve, because believing ones they are and beloved who are being helped by the good service. These things teach and exhort.
If anyone teach other doctrine, and draws not near to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and teaching according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and disputes of words, out of which come envy, strife, evil speakings, wicked suspicions, vain argumentations of men corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, holding gain to be godliness: withdraw from such." 1 Timothy 6: 1-5

We can now begin to understand that the alternatives to the "unrighteous activities" must be founded upon the non-commercial calling of, "freely ye have received, freely give," which, contrary to modern belief, applies not only to healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, and casting out devils, but to all callings and gifts that He has blessed us with. With the return back to that old path wherein "holding gain to be godliness" does not exist, His called-out ones will know that His promise is True: "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

Those today that have taken His promise to heart and have begun that walk of faith, in Spirit and in Truth, have found the blessings thereof, and must continually keep the following in mind:

"Hear, my beloved brethren: did not God chose the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those that love Him? But ye dishonoured the poor. Do not the rich oppress you, and do they not drag you before the tribunals? Do they not blaspheme the good Name by which ye are called? If indeed ye keep the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect of persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors." James 2:5-9

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Quoted from Kittel's Bible Key Words.

"3. The name Yahweh as a concept of experience."

"The O.T. faith in God is grounded in historical experience and developed in continuos contact with history. The clearest expression of this fact is the use of the name Yahweh in speaking of, and calling upon, God. This name, like every name for God, is a concept of experience and as such, through its concrete and individual content, differs in degree from general concepts verging upon the abstract such as ''l, 'elôah, and 'elôhîm, and from the designation of honour ''~dh^n. It denotes not just any divinity, but a definite, unambiguous, divine person. It fills the terms "God" and "Lord" with so strongly numinous a content, that the final result is that it completely overshadows their general meaning, so that "God" is no longer an appellation of multifarious application and "Lord" comes to mean " the Lord of all ".

The use of the name makes visible the essential and ineradicable features of the picture of God which is painted by the biblical tradition in the portrayal of the inner history of the people of God and the spiritual moulding of its religious leaders up to the inevitable showing forth of divine reality. The deeply-felt pathos, the searing honesty of O.T. piety, is rooted in the message about Yahweh, in whose clearly defined divine personality, in whose insistent will man finds a norm and criterion for life and the world, now cowering in a feeling of creaturely dependance before the Holy, now satiated with rapt gazing at the figure (Ps. xvii. 15) in whom all salvation lies guaranteed.

"4. The Foundation of Moses."

Now, too, the "Wars of Yahweh" begin (Num. xxi. 14; I Sam. xviii. 17) wars which groups forming the backbone of the covenant league prosecuted in offensives, not always successful, against Canaanite communities. "Arise O Yahweh, that their enemies may scatter and they that hate thee flee before thee" (Num. x. 35); so runs the battle cry, when Yahweh's emblem is carried before, presumably the holy shrine as symbol of the presence of the God worshipped [*Psalm 97:7 "Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels (LXX)]. Victory is Yahweh's, defeat means Yaweh's wrath. "Who among the Gods is like unto thee, Yahweh?

"6. The form and meaning of the name Yahweh."

In these circumstances it would be of great importance to know the original meaning of the name Yahweh, since from that, even though it should not have been always present to the minds of those who spoke and heard it, one could probably arrive at important conclusions about the root and original colour of the view of god entailed in the name. But there are difficulties in the tradition with regard to the mere form of the name which prevent us, or rather ought to prevent us, from reading the word in its full tonal form without the occurrence of objections.

The Elephantine Papyri write YHW, for which--presumably in error-- YHH is also found. YHW which also appears epigraphically, occurs in alternation with YW at the beginning of proper names. cf. Yeh^y~qîm, Y^''l, etc., at the end of names it alternates with YH, cf. ''liyy~hf, yesha'y~h, etc. It is not possible to be certain which of these form is the original. The earliest known is YHWH, which appears on the ninth century st'l' of king Mesha of Moab in old semitic script, which completely excludes the doubt which so easily arises in the square script about such ambiguous letters as YW and H.

This combination of consonants admits neither of a fixed reading nor of an unambiguous interpretation, since even in the Masoretic text the vowels added to the tetragram vary and in any case show themselves to be a foreign addition to the word.

"7. The reasons for the reticence in using the name"

As a result of a revival of ancient dynamic modes of heathen thought which came perhaps to Judaism, through close contact with ceremonies of swearing allegiance, the feeling of distance was overcome, as may be seen in the Masoretes' treatment of the name of God and the use of sh'm by the Samaritans. {3} See the list in Driver, op. cit. p. 13, and also O. Eissfeldt, Z.A.W. (1935), pp. 65 ff. who, through Yehabhy~h in Jewish-Babylonian names of the seventh century A.D. (= YHWH) supports the interpretation of -jama as YHWH, and at the same time supposes a much longer survival of unrestrained pronouncing of the name Yahweh than hitherto accepted.

Bits and Pieces

The Morally Good Person

"Morality Plays. Medieval religious dramas related to the miracle and mystery plays. They were so named because the characters were personifications of vices or virtues. Their purpose was the inculcation of moral truths. The most famous of these plays is Everyman, which dates from the 15th century and is of Dutch origin. In it, Death summons Everyman, who is abandoned by Knowledge, Kindred, Strength, etc., and sustained only by good deeds.' The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, (1971), p. 571-572.

Hagiolatry

"The savage, investing everything in nature with personality, peopled the wells [*holy wells so-called] and streams with benign or malignant spirits as his mood or fancy dictated. Christianity did more than substitute the name of a saint for the indigenous water-kelpie, and Chad, Winifred, Margaret, Catherine, Anthony, and many others figured in the place of the early myths.

Thus, one of the most curious and interesting chapters in history is that which shows how the shrewd Christian missionaries of old grafted Pagan customs upon the religion they brought over. Christianity borrowed from heathendom for purposes of good policy [*not for doing the will of the Father], and the wells at which idolatry had flourished, were transformed into the shrines of saints. The old gods were supplanted, and yet no violence was done to a faith to which early man clung with the utmost tenacity. In the records of hagiology we find with what consummate skill and ingenuity the missionaries worked, purging the wells of supposed demons, consecrating them to higher and more beneficent uses, inspiring a grateful and reverent regard in their virtues, and making them the means of keeping alive the names of the saints of the church." William Andrews, The Church Treasury, (1898), page 30-31.

"Hagiolatry. The invocation or worship of saints." Webster's New International Dictionary, (1931), page 970.

Changes???

"The first edition of the Greek New Testament text to be published was that of Desiderius Erasmus printed in Basle in 1519, which was followed by his edition of 1520, which was used by Martin Luther for his German translation. Erasmus also published editions in 1522, 1527, and 1535, the last two of which included some changes [*?] from the Complutensian Polyglot.

"Simon Calinaeus, a printer in Paris, published in 1534 an edition based upon those of Erasmus and the Complutensian Greek New Testament. This work of Colinaeus was never reprinted, but was superseded by the more famous editions of his step-son Robert Stephens, published in Paris in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. The edition of 1550, known as the 'royal edition' or editio regia, followed the text of the 1527 and 1535 editions of Erasmus, with marginal readings from the Complutensian Polyglot. The 1551 Geneva edition was a reprint of the 1550 text in which the present numbered verse divisions first appeared.

"Theodore Beza published in Geneva four folio editions of the Stephens Greek text, with some changes [*??]. During this period Beza also published several octavo editions in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, and 1604. The editions of Beza [*??], particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the English Authorized version of 1611.

"The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition [*??], with a few changes [*???] from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation-'Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum.' The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition [*???] as the primary authority, and corresponds with 'The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version,' edited [*????] by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge Univ. Press in 1894 and 1902." --Preface from The New Testament, The Greek Text underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 (Trinitarian Bible Society, London, Eng.).

Platonic Judaism

"It was in the Gentile rather than in the Jewish world that the theology of Christianity was shaped. It was built upon a Jewish basis [*it was and is not built upon the Christ]. The Jewish communities of the great cities and along the commercial routes of the [*Roman] empire had paved the way for Christianity by their active propaganda of monotheism. Christianity won its way among the educated classes by virtue of its satisfying not only their moral ideals, but also their highest intellectual conceptions. On its ethical side it had, as we have seen, large elements in common with reformed Stoicism; on its theological side it moved in harmony with the new movements of Platonism." Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, (1957), page 238.

It's to Die For!!!

"Liberty, n. One of imagination's most precious possessions.

The rising People, hot and out of breath,

Roared round the palace: "Liberty or death!"

"If death will do," the king said, "let me reign;

"You'll have, I'm sure, no reason to complain."

--Martha Braymance

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, (1911), page 71.

Being Seared with a Hot Iron

"Religious Education. When children are taught about God and their religion, they are receiving religious education. Much religious education is given at home by parents, but many children also go to schools [*of Tyrannus] where they are taught their religion. The most common kind of organized religious education is the Sunday school, or Sabbath school. This consists of classes in the church, usually before the regular service. In these classes, children and some adults learn about the Bible and about the beliefs of their religion [*i.e., reverencing and serving the created thing (religion) more than the Creator... Romans 1:25. We are to learn from the Christ... Mat. 11:29.] The Illustrated World Encyclopedia, (1966), p. 1303.

Respecter of Persons

Evangelist. n. A bearer of good tidings, particularly (in a religious sense) such as assure us of our own salvation and the damnation of our neighbors [*God is not a respecter of persons. Acts 10:34]. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, (1911), p. 31.

Issue the Fifty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Rebutting Presumptions...

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den...

From the Beginning it was Not So, Part Three, The State's 'church,'...

A Study concerning Death and the Grave, Part One...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Rebutting Presumptions

by Randy Lee

"But new heavens and a new earth according to His promise, we expect, in which righteousness dwells. Wherefore, beloved, these things expecting, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot, and unblameable." 2 Peter 3:13-14

As the worldly battle between good and evil rages on in the "mind" of the natural man's Imperial State (who "believes" itself to be its own god walking on earth), there will always be a presumption by that State that those seen in the world are also partaking of its tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil.

It is proposed by the State that "world order" will balance the scales, and therefore it will go to great lengths to maintain that "order" for its masters, the merchants of the earth. But, we must also remember that "the balances of deceit are in their hand." And, of course, with the serpent always speaking backwards, we can see that, in truth and in spirit, its true goal is actually a world of "disorder" to be militarily regulated by them.

In this discourse, we will not concern ourselves with its Hegelian world disorder, for we already know that "they may speak against you as evildoers"; therefore we must "sanctify the Lord God in our hearts: and be ready always for a defence to everyone that asks you an account concerning the hope in you, with meekness and fear" (see 1 Peter 3:15-17). And:

"Prove all things; hold fast the right; from every form of wickedness abstain." 1Thessalonians 5:21

For:

"Ye cannot drink of the Lord's cup, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the Lord's table, and of the table of demons." 1 Corinthians 10:21

The Christ's called-out ones, His ekklesia, His elect, His little ones that have "separated" themselves from the ways of the world, are, and must remain in, the world. For, if they believe that they can be a witness "of the hope that is in them" to the world by finding some secluded place where "no one will bother me anymore," they are in error. There is no place on earth where "no one will bother you"; and if you were to find such a place, only the righteous would see Who your Law and Lawgiver is; but we have been told from the beginning:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt becomes tasteless, with what shall it be salted? for no strength has it any longer, but to be cast out, and to be trampled upon by men. Ye are the light of the world, a city cannot be hid on a mountain situated. Nor do they light a lamp, and put it under the corn measure, but upon the lampstand; and it shines for all who are in the house. Thus let shine your light before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father Who is in the heavens. Think not that I came to abolish the law or the prophets: I came not to abolish, but to fulfil." Matt. 5:13-17

And:

"...we know that the law is good, if anyone use it lawfully, knowing this, that for a righteous one law is not enacted, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for ungodly and sinful, for unholy and profane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for slayers of man, fornicators, abusers of themselves with men, men-stealers, liars, perjurers, and if any other thing to sound teaching is opposed;" 1 Timothy 1:8-10

Since all of those that are alive in Christ must remain in the world, and will therefore be confronted by the world; and though you may be on the road of repentance to be found unspotted from the world, the natural man will still operate on the presumption that you are partaking of his father's table, and are therefore one of several of his regulatable "right and duty bearing units." This is seen in the following:

"The opinions of individuals, once entertained and expressed, and the state of mind once proved to exist, are presumed to remain unchanged until the contrary appears." In Sleeper v. Middlesworth, 4 Denio 431, the court designated this presumption as one "against any sudden change in the moral, as well as the mental and social, condition of man." Greenleaf on Evidence, 1 Ev. 42.

But along with his spiritually dead presumptions comes the ability, by the Grace of God, to rebut the lie with the Sword of the Word. To rebut is:

"Rebut. To overcome; to contradict; to persuade or convince to the contrary. Buhler v. Maddison, 166 P.2d 205, 210. Also, to repel or bar a claim. Black's L.D." Corpus Juris Secundum, vol. 75, page 640.

Our Master is our example of rebutting presumptions. In the following two accounts of rebutting the presumptions of the Pharisees and scribes, we see that the Sword of the Word is the rebutter of the "natural reason" of those that are full of dead men's bones--those that presume evil where there is none:

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils [*the presumption of evil]. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them [*the rebuttal-], Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Matt. 12:24-28 (KJV)
"And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as He taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon Him with the elders, And spake unto Him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things or who is he that gave thee this authority? [*the presumption of evil]? And He answered and said unto them [*the rebuttal-], I will also ask you one thing; and answer Me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; He will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." Luke 20:1-8 (KJV)

These two examples (of many) of rebutting the presumptions of the Pharisees and scribes is our standard. The Pharisees here reveal, just as the natural man today reveals, that they first presume evil before any true evidence of evil is found. When they presume evil towards His called-out ones, it is because they despise Him on account of their own self-willed (self-loving) spirit:

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter 2:9-10 (KJV)

Contrary to modern Church doctrine, that government being despised is "the Christ's glory," not the supposed secular government of the world:

"Government. (2963) kuriotes (koo-ree-ot'-ace); (2Pet.2:10) fem. noun from kurios (2962), Lord, Mighty One. The word is peculiar to New Testament and Patristic Greek, and denotes the kingly glory of Christ." Zodiates Complete Word Study Dict., page 902.

And those that are presumptuous towards His government ministers are tempting Him to anger, and are utterly insolvent in Law:

"Presumptuous. 5113 tolmetes (tol-may-tace'); from 5111; a daring (audacious) man: KJV-- presumptuous." Strong's.
"Audacious. 2. Contemning the restraints of law, religion, or decorum; bold in wickedness; presumptuous; brazenly impudent; insolvent." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 151.

This insolvency, as with the Pharisees and scribes, is the outcome of their self-loving human reason:

"'Presumption' is that which may be assumed without proof, or taken for granted. It is asserted as a self-evident result of human reason and experience. Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Co., Inc., 123 P.2d 780, 785, 13 Wash.2d 28; Rich Hill Coal. Co. v. Bashore, 7 A.2d 302, 314, 334 Pa. 449." 33a Words and Phrases 63.
"A 'presumption' is simply an inference or conclusion logically deduced from known data. It follows that, when contradictory conclusions are asserted [*the rebuttal] as resulting from the same premises, one or the other or possibly both must be erroneous. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Shivers, 61 A. 618, 620, 101 Md. 391." 33a Words and Phrases 67.
"A 'presumption' is not evidence of a fact, but purely a conclusion [*of human reason]. Morris v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 97 P.2d 119, 125, 126, 1 Wash.2d 587." 33a Words and Phrases 67.

As with the legal fictions created for "administrative purposes," the presumptions of the modern day Pharisees and scribes are conjurations of the natural man's insolvent reasonable law:

"Presumptions are purely creatures of the law." Davis v. Hearst (1911), 160 C. 143, 116 P. 530.

And we see that presumptions are one of the indulgences resulting from spiritually dead natural reason:

"Presumptions are indulged to supply the absence of facts, but never against ascertained and established facts." Boggs v. Merced Min. Co. (1859), 14 C. 279, 375 err. dismd. (1866) 3 Wall. (U.S) 304, 18 L.Ed. 245.

And we see that the burdens that today's Pharisees and scribes put on men's backs are a result of their self-loving, insatiably indulgent reasonable minds:

"A 'presumption' is but a rule of procedure used to supply want of facts, and its only effect is to cast burden on opposite party of going forward with proof. Cichecki v. City of Hamtrumck, 170 N.W.2d 58, 61, 382 Mich. 428." 33a Words & Phrases 62.

And how does the natural man create the ability to cast these reasonable burdens upon the backs of others? They simply create a "Substantial Evidence Rule":

"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE. Under the substantial evidence rule, as applied in administrative proceedings, all evidence is competent and may be considered, regardless of its source and nature [*whether based in truth or deceit], if it is the kind of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In other words, the competency of evidence for purposes of administrative agency adjudicatory proceedings is made to rest upon the logical persuasiveness of such evidence to the reasonable mind in using it to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla and means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Chrysler Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., C.A., 631 F.2d 865, 890, 203 U.S.App.D.C. 283.

And of course, what would the "Substantial Evidence Rule" be without another conjuration known as "Substantially Justified":

"SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED. Test for whether government's litigation position is 'substantially justified' within meaning of Equal Access to Justic Act provision governing award of attorney fees is one of reasonableness, under which the government is required to establish that its position has reasonable basis both in law and in fact." Russell v. National Mediation Board, C.A.Tex., 775 F.2d 1284, 1289.

Wow!!! It all sounds so "substantial and reasonable." Since that is the case, let's look at what substantial and reasonable really mean:

"SUBSTANTIAL. Substantial is as flexible in the law as in ordinary English. That is its reason for continued existence in the law. Long use of substantial in combinations, e.g., substantial evidence, can produce an impression of precision, which is lacking. The word is an alert! What substantial fastens itself to becomes infected with substantial's flexibility. A place for discretion." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 626.
"REASONABLE. Reasonable means in the law what it means in ordinary English: rational, just, fair-minded, not too much and not too little, etc. Reasonable means what you want it to mean. Ambrose Bierce- 'Hospitable to persuasion, dissuasion, and evasion. (The Devil's Dictionary). Reasonable has no precise legal meaning. It is flexible. That is its virtue and only utility for the law." Mellinkoff's Dictionary of American Legal Usage (1992), p. 539.

And let's see what a "reasonable man" is, according to those that create such fictional entities:

"The reasonable-man test. The difference between Justice Holmes and the majority of the [*U.S. Supreme] Court was essentially this: The majority members thought they should declare the [*minimum wage] law unconstitutional if they themselves could see no reasonable relation between the means and the end; Holmes thought the basis of the decision should not be the opinion of the judges on the matter of means and ends, but of a hypothetical 'reasonable man.' The judges probably would have differed just as widely on what 'a rational and fair man necessarily would admit' as they did in their personal opinions. There were millions of eminently reasonable men in the United States, some of whom could easily see a reasonable connection between a ten-hour law and the promotion of public health and others of whom could not see it at all. If the judges were to be guided by the opinions of all reasonable men, it would be necessary to take a national referendum before they could decide; if by the opinion of any reasonable man, they should uphold the law even though only one reasonable man in the entire country could see the real and substantial relation between the end and the means; if by the opinion of a reasonable man in the abstract, each judge had as much right as any other to impute opinion to such a creature.
"A year later, however, Justice Holmes, dissenting from the decision of the Supreme Court holding void the minimum wage law of the District of Columbia, restated his 'reasonable man' doctrine in somewhat different terms. 'The criterion of constitutionality,' he said, 'is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good. We certainly cannot be prepared to deny that a reasonable man reasonably might have that belief in view of the legislation of Great Britain, Victoria, and a number of the States of this Union. The belief is fortified by a very remarkable collection of documents submitted on behalf of the appellants, material here, I conceive, only as showing that the belief reasonably may be held.'
The controlling factor, according to this restatement, should not be what a reasonable man thinks but what he reasonably might think. It is difficult to see how this refinement could help. Justice Holmes was impressed by a mass of documentary evidence which left no doubt in his mind that a reasonable man might reasonably believe that a minimum wage law would promote public welfare in various ways. But there were reasonable men--in deed, justices of the Supreme Court--who deduced the very opposite conclusion from the same documentary evidence!" Chester C. Maxey, The American Problem of Government (1949), p. 439.

When we see the obvious deceit, arbitrariness, and capriciousness of the reasonable man and his presumptions, which are the conjurations of the natural man's natural reasoning, we can see why natural men with their self-pleasing creations are the walking dead, for they are "dead while they liveth."

But we must remember that our Father allows these things to exist; for through them, He will ultimately be glorified:

But to the sinner God has said, Why dost thou declare My ordinances, and take My covenant in thy mouth? Whereas thou hast hated instruction, and hast cast My words behind thee. If thou sawest a thief, thou rannest along with him, and hast cast in thy lot with adulterers. Thy mouth has multiplied wickedness, and thy tongue has framed deceit. Thou didst sit and speak against thy brother, and didst scandalise thy mother's son.
These things thou didst, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest wickedly that I should be like thee: but I will reprove thee, and set thine offenses before thee. Now consider these things, ye that forget God, lest He rend you, and there be no deliverer. The sacrifice of praise will glorify Me: and that is the way wherein I will shew to him the salvation of God." Psalm 50:16-23

By the Grace of God, we will continue to look at ways in which His obedient children can set the record in His court, for His glory, through the rebuttal of the presumptions of the natural man.

The time for the judgment to have begun from the house of God is come: but if first from us, what be the end of those disobeying the glad tidings of God? And if the righteous with difficulty be saved, where shall appear the ungodly and sinner? Wherefore also they who suffer according to the will of God as to a faithful Creator let them commit their souls in well doing" 1 Peter 4:17-19

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den

Commentary by Randy Lee

Of God's merciful power shown at Daniel 6:22, our Brother Daniel said to king Darius:

"My God has sent His angel, and stopped the lion's mouth, and they have not hurt me: for uprightness was found in me before Him; and moreover before thee, O king, I have committed no trespass."

The trespass he was "accused" of was for making supplication to our Father, and not to king Darius.

In the following "court record," we can see that there is truly "nothing new under the sun." Our Daniel of today fails to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality, and is therefore thrown into one of today's lion's den, the County Jail. For "failure to appear" on a "traffic violation," they came with guns and dogs on a Friday night to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. This was the first time that he had ever been in jail, though he has had a long running spiritual battle within the municipality concerning other "violations" which he had not "satisfactorily complied with."

Our Brother here having previously abated and defaulted the "warrant for arrest," and the municipality thereafter having recalled the "warrant," reissued it three weeks later. It appears that they reissued it because he had failed to serve the District Attorney; at least that is the excuse they used.

In the following "record," we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original transcript. Randy Lee's comments are in bracketed italics. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, of course, but strictly for the edification of those that may at one time or another be confronted with the same type of situation.

While reading the following spiritual warfare, keep in mind while in that lion's den, he was awakened by the jail-keepers every hour during the weekend to deprive him of sleep before he was brought before "THE COURT."

-------------------------

COURT: Daniel __________.

DANIEL: You say that I am.

[*Comment: He here leaves the presumption of who he is, in the judge's mouth. All responses to anything said should be directed to the prosecuting attorney, not the judge.]

COURT: I am sorry. I didn't hear you.

DANIEL: You say that I am.

COURT: "Daniel -- --," that is what the name says here. I don't know if that is a true name or not. You are charged in Case 0532 in Count I with resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. Count II reflects the charge of being an unlicensed driver. How do you plead?

[*Comment: To further rebut the courts presumption, and to clarify what the court "doesn't know is true or not," he could have pointed out that the "name" was in all capital letters, and therefore could not be him.

The "obstructing or delaying a police officer" was for not answering the "officer's" questions the way he wanted them answered.]

DANIEL: For the record, greetings in the name of my Sovereign Lord Jesus, the Christ, who all power - - it is written - -

[*Comment: The judge interrupts him as soon as he fails to enter a plea or speak the words of the world.]

COURT: I will go ahead and enter a not guilty plea on behalf of Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel, the issue here is whether or not I am going to release you on your own recognizance. Why don't you tell me some information on your behalf which would give me a good reason why I should release you on your own recognizance. Do you have community ties? Do you live in the area?

DANIEL: For the record, I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is written that thou shalt worship the Lord Jesus Christ, and only Him thou shall serve.

[*Comment: This is the correct initial response. It sets the state of the forum, and ignores the "benefit of discussion" that the court has offered him to enter into. He could have continued with, "and also for the record, I am not a 'Mr.' or a'sir,' for those are pagan and heathen titles of nobility." (If they continue to use those designations, it doesn't matter, for you have rebutted the presumption that you are one of their pagan entities). Since he had already abated the court, he could have also added, "and for the record, the issue here is not about me, but about whether or not this is a Lawful court.]

COURT: Sir, the question I have is: Do you live in Beastly, and how long have you lived in Beastly? The address here on the file reflects a Beastly address.

[*Comment: The court is trying to establish 'residency.']

DANIEL: I live where ever I have to be at the moment.

[*More precise is "I live, move and have my being in Christ Jesus.]

COURT: You do? Why don't you have a seat for just a minute.

COURT: Mr. Daniel, would you stand up, please.

[*Comment: These two commands (sit down, stand up) were probably issued to establish a response to the 'name', and thereby 'presumed' jurisdiction.]

DANIEL: You say that I am.

[*Comment: Having responded to the 'name' by sitting down and standing up at the direction of the judge, "you say that I am" is no longer a valid response. The judge now 'presumes' that 'you and the name are one and the same,' due to the obedience shown to the commands.]

COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, the Court has entered a not guilty plea. After taking a look at the motion that you filed today, it is clear to the Court that you intend to plead not guilty to the charges. Is that correct, sir?

[*Comment: A motion was not filed with the court. Here, the judge attempts to reduce the previously served abatements to 'a motion.' The proper response would be, "A motion was not filed with this court, but all defendants concerning this matter have been abated.]

DANIEL: If you say so. I would like to address the Prosecutor.

COURT: I am sorry.

DANIEL: I would like to address the Prosecutor.

COURT: Do you want to represent yourself on this matter? I need you to answer "yes" or "no" out loud...

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: ...so the reporter...

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: ...can take down what you are saying on the record. You would like to speak with the Prosecutor and have a conference on this matter at this time? Is that what you want to do, have a conference on the matter with the Prosecutor?

DANIEL: With you present.

COURT: On the record. Go ahead. What do you have to say?

DANIEL: Greetings in the name of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Sovereign Lord. I am one of His bondservants and ministers, and I possibly - - all - - it is written that all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto Him, and I would like to see a record in law establishing this court under His authority leading to the tree of life, which is the - - Jesus, the Christ. I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, God, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is willful or evil. It is written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve. It is also written no man can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will despise the one and cleave unto the other.

[*Comment: He is standing with the Sword of the Word, and he clarifies and improves upon some of his earlier statements. Again, the judge interrupts.]

COURT: Mr. Daniel, can I just stop you for a moment here? That is typical if you were having a conference and you were represented by an attorney. You have entered a not guilty plea. After hearing you speak today, I at this point - - and based upon your motion, because you are repeating a number of things in the motion, I don't know - - did you file the motion with the District Attorney's office or just with the Court?

DANIEL: It was served... it was served by two men...

[*Comment: He should have said, "It was not a motion, and it was not filed. It was served.]

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: ...on a man from the Beastly police department named K. Predador and also Judge Faracy.

[*Comment: Judge Faracy was the judge on the case, but was removed from it after being served with the abatement.

Since Daniel never rebutted that it was not a motion filed with the court, the judge reiterates the following for the 'record':]

COURT: All right. The motion that was filed with the Court is in the court file and was filed. I think the People are entitled to read it as well because it is a legal motion that you have filed. And based on - - the other question that I want answered - - what are you doing, basically, is having a pretrial conference. This is normally not the pretrial stage. When you failed to appear in court at your arraignment day, I am going to assume, for - - based on what you have said, that that was not a purposeful failure to appear, but that is what resulted in the bench warrant being issued. I would like to set this for another pretrial conference so that we can - - you can continue this conference on the record with the District Attorney, who is present. However, right now it is five minutes after noon. The Court needs to take a recess. And I just need an assurance from you that you will return on the court date so that you can continue with the conference with the District Attorney. So why didn't you appear? Is it just because you don't...

DANIEL: Can I continue... no, I respect the law above everything else.

COURT: If I order you to return, would you return?

DANIEL: Could we continue this in the afternoon...

COURT: Do you want to...

DANIEL: ...so we can settle it today?

COURT: You want to settle the case today?

DANIEL: Well, I would like to speak about what happened.

COURT: Okay. We can continue it for settlement conference this afternoon if you think that would be... This is the question I have: Are you... do you think you would be willing to plead to either of the charges?

DANIEL: I have been... as I said, I was... I could not possibly be willful in this thing that I am accused of.

COURT: The one charge, which is the unlicensed driver charge, just is a charge that reflects that you were not - - that your license had expired, and if... that doesn't require any willfulness. It is not a charge that requires any specific intent to, quote, unquote, do bad or harm. It is just a licensing charge by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that law says you are supposed to be a licensed driver to drive.

DANIEL: On the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999, I was arrested by a man from Beastly Police Department, K. Predador, and I asked this man for some information, and he told me he wasn't a public servant, that he was an employee of the City of Beastly. Now, it is written, I believe, in your law that an officer of the law is appointed, and you don't become an officer of the law by having an employment contract with a dead corporation. I believe it is written in your law, also, that corporations, such as the city of Beastly, State of California, are - - have - - it is said that they have no soul. Therefore, they are dead, and the dead cannot be sued. Is there any law - - can you show me any law that says the living must be joined to the dead? It is written that whosoever shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ shall have everlasting life.

[*Comment: Brother Daniel is doing very well at this point. He is quoting their maxims (not codes, rules and regulations) and is staying with the Sword of the Word.]

COURT: I am not sure what the point is. You are charged with driving a car without a license, and how do you want...

DANIEL: I told...

COURT: Mr. Daniel, we can finish... Mr. Daniel, it is going on into the lunch hour now. At this point in time, we can take a break. What would you offer if Mr. Daniel wanted to plead to the charge? [*speaking to Ms. Argot, the prosecutor.] What charge would you want him to plead to? How many days have you been in custody, Mr. Daniel?

DANIEL: I have spent four days in chains.

COURT: You have spent four days in custody. Okay. Based on the... based on my reading of the police report, my indicated sentence, if you wanted to plead to either charge, would be four, credit four. The question is: What charge would the People be willing to accept if Mr. Daniel were to plead no contest? Or we can take it up this afternoon if you want to.

MS DA: Yes. Let me think about it.

COURT: This is what we are going to do, Mr. Daniel. Ms. Argot also just received the file. I want her to have an opportunity to take a look at the motion that you have filed and reflect upon your comments this morning. We will resume at 1:45 this afternoon. At that time we can continue with the conference, and then Ms. Argot can make you an offer in terms of the charges.

DANIEL: I believe I spent time in jail due to contempt of the law.

[*Comment: This comment creates confusion. It would have been better stated that, "This whole process has evidenced contempt for the Law.]

COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you very much, sir. Why don't you have a seat, and we will trail the Daniel matter until this afternoon.

COURT: Daniel will trail until this afternoon.

AFTERNOON SESSION

COURT: Sir, you wanted to... did you want to continue, with the District Attorney, having a pretrial conference? We are back on the record on the Daniel,,, matter, Case 0534. We put it over this afternoon. Mr. Daniel requested we put it over, as well as Ms. Argot, the Deputy District Attorney in the case, for purposes of seeing if the matter could be resolved. Mr. Daniel, if you want to continue, go ahead.

DANIEL: Is it not written in your law that the law does not compel a man to do the impossible, and, also, any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all? I would like to go back to the 18th day of the 12th month in the year of our Lord, 1999. I had told K. Predador that I was exercising my duty of movement upon the common ways. My warrant for doing that is written in the word of God. It is - - go ye unto all the world and teach the gospel to every creature, also visit the widows, and feed the orphans. And it is also written I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me, and it is also written that I can do all things lawfully, but not all things are expedient.

[*Comment: Somewhat refreshed after the break, Daniel goes for the throat here. It is an excellent discourse, reconfirming what was said in the abatement process, and ultimately has an effect on the judge and prosecutor.]

COURT: Okay. Mr. Daniel, I am wondering, for purposes of determining whether or not we can resolve this matter... there was something that you said this morning that caught the Court's attention, and that was in response to the question that I had. You did sign a citation that you would appear in this court - - and that is, essentially, a promise to appear... on January 27th. I note that the warrant that was issued was on that date. And I would also note that you did file... or I believe you said you had two persons file on your behalf the eight-page motion, that I have read, in this court. And as you commented this morning that... you made some statement about the failure to appear in this matter, and the question is whether or not you would be willing to acknowledge that you failed to appear in this matter. Because there is a... in the Penal Code, which this is the book containing the laws of the State of California... I believe it is 853... What is that section?

CLERK: 853.7.

COURT: 853.7, and that is a violation of a promise to appear. Let me just look at this. "Upon a written promise to appear... let me just take a look and read the section if that actually applies.

MS DA: Okay. As I recall, Mr. Daniel, you... we were talking to you about the four days you had done in custody. You said you felt that was... that was for contempt. Okay.

DANIEL: Go to the 24th day of the first month of the year of our Lord, 2000.

COURT: You want to talk about that day now?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: So January 24th of this year?

DANIEL: Yes. I... on or about January 24th...

COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

DANIEL: ...two men served the abatement on K. Predador and the presiding judge, Judge Faracy, and ten days later, they came back for an answer or request for extension of time, and there was no answer, or extension of time asked for, and they promptly served a default... a default notice, and default judgment was then posted at the local post office and also in several places at Beastly of the default judgment.

[*Comment: He continues to stay on point. The efforts of the judge to sidetrack him have failed. He now forces the judge to enter into discussion of the abatement and default, which shows us that the court does recognize the abatement process, but still calling it a 'motion.']

COURT: You did that?

DANIEL: No, I didn't do that.

COURT: Who posted the default judgment?

DANIEL: The church did.

COURT: And that was because of a failure of the Court to respond to your motion?

DANIEL: The abatement is... abatement is abating an unlawful persona designata or misnomer or nom de guerre, and until the defects are corrected in the paper work, nothing can proceed. The case can't proceed. So it went into default, and there was a default judgment.

COURT: Now, see, I read the motion, and I didn't see anything in the motion... because on a criminal matter, and you are charged with a misdemeanor, the law requires that you personally appear in the court on the date so ordered. In other words, unlike a civil... unlike a civil law case where you can file motions in writing and deal with it that way, in a misdemeanor case, such as the case we are dealing with here, when you sign the citation promising to appear, you personally need to appear in court. In other words, if you... if it was your understanding that it was up to the Court to then respond and failure of the Court to respond in writing to your motion, then that was, I would say, a misunderstanding on your part of the way that the criminal justice system works.

The people weren't served with the motion. The Prosecution is the entity prosecuting, not the Court, and the People are entitled to be served with the motion, and then if there were to be a written response, it wouldn't be from the Court, but it would be from the Prosecution from the District Attorney's Office, and because the People weren't served with the motion, then there was no response.

So I think the question that I have for you is whether or not the People would be willing... well, I should ask this to the District Attorney.

Is there anything that you would be willing to offer by way of an attempt to resolve this matter? I think that is what Mr. Daniel wants is to try and resolve this case, and so... yes. Go ahead, Ms. Argot.

DANIEL: May I say one more thing?

MS DA: Sure.

COURT: Go ahead.

DANIEL: On the fifth day of the fifth month of the year 2000, I was again arrested by K. Predador and two other... or three other officers from Beastly Police Department, and he said to me mockingly that, "I received your eight-page manifesto, but I don't know what to do with it" or "What am I supposed to do with it?" And I believe that... and then I spent the four days in jail. I believe that was... it is written in your law that... let me see... that that was contempt of the law, unlawful process, and it is written in your law that...

COURT: So... Mr. Daniel, I want to understand what you are saying. You are saying that the fact that you were arrested on Friday, which would have been May 5th, was actually an unlawful process? In other words, you don't believe that you were subject to arrest? Is that what you are stating?

DANIEL: Because he had been served with lawful...

COURT: I understand.

DANIEL: ...abatement.

COURT: I understand what you are saying now.

DANIEL: And he had contempt for... he had contempt for the law and, I believe, my Master and Lord Jesus Christ and for the church themselves because it is written when one member suffer, all members suffer, and less a contempt for me...

COURT: All right.

DANIEL: And it is written ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially in those trying to execute the law.

So I believe that he was served the lawful process, according to the abatement.

COURT: All right. Let me just respond because some of the issues that you have raised are... pertain specifically to the Complaint, which has been filed by the District Attorney, and perhaps... and, with all due respect, perhaps ignorance of the law of the State of California on your part, and that is that when you were served with the citation to appear in court, you must appear in court, and then the...

Let me just explain the procedure to you, and that is that when you do fail to appear, a warrant is issued for your arrest. And that is what happened. A bench warrant was issued on January 27th, which was the date that you were to appear in court. And then when you are arrested, as you tell me that you were on Friday, then you must be brought to court, as you are today.

And so, Mr. Daniel, here is the question... and there are a couple of different ways to go on this. If you want to resolve the matter today, I think the People would be willing to offer a charge, which is a failing to appear in court as promised. Now, that hasn't been added yet. I am not going to ask the People whether or not they want to add that charge at this point in time until I hear from you whether or not you are willing to acknowledge... or plead to any charges at all.

If you don't want to plead to any charges, that is fine. You enter a not guilty plea. I will set the matter over for a pretrial date. Based on the fact that you appear to have not come to court and that your failure to do so, according to what you have told me, comes from your understanding that the Court needed to respond to you, and by failing to do so, it was actually the Court that defaulted on this case, I would go ahead and release you on your own recognizance. You would be released this afternoon. I would set another date in the case, and you would need to appear on the date that I selected, and I will pick a date that would be convenient with your calendar.

If you want to resolve the matter...

Would you be willing to offer any counts for Mr. Daniel to plead to?

This is the typical pretrial conference that we are having now. Usually, the People offer...

MS DA: In order to resolve the case, that would be a much less serious count for Mr. Daniel.

COURT: The 853.7, which is a failure to appear as promised to in court?

MS DA: Yes.

[*Comment: All of the convoluted diatribe that has just been spoken is for the purpose of covering up the compromise that the court is offering. Note that Daniel has not yet been charged with 'failure to appear,' though that was what he was supposedly arrested for. They will add that charge and drop the 'obstruction, unlicensed driver, etc.' charges. At this point, the combination of the words spoken by Daniel and the served abatements have sent the court into a 'negotiation' mode. They have 'tried the spirits,' and found him to be who he and his Father says he is.]

COURT: That is what the People's offer is. Do you want to accept that offer and resolve the case today, or do you want to go ahead and put the matter over for another conference?

DANIEL: I believe that... that my Lord was transgressed upon, and I was also. And I have been four days in jail and have a wife and three small children.

COURT: Okay. Do you want to take a moment.

DANIEL: I would like...

COURT: Do you want to take a moment to think about it?

DANIEL: I would like it, maybe, dismissed.

[*Comment: This declaration has to be firm. Not 'maybe.' And not 'I would like,' but 'if this court is truly interested in justice, this case should be dismissed.' This puts them on the defensive.]

COURT: Are the People willing to dismiss everything?

MS DA: No. We can't dismiss everything in this case, I don't think, Your Honor. I would be willing to offer a lesser charge to Mr. Daniel that would resolve it, and that would be over. It would not affect his...

COURT: The charge the People, basically, have indicated that they would add is a Count III, which is a violation of... a failure to appear on a written promise, and that is just your failure to come to court as you promised you would do by signing the citation. It is, basically, a plea disposition.

You would be willing to dismiss the charges that he was actually cited for on December 18th?

But it is your choice to make, to make sure, and if you want to plead not guilty, I will release you on your own recognizance today.

MS DA: I should say. I am sorry. I should say, also, I think that... I am offering that today. I can't guarantee that another prosecutor would offer that later on.

COURT: Okay. All right. But it is up to you, Mr. Daniel. It is your choice. If you are not sure what you want to do, in any event, I assure you I will release you on your own recognizance. I will set another date. If you want to think about whether or not the People... to accept the People's offer, I can pass this matter. I have another matter that I can attend to now, and I can bring you back out when we are through with the other court matter.

DANIEL: I would like you to bring me back out.

COURT: Do you want to think about it? Okay. Let me just clarify what is being offered here. The People would add a Count III, a violation of 853.7, violation of a promise to appear. The sentence would be four days, credit four, no fine, no probation. Basically, the time that you have spent in custody would be the sentence in the case. That would be it. If you don't want to accept that offer, that is fine. That is your choice. I would release you today on your own recognizance. I would set another pretrial date.

MS DA: But those charges would remain that are on.

COURT: The charges would remain. You could come back on another date. You would be out of custody, assuming you come back as ordered. You could discuss the matter again with the District Attorney further, if you would like to do that.

DANIEL: What were the charges?

COURT: The two charges here are resisting, obstructing or delaying a police officer. That is Count I. And Count II is... alleges that you were an unlicensed driver. Those charges are alleged to have occurred on December 18.

DANIEL: And you said those are going to remain?

COURT: If you do not accept the People's offer to plead to what they are offering, which is a Count III, a violation of 853.7, failure to appear in court as promised. If you accept that offer, they will dismiss Count I and II. If you don't accept the offer, Counts I and II will remain pending another pretrial date, a future court date. You could discuss the matter with the People at a future court date.

[*Comment: What we see here is, the court will not let everything 'slide.' They must have a conviction on something, to justify the arrest. By accepting the offer and compromise, the abatement stands (the original 'violations' are dropped) and the 'failure to appear' charges stand for the court.]

DANIEL: Are not codes, rules and regulations arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, not law?

COURT: Excuse me?

DANIEL: Are not codes, rules and regulations arbitrary and capricious and, therefore, not law?

MS DA: They are not arbitrary and capricious.

COURT: That is the People's response. "They are not arbitrary and capricious" is the People's response to your inquiry.

Mr. Daniel, do you want to... a few moments to think about the offer?

[*Comment: Note that the prosecutor never challenged whether they are law or not.]

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: All right. We will have one more brief conference this afternoon. If you haven't decided by that time, I will take it as a not guilty plea, we will go ahead and release you, and you can come back on another date, okay, sir?

-------------------------

COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, we have... we just concluded the other matter, and... so have you thought about the offer...

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: ...which is to plead...

DANIEL: I am willing to accept your offer.

[*Comment: This is the proper response to the situation. This lets the court off of the hook, and allows you to continue with your life outside of the lion's den. What has been accomplished is, Daniel has done his duty of, "let shine your light before men, so that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father Who is in the heavens." ]

COURT: Now, this is the People's offer because, just for clarification, Mr. Daniel, it is the District Attorney's Office that makes the decision on charging, and that is why, as I explained before, when - - although, I know, you did serve the Court and, apparently, Officer Predador as well, the District Attorney's Office did not receive a copy of the filing.

(speaking to MS DA) And that is why you didn't respond . Because it would be the District Attorney's Office to respond.

But as I understand it, this is the offer, and that is that the People will be willing to amend to allege a Count III, a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7...

CLERK: Yes.

COURT: ...and if you would plead no contest to that, the Court does sentencing, and I would... the sentence would be four days, credit four. It would be a time served sentence. And then the People would be dismissing the resisting, obstructing, delaying arrest and would be dismissing the unlicensed driver charge. Is that what the offer is, MS DA?

MS DA: That is correct.

COURT: And you are willing to accept that offer?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: Okay. Mr. Daniel, there is one more issue that I want to cover with you, and that is that I am a court commissioner, and in order for me to go ahead and sentence you in this case, you would agree to... I would need to have you agree that I can impose the four day-credit for sentence. Is that agreeable with you?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: ...that I impose the sentence?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: I am going to do oral waivers.

CLERK: Okay.

COURT: Mr. Daniel... First of all, is there a People's motion to add a Count III, a violation of 853.7? And that is a failure to appear in court as promised on the citation.

MS DA: Yes.

COURT: Okay. That is the charge. Mr. Daniel, you do have the right to have an attorney in this matter, and if you cannot afford an attorney, I would appoint an attorney for you free of charge. Do you understand that right, sir?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: And do you give up that right in order to represent yourself on this matter?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: You have the right to a jury trial or a court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to present a defense in your own behalf and the right to remain silent. Those are your Constitutional rights, according to the United States Constitution. Do you understand those rights?

DANIEL: Yes.

[*Comment: He could of at this point said, instead of 'Yes' , "I never have and do not now claim any Constitutional rights, but whatever rights the court 'presumes' I have, the court can also presume that they are waived.]

COURT: How do you plead to Count III, which is the amended count that was just added by Ms. Argot. And that is a violation of Penal Code Section 853.7, failure to appear.

DANIEL: No contest.

COURT: Okay. A no contest plea has the same force and effect as a guilty plea. You are convicted on the plea. It just cannot be used against you in a civil court. Do you understand this?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: Okay. Sir, I find that you have expressly, knowingly, understandingly and intelligently waived your Constitutional rights. I find that your plea has been freely and voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature and consequences thereof and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

At this time I will impose the sentence of four days, credit four. The $100 restitution fine is waived because of the time that Mr. Daniel has served in County Jail. There is no fine, no probation. That is it Mr. Daniel. Thank you very much. And are Counts I and II dismissed on People's motion...

MS DA: Yes.

COURT: ...in the interest of justice?

MS DA: Yes.

COURT: Counts I and II are dismissed. Sir, that resolves this matter. Thank you very much, sir.

DANIEL: I want to thank you both very much, and may God richly bless you both for your compassion and your respect to the law.

MS DA: Thank you. Same to you.

COURT: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. Good luck to you, sir.

From the Beginning it was Not So

Part Three - The State's "church"

Introduction by Randy Lee

In this final Part on the modern lord of the Church, we will allow Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary (one of "the Church's own") to fully reveal who the lords of the Church have been since its inception during the second century A.D.

Also keep in mind that the Hegelian dialectic used by the Masonic sciences of, "Separation of Church and State," creates two separate secular institutions, and the institution with the most guns and lawyers becomes the master of all.

Church and State

(pages 233-237)

"The phrase refers to an ancient differentiation between two kinds of institutions that have structured and defined the lives of human beings. In this arrangement one of these authority structures, the State, has been primarily concerned with temporal life as an end in itself, while the other, the Church, has been concerned with temporal life as a means to spiritual ends. Moreover, "church and state" designates a certain kind of tension implicit in any society that contains these two institutions, even in those in which there is no attempt to separate them.

The issue of the most desirable relationship between church and state is older than the Christian faith, and has been a persistent theme in its history. Jesus clearly taught the principle of separating the two realms. His dictum to "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21) marked the beginning of a new epoch in the history of relations between religion and the state. For the first time, a formal distinction was made between the obligations owed to both.

Unfortunately, Jesus did not indicate where the exact line of demarcation lay; consequently, since at least the fourth century Christian theologians and other scholars have argued over where it should be drawn. The resulting discussions stretching over the centuries since that time constitute an almost impenetrable historical-theological swamp. The debate continues in the Christian world today and is especially intense in highly pluralistic societies like the United States.

Historical Background. Christian thinkers made no attempt to formulate a theory of church-state relations until Christianity became a state religion in the fourth century. Before that time, even though they had no legal right to exist, believers generally followed Paul's admonition to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom. 13:1) except when that subjection conflicted with explicitly understood commands of God or the preaching of the gospel (Acts 5:29). Moreover, the duty of obedience to civil rulers was always qualified by the condition that these authorities were doing their work of restraining evil and seeking peace and safety (cf. Rom. 13:1-7 and Rev. 13).

Widespread persecution of the early Christians was frequent, beginning at least as early as the reign of Nero in the mid first century. The final effort to eradicate Christians from the Roman world took place under Diocletian in 303. It failed, and with the Edict of Milan in 313 Christianity became an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire. Moreover, by the end of the century the Roman rulers had decreed that Christianity was the sole official religion of the empire.

This new arrangement created a need for closer definition of the relationships between church and state, but such theory developed only gradually. For one thing, it was during this period that the church became an institution in the modern sense. For another, the Emperor Constantine I, in keeping with previous custom, regarded himself as the religious leader of the realm (pontifex maximus) and assumed the right to intervene in church affairs. Later rulers gave up this title but continued to consider themselves responsible for directing church activities.

The removal of the capital from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium) in 330, among other factors, led to a different conception of church-state relations in the East than that in the West. In the Eastern Roman Empire (later the Byzantine Empire) and consequently in Eastern Orthodoxy the prevailing theory and practice came to be caesaropapism-that is, supreme authority over the church exercised by the secular ruler, even in doctrinal matters. In the West, the church had more freedom from direct control by the civil authorities.

Partly because of the ineffective political leadership in the Western Empire and partly because of the inherent authority accorded the church in Rome, the Roman bishops had to take responsibility for judicial affairs, military defense, and other secular matters. It was in this context that Bishop Gelasius I initially stated the doctrine of the two swords in 494: "There are two powers by which this world is chiefly ruled; the sacred authority of the popes and the royal power. Of these the priestly power is much more important because it has to render account for the kings of men themselves at the divine tribunal....You know that it behooves you, in matters concerning the reception and reverent administration of the sacraments, to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authority rather than to control it."

During the Middle Ages (ca. 500-1500) the theory of the two spheres, the spiritual and the temporal, was generally accepted, but the question of supremacy remained undefined. To be sure, the state was universally considered a Christian institution in this period, obligated to nourish, protect, and further the faith. Church law held that the state was obligated to punish heretics, and this obligation was accepted by the state. But there was also endless debate among theologians and canon lawyers over the real meaning of Gelasius's two swords theory. The text of his statement was analyzed and the etymological significance studied in order to deduce the implications of spiritual supremacy for temporal affairs. Eventually the concept of a single society with two aspects, each with its own responsibilities, was worked out. However, it was a painful and slow process.

During the early Middle Ages the church struggled to free itself from intrusion by secular rulers. For example, after the sixth century, emancipated from direct control from Byzantium, the popes increased in prestige and power, in both the spiritual and temporal realms. But an important event in church-state relations took place in 800 when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor. Charlemagne had tried to revive the empire in the West and held views close to caesaropapism. He would have liked to limit the role of the pope to purely spiritual affairs, but he had no competent heirs to continue his policies. For their part, later popes used the precedent of Charlemagne's coronation to show that emperors received their crowns from the papacy. On the other hand, later emperors claimed the right to approve those elected to papal office. Thus, by the eleventh century the elements of a major confrontation between pope and emperor, church and state, were present.

When Pope Gregory VII, an advocate of reform, challenged the right of Emperor Henry IV to appoint the Archbishop of Milan, the investiture controversy ensued. In 1075 Gregory issued a decree forbidding lay investiture and asserted that popes had the power to depose emperors. After considerable maneuvering by both parties, including Gregory's dramatic but temporary triumph at Canossa in 1077, a compromise was worked out by the Concordat of Worms in 1122. Bishops in the empire were to be chosen according to canon law but invested with their insignia by an ecclesiastical officer. The practice was copied elsewhere and tensions eased somewhat.

However, the issues of the right of the popes to depose kings and the role of the secular rulers in selecting appointees to high church offices were worked out only gradually over the decades, the papacy eventually becoming dominant. This trend culminated in the reign of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), the most powerful pontiff in Christian history. Under Innocent, and for about a century thereafter, it was clear that royal power was subordinate to pontifical authority. The thirteenth century was the zenith of papal power in terms of church-state relations. However, the aspirations of kings to consolidate their national strength and the discrediting of the papacy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1309-77) and the Great Papal Schism (1378-1417) which followed led to the curtailment of papal influence and prestige.

These factors and the growth of the Renaissance papacy in the fifteenth century further weakened the papal office and helped set the stage for the coming of the Protestant Reformation.

The Reformation and Its Aftermath. The Protestant Reformers challenged the authority of the church in general and the papacy in particular, in both the spiritual and political realms. This further diminished the ability of the church to control and/or intervene in political affairs. Moreover, in place of the late medieval theory of ultimate pontifical authority in church-state matters, the Reformers posited a variety of different approaches. Martin Luther sharply distinguished the temporal from the spiritual but considered many ecclesiastical functions, such as administration, as nonessentials. Therefore, most of the Lutheran states developed an Erastian territorial system in which the princes supervised church affairs. John Calvin tried to make a clear distinction between the spheres of church and state, believing that it was the duty of the latter to maintain peace, protect the church, and follow biblical guidelines in civil affairs. In general,

Geneva and the Reformed churches of Europe attempted to follow his views and avoid civil domination. The Church of England adopted an Erastian position by substituting the king for the pope as the head of the church and by designating king and Parliament to regulate ecclesiastical government, worship, and discipline.

However, the Anabaptists and other Radical Reformers insisted that the correct biblical emphasis was to separate completely the spheres of church and state. Their position seemed so anarchical at the time that they were severely persecuted by all other parties, Protestant and Catholic alike. In turn, the Anabaptists passed on their views on church and state to related movements in seventeenth century England, Baptists, Quakers, and Independents.

More than any other religious group in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, those of Baptist views, John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, Leonard Busher, John Murton, John Bunyan, John Clarke, Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and John Leland, among others, championed the concept that the logical corollary to the doctrine of religious liberty was the principle of the separation of church and state. On the basis of such Scriptures as Matt. 22, Rom. 13, and James 4:12 they argued that this was the only way to safeguard religious freedom and the priesthood of the believer. By this they meant that the state had no right to interfere with the religious beliefs and practices of individuals or congregations, and that the church for its part had no claim upon the state for financial support. To receive public money was to invite government control and the loss of religious identity.

Also in the eighteenth century Enlightenment natural rights theorists such as John Locke and Hugo Grotius popularized the view that civil government was rooted in a social contract rather than in God's appointment. Armed with this concept the emerging national states tended to make the church subservient to the common good of society and came to expect institutional religion to steer clear of political issues. However, the development of this concept in Europe and the remainder of the world was uneven, and attempts at state control of the church recurred. Only in the newly created United States of America did the government clearly agree to a new system that sought to guarantee religious freedom through separation of church and state.

The American Experiment. Conditions in the American colonies prior to 1776 were not favorable to the establishment of a single church. To be sure, during most of the period many of the individual colonies had an established church, Congregationalism in New England and the Church of England in most other places. However, there was no state church in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Delaware, while in many other places large numbers of Baptists and Quakers opposed those that existed. Numerous dissenters and the need to attract settlers regardless of religious persuasion made it difficult to enforce establishment. By the time of the revolution, when the new states wrote their constitutions, most of them disestablished their churches. Gradually all would abandon the concept. Vestiges of an establishment lingered in Massachusetts until 1833.

The U.S. Constitution forbade religious tests for public office and its First Amendment provided that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." A new experiment in church-state relations had been inaugurated with the strong backing of Baptists, Mennonites, Quakers, and most Methodists and Presbyterians, all of whom were Bible-believing Christians who wanted to protect the freedom of the churches and individual consciences from the state, and the support of the founding fathers, most of whom were rationalist deists who wanted to protect the state from clerical domination. Moreover, there was the practical matter of the prevailing denominational pluralism in the new nation that made it impossible to agree upon which church to establish.

Although the original intentions of the founding fathers and their supporters are now debated, it appears that Thomas Jefferson and his party and the vast majority of evangelical Protestants, the dominant religious group of the early national period, assumed that there was a "wall of separation" between the two institutions which should be maintained at all costs, for the good of the republic and the health of true religion. They considered that government best which governed least, regarded religion as primarily a private affair between an individual and God, and saw no reason for conflict between politics and religion. Although they wanted a strict separation of the institutions of church and state, they did not try to segregate religion from national life

General references to the majority religion were acceptable in what was then a largely homogeneous nation. This common view dominated church-state relations in America throughout the nineteenth century.

However, there was also a minority view, expressed by John Adams and others, that the main concern of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from interfering with religious matters so that each state could handle such questions. Some eventually extended this to a claim that the goal was to make the United States a Christian nation, but neutral in respect to particular denominations.

As America became more religiously and culturally heterogeneous in the twentieth century, the dominant nineteenth century view of a rather rigorous separation of church and state was increasingly challenged. Many now argue that there was actually no unanimity among those who voted for the First Amendment and that it is impossible to determine their original intent. This has resulted in a sharp division in interpretation, with some arguing for a veritable "Berlin Wall" of separation that would clearly secularize society by excluding anything religious from national life and others arguing for a more porous wall that would allow for the flow of a virile civil religion into the stream of national affairs.

Historically speaking, this new period of church-state relations began in the 1920s when the old Protestant establishment committed cultural suicide in the internecine fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Theologically speaking, it dates from the wave of theological liberalism that engulfed Protestantism in the first quarter of the twentieth century, thus diminishing the ability of American society to resist the encroachments of secular humanism and to assimilate the great waves of new immigrants which came to America in this period. Legally and politically speaking, it stems from 1940, when a landmark decision by the Supreme Court (Cantwell et al. vs. State of Conn.) resulted in a dramatic shift in church-state cases from state to federal jurisdiction. Since that time the court has dealt with a number of critical religious issues related in some way to the First Amendment: laws governing business on Sundays, taxation of church property, religion and prayers in the public schools,

public support for parochial education, church lobbying, conscientious objection, abortion, pornography and censorship, and resistance to war taxes. Currently in the offering are other questions concerning church and state, such as the status of military chaplains and legislation to limit the activities of so-called cults.

In the period since 1940 several principles have been established by the Supreme Court in dealing with church-state matters. For example, it invoked the "child benefit theory" in 1947 (Everson vs. Bd. of Ed., N.J.). In 1971 (Earle vs. DiCenso and Lemon vs. Kurtzman) it established the principle of "evidence of excessive entanglement" of church and state. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not equivalent to "an establishment of religion" in twentieth century America and to determine where the freedom of an individual or group conflicts with the freedom of others or with obligations to the larger good of the community. Moreover, the competing forces of diverse religious and ethnic groups along with a lack of a clear national consensus on moral values have made it difficult to reach decisions on church and state acceptable to a clear majority of Americans.

Theologians, historians, and other scholars have not contributed a great deal to the discussion of church-state issues since World War II. The monumental work of Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer is an exception and provides the beginning point for any analysis of current church-state relations in America. James E. Wood, Jr., and the Journal of Church and State have also provided vigorous leadership in this area, and such organizations as Americans United for Separation of Church and State remain in the forefront of such discussion and analysis. But even AUSCS, long an advocate of the "wall of separation," appears to be less "united" on the issues than it once was. Finally, there is considerable evidence that the increasing number of adherents of authoritarian religious cults and denominations and the presence of the new religious right in America will have a profound role in altering the meaning of "separation of church and state" in the years to come,

probably in the direction of more government involvement in religion.

Conclusions. Islam, Hinduism, and most of the other major religions of the world have not produced a doctrine of separation of church and state comparable to that championed by evangelical Protestants and Enlightenment rationalists and eventually implemented in the United States. For example, in many Muslim countries there is no separation of church and state in the Western sense. In others there is formal separation of the institutions but a close link between them in terms of favored treatment and anticonversion laws.

On the other hand, the validity of the principle of church-state separation has been increasingly recognized all over the world in the twentieth century. Nearly every European country has disestablished former state churches, and in some nations, such as France, a radical separation has been effected. Even in most Marxist states, such as the Soviet Union and China, church and state are constitutionally separated, not in order to ensure religious freedom but in order to make certain that religious groups stay out of government affairs and to keep them under supervision.

In one sense the concept of separation of church and state has come almost universally to have normative value. Most secular governments prefer to have some kind of line demarcation between the sacred and the profane, at least in terms of institutional expression. On the other hand, the principle has not yet been definitively articulated, not even in its American homeland. Moreover, there are emerging movements, such as Islamic republicanism in Iran, which renounce any attempt to separate the institutions. In America growing numbers of people appear to have abandoned the more traditional emphasis on a "wall of separation" in favor of some kind of bland civil religion that will allow for more open-ended cooperation between the two institutions. It remains to be seen if people today can distinguish between the impossibility of separating religion from politics, on the one hand, and the desirability of keeping church and state on their respective sides of the religious-political wall, on the other."

A Study concerning Death and the Grave

Where will I go when I die?

Part One, by Steven Milton

The following study is presented by our Brother Steven Milton and the Christ's Lawful assembly at Wenatchee, Washington. It is by no means a complete study, and it is certainly not intended to be put forth as "doctrine." It is simply "food for thought" for those who have expressed a concern regarding this very controversial subject. Lord willing, Part Two will appear in a future Issue of Matters concerning His Lawful assembly.

Those that have additional information on this subject can call or write us, and we will pass it on to His assembly at Wenatchee for their edification.

Since I became a new creature in Christ Jesus, (for it is written)...

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." 2 Corinthians 5:17

and...

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Galatians 6:15

...I have been taught many things. The study we are about to embark on is just one of many. It will be my attempt to separate out those "ideas and philosophies" that come from the "reasonable" minds of men, i.e., ...

"Beware lest any man spoil you [*lead you astray] through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

...having little or no foundation from Scripture. It is my intent to show the path that the Logos has laid out and does not leave us confused, for His Word tells us that all Scripture is profitable...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

...and we are to be in all truth:

"All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies." Psalm 25:10
"Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;" 1 Corinthians 13:6
"Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;" Ephesians 6:14

...and we, therefore, can understand all things in His Word:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

In this study about death and the grave, we will begin at the beginning:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7

We might note first that God shows us His "formula" for making a living soul. We can call it m/d + H/B = Ls; (that is: man from dust, plus His breath, equals = a living soul). We should note here that if any one of the first two parts of the "formula" is missing, then the soul does not live. So, with this "formula" we need to examine the Scripture to verify this beginning truth. Psalm 146:4 tells us about death:

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."

And:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7

And:

"For as the body without the spirit [*pneuma, breath] is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26

So it appears that the beginning "formula" is true. One without the other ends in extinction. But I am immediately concerned about this. Why? Because I had learned somewhere that all men's souls are immortal, and they never die.

So let's look at the next obvious question.

Where does man go when he dies?

To find the answer to this question, let us look into the Word at several verses from the "Old Testament" (so-called):

"For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, 14 With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves; 15 Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: 16 Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. 17 There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. 18 There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. 19 The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master." Job 3:13-19
"For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. 8 Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; 9 Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. 10 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 11 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: 12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. 13 O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. 15 Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands." Job 14:7-15
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Psalm 6:5
"Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? 12 Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" Psalm 88:11-12
"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence." Psalm 115:17
"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." Psalm 146:4
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

And from verse 10:

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:10

Notice that Ecclesiastes tells us that literally nothing exists in the grave, not even knowledge. And:

"For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy truth." Isaiah 38:18

Since we have been looking at the word death so much in the above verses, we will now look at Webster's New International Dictionary of 1929. Here are a few bits from it:

"Death. 2. In Theology: Cessation of the spiritual life, called spiritual death. This conception has been developed esp. in the 'Christian and Jewish religions.' 7. Total privation or loss; extinction: cessation of function or existence: annihilation; as the death of memory;"

As well as death, the word "grave" is very important for us to examine. In Strong's Exhaustive Concordance we see the following:

"7585 she'owl (sheh-ole'); or sheol (sheh-ole'); from 7592; AV - grave (31), hell (31), pit (3); (65). 1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit. 1a) the underworld. 1b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead. 1b1) place of no return. 1b2) without praise of God. 1b3) wicked sent there for punishment. 1b4) righteous not abandoned to it. 1b5) of the place of exile (fig.). 1b6) of extreme degradation in sin. Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates."

And we note here that the word grave in Strong's is found elsewhere:

"6913 qeber (keh'-ber) or fem. qibrah (kib-raw') AV - grave (35), sepulchre (25), buryingplace (6; 67), grave, sepulchre, tomb."

I have looked further into the words sheol and hell, and have discovered something very interesting. It appears the two are from the same word and refer to the grave. It seems that there is no authority, at least in this study so far, for creating a different place for hell over the grave. Again, from Strong's:

"86 hades (hah-dace), AV - hell (10), grave (1; 11)
1067 geena (gheh'-en-nah) of Hebrew origin, AV - hell (9), hell fire."

Is death compared to anything else? We find the word sleep used frequently to describe death. Let's look at a few verses from the OT concerning sleep:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep [*Hebrew: lie down] with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them." Deuteronomy 31:16
"So David slept [*to lie down] with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David." I King 2:10 (see also, Job 7:21, 14:12, Psalm 13:3, Jeremiah 51:39 & 57, Daniel 12:2).

In the NT we find the word sleep:

"These things said He: and after that He saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. " John 11:11 9

Here, the word has the same meaning as the OT. It refers to death or to be still, calm. You can also see Acts 7:60, 13:36, 1 Corinthians 11:30, 15:, 18, 20, & 51, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15, 5:10, and 2 Peter 3:4.

When I read the above verse concerning Lazarus, I was reminded about another story about a rich man and Lazarus. Lord willing, I can share what I have learned about that at a later time.

So, what will happen to us in the grave; or to put it another way, do we stay there? Do we remain in the grave where we are buried? Do we go to heaven to be with Jesus the Christ at the time of death?

We find at John 3:13 a very interesting statement concerning these questions. It is written:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13

And at Acts 2:34 we read that:

"For David is not ascended into the heavens:"

And:

"For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:" Acts 13:36

It would appear from the above that death is our enemy, and not a time to receive a reward. And Paul said:

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:26

If this study seems confusing to you, join the club. I now realize that many preconceived "ideas" that I have need to be re-evaluated in light of truth. According to the will of our Father, at a latter time I will attempt to provide more on this subject and my preconceived ideas that are being challenged.

In this ongoing study, there are questions to be answered, such as: Where do we find the idea of the immortal soul of man apart from God? I will attempt to provide information about the origin of the concept that all men's souls are immortal spirits (which is not found in Scripture). At this time, it appears that it comes out of Greek mythology and its "ideas" of reincarnation.

With that in mind, we must remember that He paid the price for His called-out ones, and that price was not paid in vain.

Until our next study is presented, here are a few verses that may clarify and strengthen our resolve:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." 1 Corinthians 15:20-23
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Corinthians 15:51-53

And concerning the hope that is in us:

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1Thessalonians 4:13-17

Brother Paul, through the Spirit of God, tells us that those he is referring to have a hope, not because of where they are now, but rather in a coming event. They sleep even as others. They sleep even as the unsaved! This is very apparent in the entire study we have presented here.

Our hope is in One: Jesus, the Christ, because in Him is immortality.

Our prayer concerning the grave has been written from the beginning as expressed by Job:

"O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!" Job 14:13

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Righteousness

1. "dikaiosun' (dikaiosunh, 1343) is "the character or quality of being right or just"; it was formerly spelled "rightwiseness," which clearly expresses the meaning. It is used to denote an attribute of God , e.g., Rom. 3:5, the context of which shows that "the righteousness of God" means essentially the same as His faithfulness, or truthfulness, that which is consistent with His own nature and promises; Rom. 3:25,26 speaks of His "righteousness" as exhibited in the death of Christ, which is sufficient to show men that God is neither indifferent to sin nor regards it lightly. On the contrary, it demonstrates that quality of holiness in Him which must find expression in His condemnation of sin."

"Dikaiosun' is found in the saying of the Lord Jesus, (a) of whatever is right or just in itself, whatever conforms to the revealed will of God, Matt. 5:6, 10, 20; John 16:8, 10; (b) whatever has been appointed by God to be acknowledged and obeyed by man, Matt. 3:15; 21:32; (c) the sum total of the requirements of God, Matt. 6:33."

"In the preaching of the apostles recorded in Acts the word has the same general meaning. So also in Jas. 1:20; 3:18, in both Epistles of Peter, 1st John and the Revelation. In 2 Pet. 1:1. 'the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,' is the righteous dealing of God with sin and with sinners on the ground of the death of Christ. 'Word of righteousness,' Heb. 5:13, is probably the gospel, and the Scriptures as containing the gospel, wherein is declared the righteousness of God in all its aspects."

"This meaning of dikaiosun', right action, is frequent also in Paul's writings, as in all five of its occurrences in Rom. 6; Eph. 6:14, etc. But for the most part he uses it of that gracious gift of God to men whereby all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are brought into right relationship with God. This righteousness is unattainable by obedience to any law, or by any merit of man's own, or any other condition than that of faith in Christ.... The man who trusts in Christ becomes 'the righteousness of God in Him,' 2 Cor. 5:21, i.e., becomes in Christ all that God requires a man to be, all that he could never be in himself. Because Abraham accepted the Word of God, making it his own by that act of the mind and spirit which is called faith, and, as the sequel showed, submitting himself to its control, therefore God accepted him as one who fulfilled the whole of His requirements, Rom. 4:3...."

"Righteousness is not said to be imputed to the believer save in the sense that faith is imputed ('reckoned' is the better word) for righteousness. It is clear that in Rom. 4:6, 11, 'righteousness reckoned' must be understood in the light of the context, 'faith reckoned for righteousness,' vv. 3, 5, 9, 22. 'For' in these places is eis, which does not mean 'instead of,' but 'with a view to.' The faith thus executed brings the soul into vital union with God in Christ, and inevitably brings forth righteousness of life, that is, conformity to the will of God."*

2. "dikaiÇma (dikaiwma, 1345) is the concrete expression of "righteousness": See JUSTIFICATION, A, No. 2."

Note: In Heb. 1:8, KJV, euthut's, "straightness, uprightness" (akin to euthus, "straight, right"), is translated "righteousness" (RV, "uprightness"; KJV, marg., "righteousness, or straightness")." VIne's Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 535.

Unrighteous

adikos (adikos, 94), not conforming to dik', "right," is translated "unrighteous" in Luke 16:10 (twice), RV, 11; Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 6:1, RV; 6:9; Heb. 6:10; 1 Pet. 3:18, RV; 2 Pet. 2:9, RV: see UNJUST." Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 653. [*Septuagint: "injury," "unjust."]

Bits and Pieces

From the Beginning it Was Not So

"The Christian philosophy which thus rose out of philosophical Judaism was partly apologetic and partly speculative. Inside the original communities were men who began to build great edifices of speculation upon the narrow basis of one or other of the pinnacles of the Christian temple; and outside those communities were men who began to coalesce into communities which had the same moral aims as the original communitites, and which appealed in the main to the same authorities, but in which the simpler forms of worship were elaborated into a thaumaturgic ritual, and the solid facts of Scripture history evaporated into mist. They were linked on the one hand with the cults of the Greek mysteries, and on the other with philosophical idealism." Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, (1951), page 129.

Lincoln's Global Ecomony

"There are no indications of real and permanent prosperityin the splendid fortunes reported to be made by skilful manipulations at the gold room or the stock board; no evidences of increasing wealth in the facts that railroads and steamboats are crowded with passengers, and hotels with guests; that cities are full to overflowing, and rents and the necessities of life, as well as luxuries, are daily advancing. All these things prove ratherthat the number of non-producers is increasing, and that productive industry is being diminished. There is no fact more manifest than that the paper money is not only undermining the morals of the people by encouraging waste and extravagance, but is striking at the root of our material prosperity by diminishing labor." Hugh McColloch, Secretary of the Treasury, Report of the Treasury for the year 1865, at page 9.

Issue the Fifty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

(This Issue contains a Selection of Articles

from past Issues, expanded and revised)

Inside This Issue:

Consent: Implied and Express...

The Long Road out of Commerce...

That Knock on the Door...

It's All in the Name...

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today...

The Darkside of the Common Law.

Myths of the Patriot Movement...

Fictions of Law...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Consent: Implied and Express

by Randy Lee

(from Issue the Twenty-fourth)

"My son, let not ungodly men lead thee astray, neither consent thou to them. Go not in the way with them, but turn aside thy foot from their paths: for nets are not without cause spread for birds." Proverbs 1:10, 15, 17.
"And fashion not yourselves to this age: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for to prove by you what is the good and well-pleasing and perfect will of God." Romans 12:2

One of the major stumbling blocks in the pursuit of "coming out of her, separating yourself, and touching not the unclean thing" is a legal phenomenon known in man's law as "consent." It manifests itself in two forms--Implied and Express. Consent transforms itself into major minimum contacts that are not easily overcome according to man's law due to the doctrine of estoppel. Therefore, it is important to know what constitutes consent in whatever form, and how to avoid giving consent to those ministering for "the beast," whether they be a father or mother, a husband or wife, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a government agent or merchant of the earth, "friend" or foe; for we are told:

"If thy brother by thy father or mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife in thy bosom, or friend who is equal to thine own soul, entreat thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, of the gods of the nations that are round about you, who are near thee or at a distance from thee, from one end of the earth to the other; thou shalt not consent to him, neither shall thou harken to him; and thine eye shalt not spare him, thou shalt feel no regret for him, neither shalt thou at all protect him." Deuteronomy 13:6-8

It is my hope that all that read and study the following will take pause before they say "yes" to someone or something, or in doing a particular act, knowing then the implications of giving "consent."

The word consent is derived from the Latin words con, meaning with, together, and sentire, meaning to feel, think, judge, etc. We must always keep in mind with whom or whose law we are consenting to be under, our Father's, or man's, for:

Consensus facit legem. --Consent makes the law. Maxim, Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859) Vol. II, p. 125.
Consent: "An agreement to something proposed. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B. 1, c.2, s.1.
"The one who gives consent must be capable of doing so." 1 Whar. Cr. L. 146.

Are you capable of giving consent to the ungodly? Being a bondman of the Christ, did He give you the capacity to give such consent? The question you must ask yourself before giving consent to anyone is, "Has My Father given me permission to do so; is it approved of in His Word?"

All of the bondmen and fellow-servants of our Lord must be nonconformists to this world. We must not conform to the men of the world--of that world which lies in wickedness--nor walk according to the course of this world (see Eph. 2:2); If sinners entice us, we must not consent to them, but in our places witness against them.

Consent: "A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence, permission or compliance therewith. State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 164 N. W. 759.

When consenting to anything, that consent must concur with the will of God.

Consent: Agreement; the act or result of coming into harmony or accord. Glantz v. Gabel, 66 Mont. 134, 212 P. 858, 860. 'Consent' is sometimes synonymous merely with 'waiver.' Dahlquist v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 52 Utah 438, 174 P. 833, 844
"While consent is said to be a concurrence of wills, it does not necessarily refer to or indicate a bilateral agreement; it may be unilateral." Twin Ports Oil Co. v. Pure Oil Co., D.C.Minn., 26 F.Supp. 366, 371.
"The term 'consent' generally implies a yielding of that which one has a right to withhold." Reynolds v. Baker, 191 S.W. 2d 959, 961, 209 Ark. 596.

Man's law acknowledges your duty under God to withhold consent from them. Therefore, always remember that when it appears "you must" comply to something, it actually means "you may."

Implied Consent: "That which is manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, from which arises an inference or presumption that the consent has been given." Avery v. State 12 Ga.App. 562, 77 S.E. 892.
"Implied consent allows for consent to be implied from custom, usage or conduct. For example, a doorbell on the front of a residence is an invitation to enter another's property for purposes of calling the occupant to come to the door and speak to you. However, consent cannot be implied when the property owner or occupant has outwardly evidenced an intent that consent is not given, such as a "do not trespass" or "keep out" sign. [*the bondman of Christ Jesus would post a "Breaking the Close" notice on his gate and door posts]. Implied consent is limited to accomplishing the purpose for which consent was given." Opinion by the law firm of Bauckham, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen for The Michigan Township Association (1997).
Invito beneficium non datur.--No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 69. But if he does not dissent he will be considered as assenting. Bouv.

Implied Consent: "Implied consent exists where a person by his line of conduct has shown a disposition to permit another person to do a certain thing without raising objection thereto." Vick v. Zumwalt, 273 P.2d 1010, 1013, 130 Colo. 148.
Qui tacet consentire videtur. --He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32.

The purpose of the Non-Statutory Abatement is to avoid that silence; with Law. But, if you've been accepting the bribes from the temple, you have already given consent. It may then be too late for an abatement, due to acquiescence.

You of course have the right of repentance, therefore you must cease that previous activity, repent, and thereafter exercise Your Right of Avoidance.

Omnis consensus tollit errorem. --Every consent removes error. 2 Inst. 123.
Consensus tollit errorem. --Consent removes or obviates a mistake. Maxim of Law, Co. Litt. 126.
Volunti non fit injuria. --He who consents cannot receive an injury. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2279, 2327; 4 T. R. 657; Shelf. on mar. & Div. 449.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "They just rolled over me." The "reason" they rolled over you is because you had already given them consent to do so. According to the maxims of law, once you give consent there is no error, mistake or injury on their part. But:

Consentientes et agentes pari poenâ plectentur.--Those consenting and those perpetrating are embraced in the same punishment. 5 Co. 80.

Avoid the punishment:

"Be sober, watch; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about, seeking whom he may swallow up: Whom resist, firm in the faith, knowing the same sufferings are being accomplished in your brotherhood which is in the world. But the God of all grace, Who called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, a little while ye having suffered, may Himself perfect you, may He establish, may He strengthen, may He found you: To Him be the glory and the might, to thew ages of the ages. Amen." 1 Pet. 5:8-11
Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest. --What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal. Bv.

Voluntarily appearing in court, joinder, and submitting to that court's judgment, or your silence, is the consent given.

Express Consent: "That which is directly given, either viva voce [*by voice] or in writing." Black's L.D. 3rd Ed., p. 402.
It is direct, positive, unequivocal consent, requiring no inference or implication." Pac. Nat. Agri. Credit Corp. v. Hagerman, 55 P.2d 667.
Ejus est non nolle, qui potest velle. --He who may consent tacitly, may consent expressly. Maxim, Dig. 50, 17, 8.
Melius est omnia mala pati quam malo concentire. --It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it. 3 Co. Inst. 23.
Melius est recurrere quam malo currere. --It is better to recede than to proceed in evil. 4 Inst. 176.
"By their fruits ye shall know them. Do they gather from thorns a bunch of grapes, or from thistles figs? So every good tree produces good fruits; but the corrupt tree produces bad fruits. A good tree cannot produce evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree produce good fruits. Every tree not producing good fruits is cut down, and into fire is cast. Then surely by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:16-20
Implied Consent: "Consent is implied in every agreement. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Heine v. Wright, 76 Cal. App. 338, 244 P. 955, 956.

Before you agree to anything with anybody, always ask yourself who you are becoming yoked with; for we are warned:

"Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers: for what participation has righteousness with lawlessness? and what fellowship light with darkness? And what concord Christ with Beliar? or what part to a believeth with an unbeliever? and what agreement [*consent] a temple of God with idols? for ye a temple of the living God are; according as God said, I will dwell among them, and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be to Me a people.
Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, says the Lord, and the unclean thing touch not, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to Me for sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Nemo videtur fraudare eos qui sciunt, et consentiunt. --One cannot complain of having been deceived when he knew the fact and gave his consent. Dig. 50, 17, 145.

The Long Road Out of Commerce

by Jodie Lynn

(from Issue the Eleventh)

Editor's Note: The following is from a Sister in the Lord and should give all of us hope that we can do the same.

My husband and were married on the twenty-eighth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred eighty. By the eleventh month of the same year we had purchased (land sales mortgage) a twenty-eight acre farm in the Willamette Valley in Marion county, Oregon.

The farm was financed by the State VA Program and our parents. At the same time we borrowed money (parents again) to purchase sheep to raise on the farm.

Then the fights began. Either I was spending to much or he was, or he wasn't working enough or I wasn't. He got mad when I borrowed from my dad; I got mad when his mother offered unwanted advise.

Time went on and we were learning not to purchase on time, that is, the small things.

In the winter of eighty-one I attended classes on Tax Preparation, and then passed the test. In the spring of eight-two I started work at H & R Block as a Licensed Tax Preparer.

During the same era we started a greenhouse business on the farm that was quite successful.

My father got ill and we had to take care of him and his farm.

More bills and more debt.

I continued to prepare taxes for the next five tax seasons for various firms. In the fall of eighty-five I passed the exam to be a "Licensed Tax Consultant" and then opened my own office "Woodburn Tax Service & Bookkeeping". On Hwy 99E there was an office I rented, and then hired a gal to help me. The business was very successful. Because of the growth, I needed more space, so I made an offer to the adjacent land owner on the purchase (Land Sales Contract, i.e., mortgage) of his building, rental house and lot. I plopped the money down and it was a done deal.

Now the debt was larger and the fights were bigger. Let's not forget to mention by now we have a son and two daughters.

The tax and bookkeeping business continued to grow so I hired a couple more gals to help. At one time I had three full time employees besides myself. I had payroll taxes and huge overhead with computers and office equipment. I felt that my liability was great and I was sticking my neck out; and wa la!, I incorporated my business. Now I was a corporate officer.

The greenhouse business was going good and we had started into Christmas trees so we incorporated the farm business too. Now my husband was a corporate officer just like me!

Now, back in the spring of eighty-seven we accepted the Lord into our lives. He had been working on us in different ways and we are glad we heard the knock at the door. We knew things were not correct, but how do you get from Point A to Point B when the canyon looks so deep?

Trying to get on the correct path and follow it is hard, especially when you are learning so much at one time; Christianity, Parenting, Business, and Farming, not to forget to mention matrimony. Well the Lord had (has) a plan and I guess it is up to us to seek it out.

One day in the third month of ninety- three my husband was reading the Farm newspaper and saw a ranch for sale in Eastern Oregon; he jokingly said "let's go look at it." I said OK, and that weekend we did. It was fifty-four ranches later before we bought one.

In the mean time I sold my tax business, sold the office building, and sold the farms I inherited after my dad's death. At the time we started liquidating, we had four rental houses, four different pieces of property, and I rented out three office suites and a warehouse; I had the tax business; we had the nursery and Christmas trees, and oh yes, three children (we weren't able to liquidate them).

During the same time, on one evening in the spring of ninety-three a very close friend of ours, Ronald Lowell, mentioned in conversation that there was two kinds of citizens and did I know which I was? (We know now we are neither, but it was the start for us down the correct path). I confessed I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Curious about all his findings, I needed to know more.

Now, tax research was one of my all time favorite things to do; find the loop hole; find the truth; find the gray area...! So I went to Salem to the Marion county Law Library, literally sitting on the floor in the aisle way with books piled around me, reading for five hours straight about "Citizen" and "citizen," and I came out of there with the understanding that "it" was something that I didn't want to be.

Now the idea to move to Eastern Oregon made more sense. Get away from the commercialism, get back to the basics, and more importantly, back to God [*old paths].

In the winter of ninety-five we purchased Ranch number fifty-four; it was paid for with cash and gold; no mortgage, no borrowing and no fights.

We lived in an elk hunting tent (we still had our house in the valley) for six weeks while building a pole barn for shelter. It got down to 12 degrees in the tent. When the pole barn was completed we moved in, and the next night it got down to -5 degrees. We moved everything from our old place, and it finally sold in the summer of ninety- six.

This ranch does not have an address or a mailbox. We receive everything in general delivery. We owe no one any money, we pay as we go, and if we don't have the money we simply don't buy it. We do not have any charge cards, charge accounts, or bank accounts of any sort.

The only monthly bill we have is the telephone bill, but to keep from having easements across the property we would not allow the telephone company to put in the phone line. I do all my calling from along side the county road (don't call me, I'll call you). It really keeps the phone bill down. This has not been an overnight change; it has been a long learning process and we are still learning and we have made mistakes and we will make more. Our motive is correct and our hearts are in the correct spot too. We now think about everything we do and how it will affect us. My husband barters with the neighbors for some of our needs and I take eggs homemade bread to the neighbor lady, who in turn provides us with fresh milk. To keep from being involved as much as possible with commerce, we are working toward being completely God sufficient, learning how to grow all of our food needs and learning how to use what is Provided for us.

Discerning between wants and needs, comforts and conveniences. Learning to let Him lead and provide. Oh yes, the children I almost forgot; they are doing very well and they love our new place; they have six hundred and forty acres on which to ride their horses; they are home taught and they enjoy that too. We have lots of wildlife around us and everyday we all see or learn something new.

Continuing to seek His path,

Jodie Lynn

Editor's note: the Christ's assembly at California welcomes letters for reprint from fellow-bondmen on similar stories of successful disengagement from the Beast.

That Knock on The Door

by Randy Lee

(from Issue the Fourteenth)

For those who believe, or have been trained to believe, that you must open your door when someone knocks on it, consider the following:

"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Note: "Refused admittance," and "no permission being given," is when there is some kind of response from within.

3.26 Forceful Entry to Arrest.

Officers may use force in breaking into a premises in order to arrest with or without a warrant provided they have been refused admittance after making the necessary notification.

18 U.S.C. 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit.
The officer may break open any inner or outer door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.
At least one jurisdiction appears to distinguish an officer's authority to break in without a warrant from the same authority when he is armed with a warrant.
Unless the necessities of the moment require that the officer break down a door, he cannot do so without a warrant; and if in reasonable contemplation there is opportunity to get a warrant, or the arrest could as well be made by some other method, the outer door to a dwelling cannot be broken to make an arrest without a warrant. The right to break open a door to make an arrest requires something more than the mere right to arrest. (Accruing v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.DC 394, 179 F.2d. 456.)
We think that under the authorities, officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present. (Morrison v. United States, CA DC 1958, 262 F.2d 449.)

3.261 What Constitutes "Breaking"?
"In the absence of any allegation of coercion, the action of the officers who bore a valid warrant of arrest and did not force their way into her apartment but entered after the door had been opened by the defendant, in 'pushing' their way into the apartment was not of a character that it constituted such unreasonable force that would invalidate an otherwise valid search." United States v. Lord, DC NY 1960, 184 F. Supp. 923.

3.262 Entry by Subterfuge without Force.
There is considerable authority to the effect that use of subterfuge to gain entrance to arrest or search is not improper. Of course, if "breaking" is involved, it is necessary for the officers to announce their authority and purpose in demanding entrance. Where a Federal agent, armed with a valid arrest warrant, gained entrance to the defendant's apartment by stating he was an agent from the County Assessor's Office, the Court held the entrance lawful, stating:
There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of a deception in executing a valid arrest warrant. The case of Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, relied on by appellant, holds that a search warrant is invalid even though entry is procured by stealth rather than force. The instant case is different in that the search was incident to an arrest under a valid arrest warrant. "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 820, 2 L.Ed.2d 848.

And, whether the postman is an agent in the field, consider the following:

9.15 Mail Watch

Ordinarily, a mail watch does not constitute a search.
A "mail watch" or "mail cover" occurs where postal employees scrutinize the mail addressed to an individual and note the information contained on the outside of the envelope. It is distinguishable from the opening and searching of first class mail which is unconstitutional unless legally authorized.
Defendant further suggests that the use of a "mail cover" tainted the Governments evidence. That is, a clerk was assigned in the Post Office to scrutinize all mail addressed to defendant at the Rittenhouse Hotel and to note the names and addresses of the senders. The motion to suppress cannot be granted for that reason, however, since it was not shown that the fruits of the mail watch were used (directly or indirectly) in the preparation of the Government's charges. Furthermore, it has been held in this district that even where results of a "mail watch" are communicated to the Justice Department in violation of Postal Regulations, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed. United States v. Schwartz, DC Pa. 1959, 176 F.Supp.613.
There was no "taking" of the Costello's mail with intent to deprive them of it. It was not prying into their business or secrets to note what the senders had made public on the face of the letters. And the mere fact of detention without proof that it was for unlawful purpose is insufficient to constitute a violation of the statute.
Any delay here was merely incidental to a lawful watch authorized by the Postal Regulations. United States v. Costello, DC N.Y. 1957 F.Supp. 461.

Don't open that door for anyone!!

It's All in the Name!!!

by Randy Lee

(from Issue the Tenth)

A bondman in and of Christ Jesus has a name given to him by God. He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Those named by Caesar become persons, human beings, individuals, residents and other "legal fictions" answering to his mark, those marks being for commercial purposes, to wit:

"Name. A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.
Designation. The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.'A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)
"Name. 1. The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.
Designation. 5. In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).
"Name. The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.
Designation. A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two of man's maxims of law reveal that those who answer to Caesar's designations are nothing more than a "thing":

Nomina sunt notæ rerum, --Names are the marks of things.
Nomina sunt symbola rerum, --Names are the symbols of things.

A bondman of Christ Jesus is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification" or asks if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be "rendered unto him.

The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating. Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court.....Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).

When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' you should not deny or confirm, because that would cause "joinder," joining you to the controversy. You must answer as our Lord answered many questions, "I also will ask you one thing." In this way, you transfer the burden from yourself to the intruder. What that question is that you ask will be put in your mouth by the Holy Spirit; it is not for me to put the words in your mouth.

The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "it's okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when his soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the KJV with the original Greek text, He did not answer to the name, to wit:

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way:" (KJV)

Note that in the KJV text the "He" in "I am He" is interpolated (added by the translators; does not exist in the Greek text) in every verse.

And we see that the first time He said "I am" to the Romans soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at Exodus 3:14:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

And note that our Lord, in the Gospel of John, asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking.

We may also note that our Lord never answered to the fictions, "carpenter" (Mark 6:3) and "the carpenter's son" (Matt 13:55). He was accused of being those fictions, but He never confirmed it. He did not "join" the question.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister to. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from "conformed to His image and likeness" to being conformed to Caesar's, and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through the natural man's codes, rules and regulations.

Consider this:

"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to The Law of Names, by Anthony Linell (1938).

Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today

(from Issue the Thirty-fourth)

"He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the heathen." 1 Kings 21:2.

Pagan

"One who worships false gods, or one of a nation or community that does not worship the true God; a heathen; one who is neither a Christian, a Mohammedan, nor a Jew; formerly, one not a Christian people." Webster's New International Dictionary (1931), page 1546
"The divisions of Christianity suspended the ruin of Paganism." GIBBON

pagano-Christianism

"Christians receptive of pagan characteristics or features."

Christmas

The Word of our Father in Heaven warns us of such practices:

"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." Jer. 10:2-4
"Observe thou that which I command thee this day: Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exod. 34:11-16

The ways of the heathen were nailed to the cross for His chosen, for His sake:

"Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Romans 6:4-6

The Birthday Celebration

The only two occurrences of birthday celebrations in Scripture are found to be practiced by pagans only, first in Genesis by Pharaoh:

"And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh's birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants." Genesis 40:20

And the second by Herod:

"But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask." Matthew 14:6

And Brother Mark's account:

"And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." Mark 6:21-22

The Christmas Tree

The Christmas tree is of Babylonian origin representing Nimrod redivivus-- "the slain god come to life again."

Easter and Lent

The worship of Bel (Moloch) and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain by the Druids, "the priests of the groves." The Beltane festival was held each April, known as Easter-monath.

The Snare of Serving false gods

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that He abhorred his own inheritance. And He gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did He deliver them; but they provoked Him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, when He heard their cry:" Psalm 106:34-44

The Dark Side of Common Law

by Randy Lee

(from Issue the Eighth)

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

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

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

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

Some typical words within this fold are: travel, purchase, sale and bill of sale, insurance, customer, value, weights and measures, merchandise, receipt, account, advertise, credit, bank and bankrupt, checks, gain, barter, exchange, interest, income, transportation, resident, district, franchise, employment, carrier, delivery - just to name a few.

Under the Law of War, all commercial activity becomes regulated. When one makes use of these words and other such words in a court or court process, which have a specific meaning in the lex mercatoria, or engage in such activities, one becomes taxable and regulateable. To not engage in these activities and to study the meaning and implication of such words is obvious.

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

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

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

When one uses the term 'common law,' it refers to all the variety of law created by man, i.e., English common law, admiralty common law, commercial common law, as the following from the above dictionary, page 112, shows:

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

The following maxim of law says it all:

'Qualitas quae inesse debit, facile praesumitur', or 'A quality which ought to form a part is easily presumed.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.' Hosea 12:7 (KJV)
'Ephraim is an evil spirit, he has chased the east wind all the day: he has multiplied empty and vain things, and made a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil has gone in the way of traffic into Egypt.' Hosea 12:1

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

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

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

All bondmen of Christ Jesus can, through the avoidance Common Law, remain separate from the unclean thing, and not fall with it, to wit:

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

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

Myths of the Patriot Movement

Part Three

by Randy Lee

(from Issues the Ninth and Twenty-fourth)

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

These myths include, but are not limited to:

'The Right to Travel,' 'common law courts,' 'getting un-taxed,' 'U.C.C. 1-207,' 'Constitutional Rights,' 'state Citizen,' 'sovereign Citizen,' 'Title 42 lawsuits,' 'commercial liens,' 'UBO Trusts,' 'Bill of Particulars,' etc., all of which are secular concepts attempting to be "godly." Their "concepts" place the users into a commercial jurisdiction controlled by infidels, pagans, secular humanists and others of like kind.

These various concepts, for the most part, are a result of what has come about since Lincoln's War, when the so-called Roman Civil Law was gradually put into place and implemented during the time of Reconstruction. The combination of many different changes in society in general, after this period, changed the spirit of law favoring the commercial aspects of things.

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

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

Note: When on the road, or anywhere else, you should be doing only one thing, which is, 'living, moving, and having your being in Christ Jesus.' This one action is for purely spiritual sustenance, which in turn, all things are provided. Those things provided by Him do not include worldly desires such as a night on the town, disturbing the peace by doing 90 miles an hour because you like 'the thrill of speed,' or you're late for an 'appointment,' etc. The bondman in and of Christ Jesus does not have a "right to travel." According to our Father's Word, we have only the "right to the Tree of Life."

"Love not the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because all that which is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the vaunting of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world; and the world is passing away, and the lust of it: but he that does the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17

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

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

U.C.C. 1-207: This 'gimmick' was created by 'the codemakers' in order to appear legitimate. When reserving your 'common law' rights with a commercial code, and with commerce and the lex mercatoria being part of the common law of England, you are only reserving what that code has jurisdiction over; commerce. In essence, what you are saying when you sign U.C.C. 1-207 is that you reserve your rights to engage in commercial thievery in their system (see, The Dark Side of the Common Law). The current code system is designed from The Roman Codes of Justinian which were based on The Babylonian Codes of Hamarabi (Note: A plaque of Hamarabi hangs in the House of Representatives in D.C.). The U.C.C. is private law between merchants, codified from the Law Merchant. It is not something a anyone should attach himself to. It is:

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

Constitutional Rights: Constitutional Rights consist of natural, civil, and political rights. All of these rights are for natural persons, human beings, citizens and subjects of the secular state; not the bondman (see Issue the Sixth, To Be or Not To Be: a Human Being). When one clings to constitutional rights instead the protection of our Loving Father through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, the result is:

"Get behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence to Me: for thy thoughts are not the things of God, but things of men." Matthew 16:23

According to Blackstone,

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

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

state Citizen and sovereign Citizen: Again, secular concepts, for persons, designed to subject the bondman of Christ Jesus to Roman secular law, to wit:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
"Citizen: A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 77.
"Citizen: One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with 'the people'." Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404.

Note: Who are 'the people'? The U.S. Government, which is a corporation, claims to be sovereign. 'The people,' then, are those with power over their 'human subjects,' who wish to be God walking on earth. Their motto is, 'I can do all things in myself and be perfect' (humanism)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those outside of the commercial world can use a 'settlement,' which is a trust style document. It is based in substance, not fictions, and is for inheritance purposes, not business. It is a simple document and can be written and published by yourself.

The Pitch

Taken to exaggerated levels, the huckster's pitch is resonant:

"Come and get it! Yes, it's the all new, only-one-of-its-kind, step-by-step, you-can-beat-'em-at-their-own-game, 'Pro Se Litigation' package,"
"Get it here. Become a 'sovereign sentient human being' with our super special one-size-fits-all eight hundred dollar 'state citizenship' package,"
"Don't miss this one. Let us make you 'safe and secure' with our 'super-duper, guaranteed not to fail,' twelve hundred dollar 'Pure-Common Law-Offshore Trust' package,"
"Come one, come all! Get this just-released, new and improved, Hot! Hot! Hot!, world renowned, teach-'em-a-lesson, get rich weapon of revenge, 'Title 42 Lawsuit' package,'
"Extra, extra, read all about it. Get your land back with our newly released, 'Allodial Title' package,"
"New & Improved!! Get yourself out from underneath the thumb of the I.R.S with our special, time-tested (twenty year prison term) 'Un-Tax' package."

"Come unto me, for I will get you out of your desperate situation, protect you and make you safe and secure (if you can afford it)," is their spiel. They become the gods and gurus of 'law.' The victims cry, "more, more, give us more; just one more Silver Bullet," and these 'law gods' reply, "more, more? yes, we have more, if you have more, more, more money!!!"

And of course, "the more it costs, the 'more powerful' it must be."

Surely, the snake oil salesmen of the 1800's would be proud, and today's T.V. ad exec's would excitedly quip, "it's the triumph of the human spirit at its finest."

The truth of the matter is, there are no Silver Bullets, except in the fictional world of The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Ironically, the follies of the 'sovereign' human mind become quite clear when you find out what a 'patriot' really is:

"PATRIOT. Mistakenly (with possessive) as if = upholder, devotee: mid-C 17. Weever, 1631 'A Patriot of Truth.' O.E.D." A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1961), p. 610.

Self-righteousness = self-destruction. The self-righteousness of man's legalism results in his own self-destruction.

The fact that humanist America has truly come to the chasm of self-destruction becomes more and more evident each day. The 'patriot gods' and their 'disciples' are part of that evidence. These 'sheep' exist because they prefer to look to the creations of man for their safekeeping, rather than their Loving Father. They either forgot or don't know (or don't want to know) that He said "I will never leave you nor forsake you," and that, "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

The hirelings that concoct the 'silver bullets' are simply the end result of fictions of fallen minds wandering in the dark without the Christ and His Word.

Those who know the Truth, know that only God Almighty is "Sovereign," that His protections and blessings bestowed upon the Executors of His Testament are protections and blessings that cannot be surpassed with anything that the 'gods of government' can offer, or the 'gods of the patriot movement' can claim to offer. They know that real Law comes from The One True God alone, to those who do His Will, not their own will.

How many have thrown their hands up in the air and said, "I give up. I've tried all of the packages and I'm more confused now than when I started." Why is this? When you put your faith for earthly salvation in the Babylonian creations of the secular commercial world, you reap what they sow -- a harvest of confusion, desolation, and damnation.

"Truly the hills and the strength of the mountains were a lying refuge: but by the Lord our God is the salvation of Israel. But shame has consumed the labours of our fathers from our youth; their sheep and their calves, and their sons and their daughters. We have lain down in our shame, and our disgrace has covered us: because we and our fathers have sinned before our God, from our youth until this day; and we have not harkened to the voice of the Lord our God." Jeremiah 3:23-25

Just as the corrupt traditions of the elders become the introduction of universal confusion, which makes man like the fishes of the sea, so too does the idea that every man can, outside of the Law of God, avenge himself through the hands of 'private persons.' These private persons; these hirelings; these sons of Adam, again say, "Come unto us, for we will be your gods, and you will be our sheep."

The Way, The Truth, and The Life

"Jesus said therefore again to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, that I am the door of the sheep.

All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

I am the door: by Me if anyone enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture.

The thief comes not except that he may steal and may kill and may destroy: I came that life they might have, and abundantly might have.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep: but the hired servant, and who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees: and the wolf seizes them, and scatters the sheep.

Now the hireling flees, because a hired servant he is, and is not himself concerned about the sheep.

I am the good shepherd, and know those that are Mine, and am known of those that are Mine. John 10:7-14

Fictions of law-

Part Two:

Human beings and other Humanist creations

by Randy Lee

(from Issue the Twenty-sixth)

"Human being was long held objectionable by a few purists, but is so pervasive today even in formal writing that it should be accepted as standard." A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) by Brian A. Garner, page 271.

You will not find anywhere in The Word of God the terms human or human being used, or that God's people are animals. It has become a 'traditional' vehicle by which everyone, servants of the Christ and pagan alike, are lumped into the same category--that category being the 'animal' world of the unregenerate, wicked, sinful, earthy, and dissolute natural man, and his 'rat race.'

"What has been found true about rats may be applied to humans." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting E. E. Slosson.

It was not always this way. At an earlier time, before the current degeneration and feminization of the church, a few 'purist' clergy were quite aware that a bondman in and of the Christ, being 'a new man,' is no longer a human being, to wit:

"The Sabbath, as an institute given to men for all ages and dispensations, even including that of Paradise, was and is God's means for maintaining in the human family His knowledge and fear as our Maker, Ruler and future Judge. But on that fear all moral institutions repose--the family and the state, as truly as the church. Therefore, men are naturally bound to keep the Sabbath simply as men, and not only as Christians.
After man fell, and came to need redemption, the Sabbath was also continued by God as a means of grace and a gospel institute. But this did not repeal or exclude its original use. The professed Christian has two reasons for observing the Sabbath; every human being has one." The Christian Sabbath (1854), by Robert L. Dabney.

"In England in the rise of the court of chancery and development of equity, ethical ideas from the casuist literature of the sixteenth century, and the general notions of right and wrong held by chancellors who were not common-law lawyers, were made liberalizing agencies. In Continental Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the philosophical ideas of juristic writers upon the law of nature were used in the same way. Thus, moral duty was turned into legal duty and put in the foreground in place of legal remedy. Reason was relied upon rather than strict rules. The individual human being, as the moral unit, became the legal unit. It was conceived that the moral principle, simply as such and for that reason, was to be also a legal rule." Law and Morals (1926) by Roscoe Pound, page 30.

So goes the 'benefits' of unregenerate man's 'morality,' 'reason' and 'equity.'

From one side we have the earlier clergy disclosing to us that one who "truly" takes on the yoke of Christ, is no longer a human being; and, what a human being really is from the ungodly of Harvard. In spite of it all, we are constantly taught by both the 'godly' and ungodly of today that everyone is a human being and a member of the highest animal species. How can this be? What are the consequences of partaking of such heresy?; the heresy of accepting that which is contrary to how our Father has described us and being brought down to the level of the pagan natural man:

"Therefore shall the land mourn, and shall be diminished with all that dwell in it, with the wild beasts of the field, and the reptiles of the earth, and with the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea shall fail: that neither anyone may plead, nor anyone reprove another: but My people are as a priest spoken against. Therefore they shall fall by day, and the prophet with thee shall fall: I have compared thy mother unto night. My people are like as if they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not minister as priest to Me: and as thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. According to their multitude, so they sinned against Me: I will turn their glory into shame." Hosea 4:3-7

From Matthew Henry's Commentaries on these verses:

"The ruin of those who have helped to ruin others will, in a special manner, be intolerable. And did the children think that when they were in danger of falling, their mother would help them? 'It shall be in vain to expect it, for I will destroy thy mother, Samaria, the mother-city, the whole state, or kingdom, which is as a mother to every part. It shall all be made silent.' Note, When all are involved in guilt nothing less can be expected than that all should be involved in ruin.
Both priests and people rejected knowledge; and justly therefore will God reject them. The reason why the people did not learn, and the priests did not teach, was not because they had not the light, but because they hated it--not because they had not ways of coming to the knowledge of God and of communicating it, but because they had no heart to it; they rejected it. They desired not the knowledge of God's ways, but put it from them, and shut their eyes against the light; and therefore 'I will also reject thee; I will refuse to take cognizance of thee and to own thee; you will not know Me, but bid Me depart; I will therefore say, Depart from Me, I know you not. Thou shalt be no priest to Me.'"

The clergy of today are taught at seminary that Christ was both a 'human being' and God, and in turn teach this heresy, though the Word of God does not teach this.

In addition, these Neoplatonic teachers of today tell us that we live under Grace, not under Law. This "doctrine" has created the separation faith and works, but we are told that:

"But wilt thou know, O empty man, that faith apart from works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, having offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Thou seest that faith was working with his works, and by works faith was perfected?
And was fulfilled the scripture which says, Now Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and Friend of God he was called.
Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:20-24

The recognition of 'the new man' under Christ seems to elude them. The aspect of the 'new birth' is ignored in favor of the sinful human being only; their mentality is, "Saying you have repented and you love Jesus is sufficient. You can still go into the world and partake of its lawless activities," --i.e., commerce, State worship, worship of "the founding fathers," pagan holidays, etc., which in turn leaves these 'teachers' free to be utterly lawless, i.e., being a 501(c)3 corporation or "unincorporated Church" doing business for "profit sake." This 'new religion' says, "We've have no choice but to live in this corrupt old world."

Like the humanist, the 'new religion' sees only the world, itself, and its fellow 'human beings'--but it has added Jesus in the midst of all of it as a buffer:

"There are no absolutes and man must content himself with being." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (1981), page 1100, quoting H. E. Clurman.

Until the body of believers are freed of these heresies, the Bride is not capable of making herself ready for the Bridegroom.

"He that overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to Me son." Revelation 21:7

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Humanism

"I. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ. COLERIDGE. 2. The quality of being human; devotion to human interests 1836. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests, or with those of the human race in general; the 'Religion of Humanity' 1860. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists 1832. 5. Comtism or Positivism, or, as it may be called, Humanism." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), page 931. Oxford University Press.

"1. n. Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, esp. an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God. 2. Devotion to or the study of the humanities. 3. the studies, principals, or culture of the Renaissance humanists." Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1990), page 653.

"i. The intellectual development of the 14th-16th centuries in Europe which sought to base all art and learning on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Humanism opposed itself to Scholasticism. The movement was nursed by the Church: such popes as Nicholas V, Pius II and Leo X were its champions, and such men as Cardinal Bessarion, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Vives, and Pico della Mirandola among its leaders. But Humanism was well named; its enthusiasm was not tempered by control, it produced Carlo Aretino and Machiavelli as well as Dean Colet and St. Thomas More, and it helped pave the way for the Reformation. In the event, Scholasticism returned and again flourishes. Among the legacies of Humanism are the insubordination of the state, whether represented by a dictator or a soviet, arising from its classical doctrine of collective morality as opposed to personal morality; and the substitution of class distinctions for differentiation by function. "Humanism was..... mundane, pagan, irreligious, positive" (J.A. Symonds).

ii. In its more extended meaning, deriving from the above, Humanism is devotion to human interests or a system concerned with real or supposed human interests without reference to God or divine things; the belief in the self-sufficiency of the natural man, and of human values (cf.,Pragmatism). But see PERSON, i." The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary (1961), The MacMillan Co.

natural man

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

Humanitarian

"Humanitarian. n. a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; one who believes that the duty of man consists of acting rightly to others; a perfectionist: adj. philanthropic." Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928 edition.

"Humanitarian. sb. I. Theol. One who affirms the mere humanity of Christ. 2. One who professes the 'Religion of Humanity', holding that man's duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the welfare of the human race 1831. 3. A philanthropist; esp. one who goes to excess in his humane principals 1844." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principals, 1933 edition.

"HUMANITARIAN is very stangely perverted by a certain class of speakers and writers. It is a theological word; and its original meaning is, One who denies the godhead of Jesus Christ, and insists upon his human nature. But it is used by the people in question, whose example has infected others, as if it meant humane, and something more. Now, as the meaning of humane is recognizing in a common humanity a bond of kindness, good will, and good offices, it is difficult to discover what more humanitarian, used in the sense of widely-benevolent and philanthropic, is mere cant, the result of an effort by certain people to elevate and to approximate to themselves a common feeling by giving it a grand and peculiar name." Words and Their Uses, Past and Present, (1889), by Richard Grant White.

"Humanitarianism. n. The doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid." Random House Webster's College Dictionary, (1990).

Bits and Pieces

The 13th Amendment Ruse

This idea, like so many other misconceptions propagated by these 'guru's for hire,' is founded on absolutely false notions.

The false notion is that 'Esq.' or 'esquire,' which lawyers use after their name, is a 'title of nobility.'

I have but one thing to say to these propagators of myths and Babylonian confusion -- close, but no cigar.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 41

"A War was waged from 1861 to 1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and The Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties.

"It was not a 'Civil War,' as it was not fought between two parties within the same government.

"It was not a 'War of Secession,' for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a State to secede have never been questioned.

"It was not a 'War of rebellion,' for sovereign, independent States, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other.

Human Justice

"Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won't be there.

The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won't be here to see.

From every tree top some wild woods songster will carol his mating song, butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the busy bee will hum happy as it pursues its accustomed vocation, the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, will be glad, but you. You won't be here to enjoy it because I command the Sheriff or some other officer of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead.

And then, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, copper-colored, blood-thirsty, throat-cutting, chili-eating, sheep-herding, murdering son-of-a-bitch." U.S.A. v. Gonzales (1881), U.S. District Court, New Mexico Territory Sessions.

Anti-knowledge

God--Nothing

The L's of Modern Jurisprudence

Lawful. adj. "Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction."

Lawyer. n. "One skilled in circumvention of the law."

Litigant. n. "A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones."

Litigation. n. "A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage." The Devil's Dictionary (1911), by Ambrose Bierce, pp. 75 and 78.

Marriage

Issue the Fifty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

An Epistle concerning His Commandments ...

Perfection?...

A Study concerning Death and the Grave, Part two...

The LXX and Masoretic Hebrew Text compared, Part One...

The Pagan Foundations and anti-christ Spirit of U.S. Government Symbolism...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

An Epistle

concerning His Commandments,

to His whole assembly throughout His Kingdom,

from the Christ's assembly at Maine

(Footnotes ( {1} ) appear at the end of this article)

The following Epistle comes to us, by the Grace of God, from the Christ's Lawful assembly who are currently sojourning at Maine. Their qualifying preface to this Epistle reads as follows:

"All Scripture references are from the King James version unless otherwise stated in the footnotes." And "Although we have omitted quotation marks, we do not take (nor accept) any credit for the words or thoughts contained herein."

-------------------------

We, being unprofitable servants of Jesus Christ, called to be apostles, separated unto the glad tidings of God our Father (which He has promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures), concerning His Son Jesus, the Christ, our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. By Whom only we can receive Grace and Apostleship if we are obedient to the faith among all nations, for His namesake.

We thank God always on your behalf. That in everything we are enriched by Him, in all utterance (Logos), and in all knowledge of Him. For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of His will in all Wisdom and spiritual Understanding.

Now concerning the Spiritual, brethren, we would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led; wherefore our Lord said: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit his soul. As our Lord hath commanded us, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments;" so ought we to do:

Thou shalt have no other gods beside Him. If any man will follow after the Christ, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Him.{1} For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.{2} Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?{3}

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.{4} Why do the heathen (nations) rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?{5} Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.{6}

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.{7} This people draw nigh to Him with their mouth, and honour Him with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him: but in vain do they worship Him`, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.{8} For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.{9} {10}

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.{11} There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God (or keeping of the Sabbath){12} to the people of God.{13} There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.{14}

Honour thy father and thy mother. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.{15} Let your light (or judgment) so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.{16} Herein is our Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be His disciples.{17} But Jerusalem (which by interpretation is "vision of peace") which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.{18} Go forth of the land, ye that escape, and stay not; ye that are afar off, remember the Lord, and let Jerusalem come into your mind.{19} If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.{20} Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and reject not not the rules of thy mother.{21}

Thou shalt not kill. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.{22} For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.{23}

Thou shalt not commit adultery. That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto Him, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.{24} And her fornication was nothing accounted of; and she committed adultery with wood and stone.{25} Know thine iniquity, that thou hast sinned against the Lord thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to strangers under every shady tree, but thou didst not hearken to His voice, saith the Lord.{26} {27}

Thou shalt not steal. Verily, verily, the Christ says unto us, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.{28} It is written, God's house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves (robbers).{29} When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.{30} {31}

Thou shalt not bear false witness. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.{32} He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.{33} And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.{34}

Thou shalt not covet. Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.{35} For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?{36} Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.{37} Therefore the Christ says unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?{38} Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.{39} If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?{40} But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet He will show unto you a more excellent way.{41} And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity (which is love).{42} Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts.{43}

Ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.{44} Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.{45}

Endnotes

{1} Luke 9:23

{2} I John 2:16

{3} Romans 6:16

{4} 2 Corinthians 4:18

{5} Psalm 2:1

{6} Acts 17:29

{7} Matthew 5:33

{8} Isaiah 29:13 (Septuagint)

{9} Romans 2:13

{10} For further edification, read the entire fifteenth chapter of the Psalms in the Septuagint.

{11} I John 3:9

{12} King James reference bible describes "rest" as "keeping of the sabbath."

{13} Hebrews 4:9

{14} Romans 8:1

{15} Matthew 23:9

{16} Matthew 5:16

{17} John 15:8

{18} Galatians 4:26

{19} Jeremiah 28:50 (To be found in the Septuagint only).

{20} Romans 12:18

{21} Proverbs 1:8 (Septuagint)

{22} I John 3:15

{23} Matthew 15:19

{24} Ezekial 23:37

{25} Jeremiah 3:9 (Septuagint)

{26} Jeremiah 3:13 (Septuagint)

{27} For further edification, read the entire third chapter of Jeremiah in the Septuagint.

{28} John 10:1

{29} Luke 19:46

{30} Psalm 50:18

{31} For further edification, read the entire tenth chapter of the glad tidings according to John.

{32} I John 1:6

{33} I John 2:4

{34} I John 2:3

{35} Luke 12:15

{36} Matthew 16:26

{37} I John 2:15

{38} Matthew 6:25

{39} James 4:3

{40} Luke 11:13

{41} 1 Corinthians 12:31

{42} 1 Corinthians 13:13

{43} 1 Corinthians 14:1

{44} Hebrews 10:36

{45} Matthew 5:48

P e r f e c t i o n ?

Part One

by Randy Lee

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is faithful, instructing babes. The ordinances of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring for ever and ever: the judgments of the Lord are true, and justified altogether. To be desired more than gold, and much precious stone: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. For Thy servant keeps to them: in the keeping of them there is great reward." Psalm 19:7-11

In noting that the Epistle from the Christ's assembly at Maine on Pages one through three concludes with Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect," it is important for all of us to understand exactly what this translation from the King James version originally meant in the Greek, thereby avoiding the long history of "theological" errors and divisive traps of the natural man's Christian religion.

The purpose of this multi-part written discourse is to investigate not only the history of the confused doctrines concerning "perfection," but more importantly, it will be mandatory for us to look into the vast treasures of His Word, beginning "in the beginning" and along the way, taking into consideration all of the "elements" that pertain to "perfection." The question is: "What does His whole Word say?" In that way, we will be able to see exactly what His Word and His Spirit tells us, and thereby avoid looking to our own understanding, which seems to always be the case with the philosophies and doctrines of the so-called "Church fathers."

What is written, and that which may be written in this series, is not put forth as "doctrine," (in the sense of "religious dogma") but is simply written for His ekklesia to consider in accordance with the simplicity of His Word. Any revelation found hereinafter is, in accordance with His orderly arrangement, from God, not from me; and any error that may be found would be from me alone.

As stated above, many false doctrines have been based on this verse (Matthew 5:48) and other such verses that have the words perfect and perfection within them, resulting in the various "perfectionist" doctrines over the last nineteen hundred years.

In this Part, we will begin by taking a look at an incomplete, but telling, history of such goings-on to give us an overview of the case, first from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

"Perfection, Perfectionism. The quest for religious perfection has been an important goal throughout Judeo-Christian history. Both biblical and theological evidence reflects this continuous concern. Although interpretations have varied with reference to methods and chronology of attainment, most Christian traditions recognize the concept.
Theological Issues and Historical Heritage. The Command of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48), is central to the issue of human perfection. This text has been variously interpreted and even rejected as inauthentic in the attempts to arrive at theological understanding.
Christian Platonism. Clement of Alexandria and the Christian Platonists sought for perfection in the transfiguration of earthly life, a hallowing of the secular. Faith and knowledge lifted some believers to an experience of religious perfection in which the purposes and desires of the soul were harmonized in love. In his Miscellanies, the ideal was the attainment of uninterrupted communion with God. Paradoxically, Clement insisted on God's unlikeness to man while insisting on the possibility of the perfected Gnostic's becoming like God. Thus perfection was obedientiary, not absolute, and was attained through obedience to God in prayer and keeping the commandments. The weakness in Clement's view follows from his Platonic tendency to view God as apathetic and without predicates. Although God was active for the salvation of men, Clement emptied both Father and Son of emotions. This hellenization of God is somewhat incongruous with his view of God as the Father persevering in love. His view of perfection, then, emphasizes that the 'Christian Gnostic' rises above human emotions by contemplation of God and is 'translated absolutely and entirely to another sphere.'
Clement's illustrious pupil, Origen, proposed a view of perfection which explicitly reflected the presuppositions of Platonic philosophy. He separated faith and knowledge, with faith being the basis of salvation and knowledge being the means to perfection. A prerequisite to perfection is an ascetic rejection of the external world and all human emotions. His approach was basically humanistic, even though he asserted that human effort must be assisted by grace. Also, his Platonic negative evaluation of the human creature required that perfection be essentially a victory over the body, and more specifically over the sex drive. Furthermore, he anticipated the monastic emphasis of perfection through asceticism and a distinction between the ordinary and the spiritually elite Christian. This tendency toward a double standard of morality reflected the influence of Gnosticism on early Christian thought in that ordinary Christians lived by faith while the enlightened elect lived by gnosis. This dual level of spirituality became more pronounced as the chasm between clergy and laity widened in the medieval period.
Monasticism. One of the most extensive attempts at attaining Christian perfection is found in monasticism. Leaders such as Antony of Egypt and Pachomius went into solitude to practice their disciplines with the aim of achieving spiritual perfection. They were overwhelmed by the sense of their own unworthiness and by the increasing worldliness of the church. The attaining of their goal involved renouncing all encumbrances of the world, taking up their cross, and praying without ceasing. The ideal of perfection became socialized as expressed in the rules of Basil and Benedict. Monastic communities developed which not only sought perfection by resignation from the world and asceticism, but also attempted to transform the world through extensive missionary efforts and the preservation of spiritual, aesthetic, and intellectual life.
Some of the most profound spiritual insights are found in the Fifty Spiritual Homilies of Macarius the Egyptian. Greatly admired by William Law and John Wesley, Macarius stressed the worth of the individual human soul in the image of God, the incarnation as the basis of the life of the soul, moral purity, and love as the highest measure of the Christian life. His stress on union with Christ is commendable, but his goal of perfection still is a retreat from reality into ecstasy, lacks a relevant ideal for common humanity, and is excessively individualistic.
Gregory of Nyssa was one of the greatest Eastern leaders in the struggle for perfection. He saw Christ as the prototype of the Christian life in his On What It Means to Call Oneself a Christian and On Perfection. The responsibility of the Christian is to imitate the virtues of Christ and to reverence those virtues which are impossible to imitate. Gregory saw the truth of the participation in Christ, which results from rebirth 'by water and the Spirit.' In this interpersonal sharing the Christian perfects the resemblance to Christ which comes through the continual transformation into his image.
Augustine and Pelagius. In the fourth century the reaction against perfectionism was typified by the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. Although Augustine affirmed an ideal of perfection, the summum bonum, it was a perfection attainable only in eternity. He felt that human perfection was an impossible moral ideal in this life because of the sinfulness of mankind resulting from the fall.
Pelagius attributed the moral laxity of the church to the kind of blasphemy which told God that what he had commanded was impossible. He rejected the concept of original sin and asserted that persons are born with the free capacity to perfect themselves or corrupt themselves as they choose. Sin is simply a bad habit which can be overcome by an act of the will. Since sin is avoidable, however, Pelagius tended to judge severely those who fell into the slightest sin.
The response of Augustine was that neither education nor human effort could lead to perfection and the only moral progress persons could make in this life was solely the result of God's grace. He tended to equate sinfulness with humanness in general and with concupiscence in particular, and saw the path to perfection as one of celibacy and virginity. While rejecting the attainment of perfection in this life, Augustine made great contributions to spirituality with his emphasis on contemplation, although he tended to diminish the humanity of Christ because of his aversion to the physical. He was certainly correct in his rejection of Pelagius's exclusive emphasis on moral effort and in his emphasis on grace, but his tendency to identify sinfulness with the physical world is an unnecessary vestige of Greek philosophy.
Aquinas. Often called the 'Angelic Doctor,' Thomas Aquinas has greatly influenced Roman Catholic theology. He was convinced that although Adam lost the gift of divine grace which enabled mankind to enjoy God fully, the free grace of God can restore humanity to God's favor and enable the Christian to follow God's precepts in perfect love. Final perfection and the beatific vision of God were reserved for the life to come, but through contemplation a perfect vision of God and perfect knowledge of truth can be enjoyed in this life. His concept of perfection, however, involved a disparagement of the world and an understanding of the desires of flesh as evil. Thus the elimination of bodily desires was a prerequisite to perfection, and in this aspect he equated perfection with renunciation. Furthermore, he saw perfection as carrying with it human merit, and thus he contributed to the idea of the treasury of merits from which the imperfect can draw at the discretion of the church. Finally, he formed a hierarchy of the state of perfection which corresponded to the levels of the religious orders. Although he did not deny the possibility of perfection for all persons, religious vows were certainly the shortcut to meritorious perfection. He thus perpetuated the spiritual dichotomy between clergy and laity.
Francis of Sales. The possibility of perfection for all Christians was emphasized by Francis of Assisi and the Friars Minor, and Francis of Sales presented this doctrine with clarity in his treatise On the Love of God. He rejected the banishment of the devout life from the experience of common people, and opened up the benefits of spiritual contemplation to all Christians.
Francois Fenelon. Amid the profligacies of the court of Louis XIV, Fenelon taught his followers to live a life of deep spirituality and introspection. He saw perfection as totally a work of God's grace, not meritorious human effort. The perfect life is carefree and Christlike loving fellowship with others. In Christian Perfection he presented single-minded devotion to God as the ideal in attaining perfect love. This perfect life is the imitation of Jesus, and its main obstacle is egocentricity, which must be overcome by an inward act of sanctification by God's Spirit. Thus Fenelon moved the quest for perfection away from its preoccupation with renunciation of the physical and its monopoly by the elite, and focused on God's work of grace which is universally available to the seeker.
The Reformers. Both the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformers reflected the Augustinian position that sin remains in humanity until death, and therefore spiritual perfection is impossible in this life. Calvin explicitly stated that while the goal toward which the pious should strive was to appear before God without spot or blemish, believers will never reach that goal until the sinful physical body is laid aside. Since he saw the body as the residence of the depravity of concupiscence, perfection and physical life are mutually exclusive.
Luther also retained the connection between sin and the flesh. However, he did emphasize a new center of piety, the humanity and work of Jesus Christ . While the previous seekers after perfection focused on the knowledge and love of God which was grasped through contemplation, Luther focused on the knowledge of God through God's revelation in Christ. Faith in Jesus Christ therefore brings an imputed perfection which truly worships God in faith. This true perfection does not consist in celibacy or mendicancy. Luther rejected the distinction between clerical and lay perfection and stressed that proper ethical behavior was not found in renunciation of life, but in faith and love of one's neighbor.
The Pietists. With the pietists arose a Protestant rejection of the pessimism with which the Lutherans and Calvinists viewed the quest for perfection. Marked by the quest for personal holiness and an emphasis on devotion rather than doctrine, seventeenth century leaders such as Jakob Spener and A.H. Francke stressed personal holiness marked by love and obedience. Perfection was reflected in works done solely for the glory of God and in the ability to distinguish good from evil.
While tending toward narrowness and provincialism and often deteriorating into a negative scrupulosity, the pietists developed strong community contexts for nurture and motivated extensive missionary endeavors.
The Quakers. Inspired by a desire to return to the attitude of the NT, George Fox taught both personal responsibility for faith and emancipation from sin in his doctrine of the inner light. He declared a doctrine of real holiness rather than imputed righteousness. This perfection was relative in that it dealt with victory over sin rather than absolute moral development. Fox believed that as a result of the new birth into Christ by the Spirit the believer was free from actual sinning, which he defined as transgressing the law of God, and is thus perfect in obedience. This perfection, however, did not remove the possibility of sinning, for the Christian needed constantly to rely on the inner light and must focus on the cross of Christ as the center of faith. Fox tended toward fanaticism with his teaching that a Christian may be restored to the innocency of Adam before the fall, and could be more steadfast than Adam and need not fall. William Penn and other Quakers qualified the doctrine to guard it from such overstatement.
The strength of Fox's emphasis is that the center of perfection was in the cross of Christ. The cross was no dead relic but an inward experience refashioning the believer into perfect love. This is a celebrating of the power of grace. While his refusal to be preoccupied with sin was a needed corrective to the Puritan pessimism over the profound sinfulness of man, Fox did tend to distrust the intellect and to suspect all external expressions of faith such as the sacraments. His refusal to be satisfied with sin and his concentration upon a perfection of life through grace found direct application in commendable attempts at social justice. This message of renewal and hope for the poor and disenfranchised was certainly motivated by the conviction that the quality of life and faith is not predetermined by a radical sinfulness which is resistant to actual moral transformation by grace.
William Law. The author of A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life and Christian Perfection, William Law was an eighteenth century Anglican nonjuring cleric who influenced John Wesley and was admired by Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon, John Henry Newman, and many others. Positively, he affirmed the necessity of divine grace for performing the good and the importance of taking up the cross of Christ. He called for absolute dedication of one's life to God and complete renunciation of every aspect of the world. He saw Christian perfection functioning in common ways of life. He rejected the need for retirement to the cloister or the practice of a particular form of life. The whole life is rather an offering of sacrifice to God and praying without ceasing. Christlikeness is the ideal of perfection, and this is accomplished by performing one's human duties as Christ would.
The weaknesses of Law's system are in his somewhat unrealistic ideals for human achievement, his failure to see meaning in actual life itself, and his tendency to see grace as a means of supplanting nature rather than transforming it. Furthermore, he tended to deprecate religious fellowship and all institutional religion.
The Wesleyans. John Wesley was inspired by the perfectionist themes of the early saints and by the devotional literature of Thomas Kempis, Jeremy Taylor, and William Law. Seeing self-love, or pride, as the root of evil, Wesley taught that 'perfect love' or 'Christian perfection' could replace pride through a moral crisis of faith. By grace, the Christian could experience love filling the heart and excluding sin. He did not see perfection as sinlessness, nor did he understand it to be attained by merit. He thus combined some aspects of the Catholic emphasis on perfection with the Protestant emphasis on grace.
In contrast to Augustine's Platonic view of sin as being inseparably related to concupiscence and the body, Wesley saw it as a perverted relationship to God. In response to God's offer of transforming grace, the believer in faith was brought into an unbroken fellowship with Christ. This was not an imputed perfection but an actual or imparted relationship of an evangelical perfection of love and intention. In this life the Christian does not attain absolute Christlikeness but suffers numerous infirmities, human faults, prejudices, and involuntary transgressions. These, however, were not considered sin, for Wesley saw sin as attitudinal and relational. In A Plain Account of Christian Perfection he stressed that Christian perfection is not absolute, nor sinless, nor incapable of being lost, is not the perfection of Adam or the angels, and does not preclude growth in grace.
In removing from the idea of perfection any idea of meritorious effort, Wesley resisted any tendency to exclusiveness and elitism. His relational understanding of sin resisted the hellenistic equation of sin with humanity. A reform of personal and social morality resulted to a large degree from the spiritual renewal which accompanied his work. Thus perfection for Wesley was not based on renunciation, merit, asceticism, or individualism. It was instead a celebration of the sovereignty of grace in transforming the sinful person into the image of Christ's love.
Wesleyan perfectionist thought was, however, not without liabilities. Although Wesley defined sin as involving relationships and intentions, he did not adequately guard against allowing it to become understood as a substance or entity which was separate from the person and which must be extricated. Some of his followers did tend to develop this substantialist understanding of sin and a resulting static concept of sanctification. He also tended to narrow sin to include only conscious will and intent. Consequently, some of his interpreters have been led to rationalize serious attitudinal aberrations as expressions of unconscious or unintentional human faults. Finally, Wesley expressed an inward asceticism which tended to derogate the aesthetic, and his emphasis on simplicity was too easily distorted by his followers into a legalistic externalism.
Wesley's emphasis on perfection has been preserved in some circles of Methodism, and continues to be promoted in the denominations associated with the Christian Holiness Association.
Heterodox Sects. In addition to the Gnostic dualism of the early centuries, perfectionism has expressed itself in varying forms on the fringes of Christianity. The second century Montanists taught that men could become gods. In the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries the Albigensian heresy contended that the human spirit was capable of freeing itself from the flesh in order to become one with God. The late medieval period also saw the condemnation of the Brethren of the Free Spirit, who believed that man could advance in perfection beyond God, who then became superfluous. The English Ranters saw it as logically impossible for perfected man to sin. Other communal approaches such as the nineteenth century Oneida community sought for ways of reconciling perfected sinlessness with the impulses of the flesh.
All these heterodox expressions of perfectionism contained forms of antinomianism and egoism. They were condemned by orthodox Christianity with varying degrees of severity. Characterized by utopian views of human ability and by mystical practices, they tended to ignore divine grace and ethical integrity, and deteriorated because of their own inherent weaknesses." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1997), pages 839-843.

It seems that the pure truths of His Word are not sufficient for these "leaders." We can see from the above that when man looks to his own understanding, and not to the Truth of the Word, he ends up with a multiversity of doctrines that can leave everyone that looks to them in a complete state of confusion, and therewith, division. With that division, the Christian religion has developed what is known today as "denominationalism." Their question is: "Which slice of the religious pie appeals to you; choose this day which one you will serve?"

To further understand the long history of this spiritless quest for "religious perfection," we have from The Westminster Dictionary of Church History, the following:

"Perfectionism. A doctrine that sinlessness has been or can be attained during the earthly life. In the early church the Biblical roots were intertwined with influences from Hellenistic or Gnostic sources, as in Clement of Alexandria, whose doctrine of the "Christian Gnostic" is typical of much perfectionism. At a time when the church was threatened by crowds of people whose moral level was low and by the Gnostics with their claim of spiritual superiority, Clement urged Christian believers to go onto a true Christian perfection of love, which he designated by the problematical term "knowledge" (gnosis). Origen developed this idea in the direction of an ascetic renunciation of the world tending toward monasticism.
Perfectionism emerged as a social movement in Egypt when earnest Christians, disturbed by the debauchery of Alexandria, fled to the isolation of the desert caves to the west of the Nile. There such men as Antony of Egypt (c. 250-356 A.D.) pioneered the monastic ascetic pattern of perfectionism in which sanctification is sought in physical isolation from urban society. Under Antony and others, hermitic monasticism was replaced by cenobitic or communal monasticism, in which perfection was sought in a community under discipline. Monasticism has remained the dominant perfectionist ideal in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Churches, the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience being termed "counsels of perfection" (Thomas Aquinas).
In medieval theology, ascetic perfectionism was linked with a Platonic and Aristotelian idea of contemplation, accentuating a mystical cast to the notion of perfection. In this period particularly, the histories of perfectionism and of mysticism merge.
The Reformers tended to associate the notion of perfection with an ascetic works salvation and thus emphasized the sinfulness of the believer. Perfectionist concerns were expressed, however, by Anabaptists and Christian humanists in the tradition of Erasmus. An evangelical view of Christian perfection was adumbrated by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (d. 1609), who distinguished between perfection "according to rigor" and "according to clemency." He followed the Reformers in rejecting the first and the early fathers in affirming the second. A similar distinction was made by John Wesley, who differentiated between "Christian" and "absolute" perfection, the latter being an evangelical perfection of love, conditioned only on faith, available only to the believer both as growth in love and as a "second blessing" of entire sanctification. The Wesleyan emphasis on Christian perfection became a central feature of Methodism, although the rigor of primitive Methodism has often been tempered by neglect or by preoccupation with the ideal of social holiness. A rigorist and individualist version of Wesley's position has been promoted in and out of Methodism by the Holiness movement since the mid-19th century. Charles G. Finney also promoted a revivalistic perfectionism.
Protestant social perfectionism has taken many forms, such as the violent Munsterite kingdom of 1525, the gentle society of Nicholas Ferrar at Little Gidding (17th century), and the American communitarian experiments of the Rappites and the Oneida Community (19th century).
Both personal and social perfectionist impulses contributed to the moral rigor and the optimism of the more recent Social Gospel movement. The postliberal theological reaction of Karl Barth and Reinhold Niebuhr, among others, revived the Augustinian and Reformation emphasis on sin in believers in opposition to both the older perfectionism and piety and the newer evolutionary perfectionism of society." The Westminster Dictionary of Church History (1971), pages 649-650.

Now that we have a slight overview of the "evolution" of the natural man's spiritless and vain "theological" imaginations, we can begin to look into the meaning of the word "perfect," and whether or not the King James translators used that word properly to describe the original word in the Greek transcripts, teleioj, or teleios; and if they did, what does "perfection" mean according to the Word of God.

At the time that I began to look into the full meaning of this Greek word, I did not anticipate where He would lead me. From the study of this one word, I was led all the way back to "the beginning."

Firstly, it has been assumed by many that Genesis 1:26-27 is speaking about Adam and Eve only (male and female), and that those who were "begat" through and after them were simply a "by-product" of the first man and woman, and that at some point in time, their souls and spirits are joined with the physical body.

With a thorough and diligent study of Genesis in the Septuagint and several chapters and verses elsewhere in His Word, it can be revealed to us that all men (male and female) were "made" inclusive on the sixth day of creation. His making of them included their souls, bodies and spirits (without form); and they were all made according (in accordance with, conformed)to Their image and likeness on that day ("Let Us make man according to Our image and likeness." Genesis 1:26, LXX ). On that day, all of the animals were made also.

We can see this due to the fact that during the six day creation, all the animals were "made" previous to man being "made" (male and female), whereas the first man (Adam) was "formed," then the animals were "formed" and named by Adam, and then Eve was "formed" from Adam's rib. If "made" and "formed" meant "exactly" the same thing, then God's order would be disorder--which it is not.

Now, according to the natural man's scientific and spiritually dead "thought," to "make" and to "form" must mean the same thing, because, to them, you can't "make" something without the immediate result of something "formed." To this, and to all questions resulting from natural man's limited understanding, the answer is already in His Word:

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

And He has told us that "made" and "formed" are two separate and distinct events, to wit:

"But now hear, Jacob My servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen. Thus saith the Lord God that made thee, and He that formed thee from the womb; Thou shalt yet be helped: fear not, My servant Jacob; and beloved Israel, whom I have chosen." Isaiah 43:1-2.

The point of view of so-called "creation theology" (through the use of the KJV Masoretic/Hebrew text), is that Genesis 1:26 (the sixth day) speaks of the physical creation of Adam and Eve in order to combat the vain imaginations of the "evolutionists" whose position is that 1:26 is saying that there were men walking on the earth before Adam was formed at 2:7. With the two above "theories," the world has received the Hegalian dialectic known as "creation verses evolution," the synthesis being, as always, "a lie verses a lie equals a lie that appears to be the truth."

We will not bother addressing the vain imaginations of the evolutionists. But, the premise of the "creation theologians" is based on what is written in the KJV concerning the end of the sixth day, Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them, and that on the seventh day, God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. Therefore, their premise is that the account of the six day creation (1:1 to 2:1) is just an overview of the specifics written about from 2:4 to 3:1, which they say were written by a different writer than Chapter One.

But when we go to the Septuagint, we see concerning the end of the sixth day, And the heavens and earth were finished, and the whole order of them, and that on the seventh day, He ceased from all His works which God began to do.

We see here that during the six day creation, the heavens and earth were finished and the whole order of them (Let there be... (1:3, 6, 14), Let the... (1:1:9, 11, 20, 24), Let them... (1:15), Let Us... (1:26). But we do not find that God "formed" any "living" thing until Genesis 2:7, wherein the text reads that He "formed the man" (Adam) and "the man" became a living soul. Note that at 1:26, it does not read "Let Us make the man [*singular]...." It is, "Let us make man [*plural]..."

Preceding the forming of Adam at 2:7, we see at 2:4-5:

"This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, [*before it was formed] and all the grass of the field before it sprang up [*before it was formed], for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it." [*no man was yet formed]

From these verses we see that during the six day creation (the day), God "made" the herb and the grass, but He had not yet "formed" them. He had sown the seeds of them (1:11-12) but they were not yet "formed" on the earth. He had "made" man, male and female (1:26-27), but "the first man (Adam)" was not yet "formed," and had not yet received the breath of life from God (not a man to cultivate). That occurs at 2:6.

What is important to note here is that during the account of the six day creation, all of the animals were "made" (1:20-25) before man (male and female) was "made" (1:26-27). But when we come to the "forming" of them, we see that at 2:7 Adam was "formed," at 2:19 the animals were "formed," at 2:20 Adam named the animals, and lastly, at 1:22, Eve was "formed" from Adam's rib.

We see then that the sequence of "making" the animals and man (male and female) does not follow the sequence of the "forming" of them, and therefore "making" and "forming" was not the same act, for God is not a God of disorder and His Word is true.

And again, after the flood, we see the covenant (established at Genesis 6:18) remains with "all men."

To be continued next month.

A Study concerning

Death and the Grave

Where will I go when I die?

Part Two

by Steven Milton

In Part One it was mentioned that if the Lord willed, I would share with you more concerning the rich man and Lazarus. It will be my attempt to do so at this writing.

But first I would like to address a couple of items in the introduction of Part One. It was mentioned that this study is in no way to be put forth as doctrine. I support this because I do not want to attempt to be trying to create any doctrine; however, we need to be constantly mindful that the Scriptures tell us at 2 Timothy 3:16 that:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (teaching), for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Even though I espouse no doctrine, each one of us need to stay alert and examine all things for teachings that Jesus and the Scriptures talk about. So, how do we do this? One method to search for sound teaching is the clear use of Scripture. If any of the verses in Part One were out of context, or there was an overwhelming amount of Scripture to a contrary understanding on your part, please correct me so that we may all understand the correct teaching of Scripture. Another point to remember about doctrine (teaching) is that when Jesus spoke, He spoke sound teachings (see Matthew 7:28 and 22:33, John 7:16-17, Mark 4:2), and since He quoted Scripture [*the Septuagint) much of the time, we know His teaching is of God {*"I and my Father are one." John 10:30]. This area of study may be very hard for us to accept, because it opens doors to all types of other conflicts, yet this is not true conflict due to one overwhelming thing; the study is based wholly in Scripture.

While we were sharing this newly revealed information with a fellow "believer," I was stunned when we met with resistance. Why would anyone want to argue about what was so clear? Then I received the answer. We were told that we sounded like a "Jehovah's Witness" or some other "cult." I was surprised and unaware of this because I had not studied different groups of "religious" people for some time. Much of the material studied from Matters concerning His Lawful assembly has shown me that even those of the "mainstream religions" may be, in fact, cults, or at least not of Christ due to their allegiance with evil men and God-less governments, and as such are due careful examination of their "teachings." Why not then carefully examine them as well as those we call "cults"?

The idea that we die, but the soul does not, was what I had been taught while attending two mainstream bible colleges, yet I had no real clear evidence in Scripture for this "doctrine." And we must remember that Paul warns us at 1 Timothy 4:1-2:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"

For many, the question we have raised falls into the 'scary" area of doctrine, and in America it has little or nothing to do with their "Christian" life. The spiritless intellectual mood of these times erects a barrier against searching the Scriptures, in contradiction to Acts 17:11:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

...and a barrier against progress and seeking truth described at II Thessolonians 2:10-13:

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

As followers of Jesus the Christ, we cannot afford to be lethargic. The stakes are too high. Easy going compliance with "what we have always believed" may be the signal that our God given powers of discernment have been dulled. Jesus recognized. Believing falsehoods, doctrinally or otherwise, is dangerous, and false teachings are especially threatening. Schaffer said, "the battle for our minds lies in the world of lies." Is it possible that those "dottiness and teachings" we have been taught for hundreds of years have strayed from the truth of Scripture?

We have never seen the Christ compartmentalize true teachings or our daily walk. For Him, truth mattered supremely. We will either believe what is true, or what is false. and it requires effort and investigation to establish truth to best of our abilities; so let us join the Bereans and search the Scriptures for true "teachings" (Acts 17:11.)

Now, back to "death" and the idea of "the immortal soul." In Part One, I mentioned the rich man and Lazarus. At this point I will offer a very interesting bit of material from Flavius Josephus [*A.D. 37-c.100]. As I understand it, he was not a follower of the Christ [*son of a Jewish priest, he became a Pharisee at 19 years old]. The following was considered to be his (Josephus') teachings on the subject of death, and I am sure others taught him [*Talmudic teachings]. It is from his "Complete Works of Josephus," page 637, on a "Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades":

"1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region.... This region is allowed as a place of custody for souls....
2. In this region is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, wherein we suppose not one has hitherto been cast....
3. ....With whom there is not place of toil, no burning heat, no pearcing cold, nor any briars there;....while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven.... This place is called the Bosom of Abraham.
4. This is the discourse concerning Hades wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead.... for while you believe that the soul is created, and yet is made immortal by God, according to the doctrine of Plato,...."

So we see that Plato was claimed to be the one who the Greeks followed with this idea of the immortal soul [*"immortal soul" does not appear in Scripture], and Josephus taught it with his own rendition as true. We should be immediately concerned. Do we follow after the teachings of men who are not led of the Spirit, or are we now going to say that God will teach us through spiritually dead men. If we are to do this, what will be our outcome?

The idea that a man not filled with and led by the Spirit of God could teach us sound doctrine does not settle well with true followers. My hope is those that read this study will be concerned enough to go back to basics after accepting those ideas we have grown up with or believing something to be true just because we always have in the past. Don't we need to be searching the Scriptures for truth; not someone's "ideas" from his book?

We would do the Word of God a great disservice unless we examine the whole setting in which our Lord spoke. We have discovered that when one just takes a few verses to prove any "idea" or "doctrine," one can come up with many false doctrines like "obeying evil men and governments." So let's look at the context in Luke 15. It starts out:

"1 Then drew near unto Him all the publicans and sinners for to hear Him.
2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Who did Jesus come to preach to? We are told that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). Were the sinners spoken of in these verses Gentiles? No! They were the outcasts of Israel who were hated by the Pharisees. Jesus responded to them with the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (Luke 15:4-7, 8-10, 11-32). These explained His purpose. The people of Israel knew well the love for their sheep. The coin parable followed closely for emphasis; and when the Pharisees clearly saw that they were the older brother [*of verses 25-32], they murmured when the younger "sinners" wanted to return. If the Pharisees had possessed the love of the Father, they would not have protested the receiving of the publicans and sinners.

Our Lord continued His rebuke in Luke 16:1-8. Would anyone commend an employee that was so unfaithful? It is clear that this is still a parable, and the Pharisees who were called the "children of light" understood it. In verse 9, we see Jesus telling them something that is quite ironic; to love mammon. This will not give you anything in eternity, will it? Verses 14-18 starts with the Pharisees attempt to scoff at Jesus and to deter Him from the subject, but He had just told them that they were an abomination. Herein, we see their corruption of the Law and that it was not going unnoticed by our Lord. Now, to Luke 16:19-31:

"19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

As the chapter closes, we are still in the same setting. Jesus is still speaking to or about the Pharisees, and they are still receiving His rebukes. He has exposed as false, their self-righteousness, their doctrines, and their unforgiving attitudes towards sinners and publicans. The rich man is descriptive of the Pharisees. The purple they wore was a sign of royal position. They wore fine linen and assumed the place as priests in authority.

The beggar is representative of the sinners; those that had been outcast by the Pharisees. They hungered not only for physical food, but also in the spiritual food that they had been deprived of due to the Pharisees false doctrines. They lay at the gates of the Pharisees, who could, but would not, help him. The poor in need were to be provided for in accordance with Scripture, but the Pharisees had devised ways to change God's Law because of their covetousness and jealousy of the poor who sought to return to the One True God. The beggar, Lazarus, was full of sores and was being licked by dogs. Dogs were always a representation of the Gentiles. Since the Pharisees were not going to lift a hand to help him, he had no where to turn but to the Gentiles for work and survival. Cornelius, in Acts 10, appears to be one of these Gentile dogs.

The only information on publicans and sinners that we can find is that they were of Israel, as in the cases of Zaccheus. There are many passages that show that publicans and sinners met with and ate with Jesus (Matthew 9:10-11, 11:19, Mark 2:15, Luke 5:30, 7;34). As stated before, Jesus came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 5:24. But He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel); therefore, we would more than likely not find Him spending time with Gentiles.

As shown before, the "belief" of Abraham's bosom was one that came from the Jewish leaders. One source says that the Pharisees taught a reversed version of the rich man and Lazarus, and as would be the resultant effect, they held the keys for entering into the Bosom of Abraham. With the contrived "power" to excommunicate anyone who did not obey their edicts or tithe appropriately, they must have "appeared" to be "the door" for many. They were using this "doctrine" as a whip against those publicans and sinners, of Israel, who could not "buy" their place in Abraham's Bosom. Do you ever see this same thing happen in "Churches" today?

The Christ came, and reversed their parable, and left them squirming in their Hades. Consider their outrage! This is the only place in Scripture that Abraham's Bosom is found, and therefore must be a parable considering its context [*of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead, at John 11:43]. There is no Bible study that can show that it is anything else. It appears that the gulf was so great between the Pharisees and the publicans and sinners due to the ungodly attitude of the Pharisees. They placed the sinners completely out of there reach so that they would not be obliged to help them. Our Lord's direct rebuke of the Pharisees ended with verse 31:

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

He had answered their murmurings, and received sinners; He denounced their corrupt doctrines, their neglect of the poor, their covetous ways, and their changing the Word of God for their power, and their "making it of none effect."

According to the ways of the Pharisees, all we need to do to develop non-biblical doctrine is use:

1.Philosophy. 2. Theology. 3. Reason and Logic. 4. Words of the world. 5. History and traditions of men.

Have you noticed that there is truly "nothing new under the sun"? This is evident today.

There is no reward in death.

Can anyone find reward at the time of death in Scripture? In all cases, judgment comes after the time of death, not at the time of death. Hebrews 9:27-28 tells us:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

To receive a reward or judgment, it appears we need to have conscious thought. This would imply a resurrection [*for "the dead know nothing," see Ecclessiates 9 (LXX)]. We see that the dead are not in any manner thinking, and are without thoughts. Remember in Part One, it was seen that dead men in the grave do not experience anything good or bad; they simply sleep. All must await the resurrection. [*And they sleep until Satan has been bound for a thousand years (see Revelation 20)]. Those that are His faithful and obedient followers [*which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands] will live and reign with Christ a thousand years. Resurrection from death is our hope, not death itself:

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" 1 Corinthians 15:55

Jesus said:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:12

Neither shall those that are not written in the Book of Life get a pre-taste of the punishment to come, for they will face the second death on the final judgment day. All of us will lie down in death together, or put another way, 'to sleep." Resurrection remains a time of reward for those that are "good and faithful servants," and for others, a time of weeping.

Our final concern in this discourse is that we all need to be diligent to seek the correct answers and teachings of Scripture, for there is not one man or one institution that is not without error. Let us not display pride or fear to anyone showing the error we may have, because no one wants to be found to be one of these:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

I welcome comments on this subject. Let us keep the Unity of the Spirit as we search the Scriptures with diligence. God Bless you all.

[*Editor's note. For those that are unfamiliar with Josephus who is quoted in this article, the following synopsis of his life and works may be of assistance in further understanding the background of today's "Judeo-Christian religion":

"Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) is the author of what has become for Christianity perhaps the most significant extra-biblical writings of the first century. His works are the principle source for the history of the Jews from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 175-163) to the fall of Masada in A.D. 73, and therefore, are of comparable value for determining the setting of late inter-testamental and New Testament times.
Josephus, born the son of a priest, was named Joseph ben Matthias (Joseph, son of Matthias). Being of a priestly family and a descendant of the Hasmoneans, he was well educated and rose to a respected position in the Jewish community. After a short association with the Essenes and a somewhat longer period as a disciple of an escetic hermit named Banus, he decided at the age of nineteen to join the Pharisees. When he was twenty-six (A.D. 63) he traveled to Rome and successfully pleaded for the release of some fellow priests who had been sent there to be tried by Nero. As a result of the visit, he returned profoundly impressed by the power of the empire and strongly opposed the Jewish revolt against Rome in A.D. 66 -- being convinced of its ultimate futility and fearing the consequences for his nation.
Being unable to restrain the rebellion, he reluctantly joined it and assumed a command in Galilee where he fortified a number of cities, stored up provisions, and trained his army in anticipation of the arrival of Vespasian and his forces. By the spring of A.D. 67, Josephus and the little that remained of his army had been forced to retreat to the fortified city of Jotapta where he eventually surrendered. During this subsequent imprisonment, he became directly acquainted with and gained the favor of Vespasian.
When Vespasian became emperor in A.D. 69, Josephus was freed. He returned to Jerusalem with Titus, Vespasian's son and future emperor, where he served the Roman commander as interpreter and mediator. Faced with the inevitability of the Roman forces' ultimate victory, Josephus attempted to convince the Jews holding Jerusalem to surrender and thus save the city. He was, however, unsuccessful and in A.D. 70, the city fell to the Romans and was demolished. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Josephus returned to Rome with Titus and settled there as a client of the emperor on an imperial pension -- gaining the rights of a Roman citizen and adopting the emperor's family name, Flavius -- and began his literary endeavors.
His works include The Wars of the Jews (general history of the wars from the time of the Maccabees to the destruction of Jerusalem), The Antiquities of the Jews (a history of the Jewish nation from earliest times to his own time), The Life of Flavius Josephus (defense of his war record against criticism from Justus of Tiberius), and Against Apion (an apologetic for the Jewish faith in contrast to Greek thought)." Introduction to The Complete Works of Josephus (1987), translated by William Whiston (Hendrickson Publishers.)

The King James Masoretic Hebrew Text

and

The Septuagint

Compared

In the left-hand column on the following pages, we have listed several verses from the New Testament which are quotations and citations of the Old Testament by the Christ, the Apostles and Epistle writers. In the center and right-hand columns is the verse being quoted from the Old Testament--the center being from the KJV Masoretic Hebrew translation, the right-hand being from the Greek Septuagint. In the right and left columns, we have set in bold type the major words that conform to one another and that are not found in the Masoretic text. Take note how many verses from the Masoretic text have lost their clear and pure meaning as compared to the New Testament and Septuagint.

Lord Willing, next month we will look further into the major discrepancies, and also, the interesting history of the Masoretic text.

King James New Testament Translated from Greek texts 1611 A.D.	King James Old Testament Translated from Masoretic Hebrew texts circa 1000 A.D.	Septuagint Manuscripts Translated from Original Hebrew texts to Greek 285 B.C.
Acts 2:25-28. For David speaketh concerning Him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for He is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.	Psalm 16:8-11. I have set the LORD always before me: because He is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.	Psalm 15:8-11. I forsaw the Lord always before my face; for He is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue exulted; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou wilt fill me with joy with Thy contenance: at thy right hand there are delights for ever.
Romans 9:27-28. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.	Isaiah 10:22-23. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land.	Isaiah 10:22-23. And though the people of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant of them shall be saved. He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because the Lord will make a short work in all the earth.
Romans 15:12. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles trust.	Isaiah 11:10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and His rest shall be glorious.	Isaiah 11:10. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles; in Him shall the Gentiles trust, and His rest shall be glorious.
Matthew 13:15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.	Isaiah 6:10. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.	Isaiah 6:10. For the heart of this people has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Acts 4:25-26. Who by the mouth of Thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ.	Psalm 2:1-2. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His Anointed...	Psalm 2:1-2. Wherefore did the heathen rage, and the nations imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered themselves together, against the Lord, and against His Christ...
2 Corinthians 6:17. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,	Isaiah 52:11. Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.	Isaiah 52:11. Depart ye, depart ye, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.
Romans 11:9-10. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:	Psalm 69:22-23. Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.	Psalm 69:22-23. Let their table before them be for a snare: and for a recompence, and for a stumbling-block.
Romans 11:34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor?	Isaiah 40:13. Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being His counsellor hath taught him?	Isaiah 40:13. Who has known the mind of the Lord? and who has been His counsellor, to instruct Him?
Hebrews 13:6. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.	Psalm 118:6. The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?	Psalm 117:6. The Lord is my helper; and I will not fear what man shall do to me.
Hebrews 12:5. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him:	Proverbs 3:11. My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:	Proverbs 3:11. My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him:
Matthew 4:10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.	Deuteronomy 6:13. Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve Him, and shalt swear by His name.	Deuteronomy 6:13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve; and thou shalt cleave to Him, and by His name shalt thou swear.
Matthew 3:3. For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. (see also John 1:23)	Isaiah 40:3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.	Isaiah 40:3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.
Matt. 4:4. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (see also Luke 4:4)	Deuteronomy 8:3. ...He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.	Deuteronomy 8:3. ...He might teach thee that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God shall man live.
Matthew 4:7. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.	Deuteronomy 6:16. Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted Him in Massah.	Deuteronomy 6:16. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, as ye tempted Him in the temptation.
Matthew 12:7. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.	Hosea 6:6. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.	Hosea 6:7. For I will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than whole-burnt-offerings.
Matthew 13:35. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.	Psalm 78:2. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:	Psalm 78:2. I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter dark sayings which have been from the beginning.
Matthew 15:8-9. This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. *But in vain they do worship me, teaching for* doctrines the commandments of men.**	Isaiah 29:13. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:	Isaiah 29:13. And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to Me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: but in vain do they worship Me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
Matthew 21:16. And said unto Him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?	Psalm 8:2. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.	Psalm 8:2. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.
Ephesians 4:26. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:	Psalm 4:4. Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.	Psalm 4:4. Be ye angry, and sin not: feel compunction upon your beds for what ye say in your hearts. Pause.
Romans 3:13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:	Psalm 5:9. For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.	Psalm 5:9. For there is no truth in their mouth; their heart is vain; their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit.
Romans 3:14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:	Psalm 10:7. His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.	Psalm 10:7. Whose mouth is full of cursing, and bitterness, and fraud: under his tongue are trouble and pain.
Romans 10:18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.	Psalm 19:4. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun,	Psalm 19:4. Their voice is gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the sun He has set His tabernacle.
Hebrews 10:5. Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me:	Psalm 40:6. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.	Psalm 40:6. Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not; but a body Thou hast prepared Me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not required.
Romans 3:12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.	Psalm 53:3. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.	Psalm 53:3. They have all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, there is not even one.
1 Peter 5:7. Casting all your care upon Him; for He careth for you.	Psalm 55:22. Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and He shall sustain thee: He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.	Psalm 55:22. Cast thy care upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee: He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.
James 4:6. But He giveth more grace. Wherefore He saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.	Proverbs 3:34. Surely He scorneth the scorners: but He giveth grace unto the lowly.	Proverbs 3:34. The Lord resists the proud: but He gives grace to the humble.

The Pagan Foundations and anti-christ spirit

U.S. Government Symbolism

Great Seal Symbols

by Daniel Nile and Randy Lee

A Bundle of Thirteen Arrows

The American bald Eagle holds in his sinister talon a bundle of thirteen arrows. The arrows denote "the power of war." (1782 Act)

The Power of War

During the Middle Ages, English archers were among the most feared warriors on any battlefield. Launched from powerful longbows, their clouds of deadly arrows decimated enemy soldiers and were the deciding factor in many battles. But, for the bondman in and of Christ Jesus, we are instructed that:

"...the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.

The Roman Connection

The bundle of arrows is reminiscent of the fasces, a bundle of rods with a protruding axe blade that was borne before Roman magistrates as an emblem of official Imperial power. In fact, the bundle of arrows in Charles Thomson's original drawing of the Great Seal depicts them in alignment very similar to a fasces. Infinitely stronger than a single rod, the unbreakable nature of aligned rods reinforces the bundle of arrows, and in a general sense, is a symbol of the power to wage war. In modern political writings, the explanation of the symbolism of the fasces has been smoothed down to represent "Republican sovereignty." Whether its meaning is reinterpreted or not, the fasces still represents Roman Imperial power, "Republican" or otherwise.

In a more specific sense, when the fasces is displayed continually, it symbolizes the aggressive Roman anti-christ spirit in the form of "a permanent state of war."

Sagittarius Rising

The Latin word for arrow is sagitta, which is also the name of a minor constellation in the summer skies that has mythological connections to the arrows of Hercules and Eros. The symbol of this vain imagination of the pagans, called Sagittarius, is an archer that is half man, half horse. Some "scientists" have calculated that this "constellation" was rising in the East at the time the Declaration of Independence was being signed.

"Don't Tread on Me"

In heraldry, the left side (sinister) is subordinate to the right (dexter). Also, note the wording in the Act of 1782: "the power of peace & war." Compare this to the phrase common today: war and peace. To leave no doubt about their intentions, the designers of the Seal depicted the Eagle facing the olive branch, further revealing this side of its aggressive Imperial power against peace. To appear non-aggressive, the "founders" also considered another anti-christ symbol, that of an animal that Benjamin Franklin thought would be an ideal symbol for America, the Rattlesnake. He observed that "she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her." The "founders" rejected it.

The use of the fasces is not exclusive to the U. S. Government. The fasces can also be found lurking behind the shield of the arms of Cuba, and the national arms on the Presidential standard, Fidel Castro himself bearing the fasces! It is also currently displayed on the front cover of France's European Union Passport, on the logo for the Euro-American Student Union, on the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, on the Equadorian national flag, and on Norwegian police badges. It was previously found on the Military Flag of Switzerland (c.1800) with (the archer) William Tell near the fasces. ?

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Abomination of Desolation

"In this precise form these words are found in the AV in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14, but there is an interpretative expression in Luke 21:20. The phrase is undoubtedly taken from Dan. 11:31 and 12:11, where the AV reads "the abomination that maketh desolate"; it is possible also that Dan. 8:13 and 9:27 contribute to the conception. Most expositors have been of the opinion that the passages in Daniel allude to the idolatrous desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. On Dec. 15, 168 B.C., a pagan altar was built on the site of the great altar of burnt sacrifices, and ten days later heathen sacrifice was offered on it. The Alexandrian Jews interpreted Daniel's prophecy in this way. 1 Macc. 1:54 reads: okodomesen bdelygma eremoseos epi to thysiasterion.

The altar was erected to Zeus Olympios, the Hebrew rendering of which name was ba'al samayim. S.R. Driver points out that the title ba'al samayim is often found in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions. By a change of the first word and a pun on the second this Aramaic title for "Lord of Heaven" was contemptuously reduced to siqqus somem, meaning "abomination of horror" or "abomination of desecration." Moffatt renders it "appalling horror," but this seems to represent only one side of its significance. The term siqqus stands for that which is foul, disgusting, and hateful; somem signifies that which desecrates or destroys what is good. The phrase therefore stands for that which utterly desecrates a holy thing or place. It can thus refer to the idolatrous image set up by Antiochus Epiphanes or to any other abhorrent object, person, or event which defiles that which is holy.

The passages in the NT are, of course, not exhausted by the historical fulfillment of the intertestamental period, and they must be studied in their own right. The Greek phrase bdelygma tes eremoseos may be rendered "a detestable thing that brings desolation." The emphasis appears to be more on the first word than on the last and draws attention to the objectionableness of the thing denoted. The word bdelygma refers to that which causes nausea and abhorrence: see the use of the word in Luke 16:15 and Rev. 17:4. It is a frequent LXX rendering of siqqus in the sense of an idol or false god, but it was not limited to that. Anything which outraged the religious feelings of the Jewish people might be so described.

The attempt to understand our Lord's allusion in the use of this expression seems partly involved in the view taken about the apocalyptic nature of the passage. If it is merely predictive and apocalyptic, then some idolatrous image may possibly be intended; but if our Lord's words are to be construed as prophetic in style, displaying that spiritual insight which belongs to true prophecy, then it may not be necessary to look for such an image but rather for something having a vital bearing on the behavior of the Jewish nation. Interpretative guidance is given in the record preserved by Luke, which reads: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh" (21:20). Writing for Gentiles, it would seem that Luke has replaced the obscure and mysterious word bdelygma by a term more intelligible to his readers. This is not, as some have said, to alter the Lord's meaning, but to explain it. On the principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, therefore, the "abomination of desolation" must mean the Roman troops. Matthew's reference to the abomination standing "in the holy place" does not require to be understood of the temple, but may equally indicate the holy "land." The historical fulfillment of the prophecy occurred first under Cestius (Gallus) in A.D. 66, then under Vespasian (A.D. 68), then under Titus (A.D. 70). It is possibly a superficial mistake to associate the abomination with the eagles of the Roman standards, for these had already been in the "land" long enough. It was the encirclement (kykloumenen) of Jerusalem by besieging forces of the Roman army that constituted the sign. The participle is in the present tense and shows that the Christians were to flee when they saw the city "being compassed" with armies. The presence of the Roman army was thus a bdelygma of the worst kind and one that presaged coming ruin. The word bdelygma was not too strong an expression to describe this invasion, for it was detestable indeed that heathen feet should defile the holy land and that the ungodly should come into the heritage of the Lord. (The participle "standing" is masculine and possibly points away from the thought of an altar or image and might suggest "the abominable one.")

Alford rejects the view that the encirclement of Jerusalem with armies is identical with the bdelygma and argues that Matthew and Mark, writing for Jews, give the inner or domestic sign of the coming desolation, this being some desecration of the holy place by factious Jewish parties, and that Luke gives the outward state of things corresponding to this sign. Conceiving of the "abomination of desolation" as one thing and the encircling Roman armies as another, he nevertheless unites them in the event which occurred at the historical moment of which the Lord speaks. The question is an open one, of course, and Alford's view has much to commend it; but it seems preferable to take the simpler view, which explains the abomination in terms of the Roman army. It would appear that Jesus intends to foretell a descration of the temple and city in a manner not unlike that brought about by Antiochus Epiphanes. The words of Daniel seemed to find a second fulfillment, and Rome has taken the place of Syria. E.F.KEVAN, Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pages 3-4.

Bibliography. D. Daube, The NT and Rabbinic Judaism; C. H. Dodd, More NT Studies; W. Forester, TDNT, I, 598ff.; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT, I; S. R. Driver in HDB; F. E. Hirsch, ISBE, I, 16-17; H. W. Fulford in HDCG; H. B. Swete, St. Mark; G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future and NIDNTT, I, 74-75.

Bits and Pieces

Staying the Serpent

Approximately two weeks ago, I was working in the terraced garden here located on the hillside behind the dwelling-house where I am currently staying. Each terrace is supported below by a three or four foot wall of hand-placed sandstone rocks.

On that particular day, I reached with my right hand for a shovel that was leaning against one of these sandstone walls. I did not look directly at the shovel as I reached for it, but I more or less viewed it through the corner of my eye as a reference of where to reach. As my hand neared the shovel, I turned my head in order to know exactly where the handle was to actually grasp it.

At the end of the combination of these actions and movements as my hand was wrapping around the handle, I heard what I perceived to be a buzzing sound in the area of my hand. As I looked at my hand, my eyes and ears were drawn to the sound, which was no more that three inches beyond in a crevice where the odd-shaped rocks came together. It was a coiled Diamondback Rattlesnake!! I, of course, instantly reacted by pulling my hand away, and after realizing the magnitude of what had "almost" happened, I thanked God for what "didn't" happen. The serpent then slithered away behind the rocks and has not been seen since.

I estimate that my hand was in striking distance for at least three seconds after the forked-tongued devil had started his rattle.

Now, I'm certainly not an "expert" on the habits of the rattlesnake, but I do know that once they coil and rattle, and you're in striking distance, they "normally" strike.

The purpose of writing the above account is not only to express to everyone how I have been blessed by our Father in this particular instance, but to also make it clear to everyone that it was His protective Hand that was between the poisonous fangs of the serpent, and my hand. It was not the false gods of "Luck" or "Chance" that stayed the strike; it was Him:

"He that dwells in the help of the Highest shall sojourn under the shelter of the God of heaven. He shall say to the Lord, Thou art my helper and my refuge: my God; I will hope in Him. For He shall deliver thee from the snare of the hunters, from every troublesome matter. He shall overshadow thee with his shoulders, and thou shalt trust under His wings: His truth shall cover thee with a shield. Thou shalt not be afraid of terror by night; nor of the arrow flying by day; nor the evil thing that walks in darkness; nor of calamity, and the evil spirit at noonday. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee." Psalm 91:1-7

The Human Number Game

The following letter was written in 1986 by a claims representative from the Social Security's Department of Health and Human Services to "an inquiring mind":

"Your recent letter to the Attorney General's office has been forwarded to us to answer.

Social Security is a voluntary system in that no one is required to get a number. However, programs which use social security numbers for control purposes might not allow a person without a social security number to participate.

The Internal Revenue Service uses social security numbers as taxpayer identification numbers. P.L. 87-397 was passed on October 5, 1961 requiring each taxpayer to furnish an identifying number for tax reporting purposes. Because of this, employers must have the social security numbers of their workers to legally report their earnings. They could not continue to employ an individual for whom they could not legally report earnings.

A bank or lending institution is not governed by social security rules but I doubt very much if they would refuse a loan simply because the applicant had no social security number. However, a person with no social security number would have no taxable income (see paragraph above) and I am sure this fact would have a bearing on their decision.

An inheritance large enough to be taxable would require the recipient to have a social security number for IRS purposes. The person leaving the inheritance would not be required to have a social security number just for this purpose.

I hope this helps answer your question. If you need any further information, you may call us at 1-800-952-0100."

Notarized letter from Penny Payton (Claims Representative, Department of Health and Human Services, S.D.) to Jerome T. Sciefen, Hudson, South Dakata, Jan. 10, 1986.

Prosperity in America?

The career politicians of America using the "booming economy" as a ploy to gain re-election never seem to mention their other legacies:

More than 1 million abortions per year.

More than 3 billion drug prescriptions written each year, with more deaths from pharmacist error than deaths from cigarette smoking.

More than 4 million below the poverty level.

More than 18 million children with no father in the house.

More than 4 million unmarried male/ female couples living together.

A 51% divorce rate among married couples, totaling over 1,400,000 each year.

The total assets of all Life Insurance companies in 1940 was less than 31 billion dollars. Today, their assets total more than 2.5 trillion dollars.

"If thou sit to sup at the table of a prince [*Satan is the prince of this world], consider attentively the things set before thee: and apply thine hand, knowing that it behoves thee to prepare such: but if thou art very insatiable, desire not his provisions; for these belong to a false life." Proverbs 23: 1-3 (LXX)

Pagano-Dulia

"Latria. In Roman Catholic theology the adoration given to God alone. It differs from any adoration given to either the Virgin Mary or the saints, a point settled by the Second Council of Nicaea. Dulia differs from latria in the sense that it is an honor given to distinguished persons other than God. Thomas Aquinas developed this doctrine." Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary, page 662.

Olympic Quotable Quotes

"The Olympics are more than a game; they are a religion." Tom Brokaw.

"Some of the American athletes thank God for their success in sports. Australia's god is sports." Bob Costas.

Issue the Fifty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Don't get Caught in Caesar's Web ...

Perfectionism, Part Two...

A Second Epistle concerning the Spiritual Gifts of Faith and Works...

The Power of His Word, continued...

The LXX and Masoretic Hebrew Text compared, Part two...

The Christmas Manger Scene...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Don't get Caught in Caesar's Web

Non-Commercial Alternatives within the Internet

by Brother Richard Anthony

The Internet. It can be used for good, or it can be used for evil. The Internet, also known as "The Web," is used mainly for commerce. And those who trust in this spider's Web for commercial gain are like the paths of those who forget God:

So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish: Whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider's web." Job 8:13-14 (KJV)

The Internet is called "The Web" because merchants, just like spider's, weave a web which traps and enslaves unsuspecting victims to the whims and desires of the deceivers in the merchant world, which lead to the path of death and destruction:

"They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper. Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands." Isaiah 59:5-6 (KJV)

But not all Internet activity must be commercial in nature. Those in and of the Christ who are moved to use the Internet in order to reach out and edify others concerning the Word of God and His Kingdom, and those who are moved to fellowship with others through the Internet can avoid this commercial Web and remain separate from these unclean things. This article will attempt to explain how you can have E-mail and a Website without joining yourself to the commercial side of the Web.

The Internet is Neutral Ground

The Internet, in and of itself, is not unclean. Things are not unclean. It is what one does with those things that determine if it is unclean or not. There are many positive things that can be done through the Internet. One can have a Website to edify others concerning God's Word, or one can fellowship with others through E-mail, or can discuss Godly subjects in chat rooms and discussion boards, and in many other ways. One of the newest features on the Internet is that it allows you to make free long distant calls to anywhere in the country at any time; even to people without a computer!! You use your computer to connect to the Internet, and dial any number you choose from your computer, and you can talk through your computer's microphone to someone else either through their computer or their regular phone!

The major negative thing about the Internet is its commercial nature. For example, the Website addresses (also known as URL's) and the E-mail addresses. Almost all of them have a ".com, .net, .org, etc." designation attached to them. These addresses, just like postal addresses, identify these Websites and E-mails as commercial in nature. So, just how can the bondman in and of the Christ avoid these commercial addresses in this "virtual world"? The answer is similar to how we avoid commercial addresses in the "real world"; by using a "location" rather than an "address"!!

Internet Service Providers

To begin with, one must have an Internet Service Provider (ISP) in order to connect to the Internet. Most ISP's charge a price for their "service" (usually $20/month), thus forcing you to engage in commercial activity. They also require your name, address, a credit card, and other marks from the beast, in order for you to partake of their sins. However, God always provides a way out for His people.

There are plenty of ISP's out there that do not require any form of payment. Additionally, they will not ask for any "identification" from you. However, they may ask you to fill out some info on an on-line form; but they do not verify the information you give them. In other words, they might ask for "name, address, phone number, etc."; but you can put ANY name and ANY address in those blanks. You can do this, because they never ask for YOUR name, or YOUR address; they only ask for "A" name and "A" address. Therefore you are not bearing false witness, but simply giving them "just" what they ask for! You can even write, "Name: Peter Pan-- Address: Never Never Land, etc.," and they will be satisfied; and additionally, "Peter Pan" will have free ISP service. And there is nothing to sign, because you can't "sign" over the Internet; all you have to do is "click" your mouse, or hit "enter." Therefore, you're not not entering into any contracts.

The only drawback is that most free ISP's will place a constant "advertisement" banner on your monitor screen while you are connected to the Internet, because the advertisers pay for this service. However, I find it easy to ignore these, and sometimes I place an obstacle in front of my monitor to avoid seeing it (i.e., a piece of paper covering the ad). But there are some free ISP's that do not place banner ads on your screen. It depends on the location where you will be dialing from that will determine whether or not you can have access to a free ISP without banner ads.

Websites

When someone wants their own Website with their own URL, the "Internet Police" usually require you to give them a verification name, verifiable address, verifiable phone number, verifiable credit card, etc. You also have to pay "big bucks' to register your Website, pay an annual fee to keep it, and then pay someone else to allow you to upload files to your Website. But, there is another way around this "merchant path."

There are many free Web Hosting sites out there. These are sites that allow you to create a Webpage, upload files yourself, and have a URL address, without having to pay anything, without having to give them any "personal" information, and without having to show them any "identification." The majority of these free sites, however, have banner ads posted on your Website (which can be annoying to visitors). But again, there are free Web Hosting sites that have no banner ads. I know of at least one Web Hosting company which gives you a free Website with NO annoying banner ads posted on your site. As a matter of fact, they forbid everyone from placing banner ads on their sites! There's a second free Web Hosting company I know of that has a simple "pop-up" banner ad instead of a "permanent" banner ad on every page of your site. This banner ad automatically minimizes itself, so it doesn't aggravate or distract visitors to your site.

Redirect URL

"Normally," the negative thing about having any kind of Website is that the URL's, as stated above, all end in some commercial designation such as ".com, .net, .org, etc." which are all commercial in nature (just like a zip "code"). So the question is, "How do we avoid being associated with these commercial designations on the Internet? How does the body of Christ remain separate from this sticky Web, but still have access to it? As with the free ISP's, God provides a way for His people!

It's called a "Redirect URL." A Redirect URL allows you to choose your own URL for your Website, and you are able to keep your current ISP and current Website URL (which will be called the "Target-URL" henceforth). To give you an example, when I "created" a Website on a free Web Hosting site, I was given the URL "http:home.density.com/answer/index.html." But as you can see, this target URL is long and difficult to remember, and it has a ".com" address! So I came up with a couple of my own Redirect URL locations to take my Target URL out of the commercial world.

One is "http://devoted.to/truth". These are short URL's, easy to remember, and most importantly, there are no commercial designations associated with them! When someone enters one of these two Redirect URL locations in his or her browser, he or she will automatically be redirected to my Target URL site! Their Redirect URL's will also, if you so choose, cloak or hide the Target URL address! For example, the only URL that visitors to my site will see in their location bar is "http: //devoted.to/truth" no matter which page they go to on my Website. In other words, they will never see my Target URL website address with a ".com, .org, etc." extension in it!

The main advantage of having a Redirect URL is that there are no commercial designations after it. Other advantages are that you can keep your Redirect URL for the rest of your life, even if you change from one ISP to another, or even if your Target URL changes locations. You can also change your Redirect URL anytime you choose to.

The only disadvantage to having a Redirect URL is that, again, advertisers pay for this service, so there will most likely be a pop-up banner ad that appears on your site when someone visits it, but you can easily close or minimize this pop-up window once it appears. Again, there are some URL Redirect services that do not have any banner advertising! It's just a matter of finding them.

If this is confusing to understand, let me pause here to give you an analogy. Let's say someone sends you postal matter to the local post office. This post office has both an "address" and a "mailing location." The address is commercial in nature, the mailing location is not. In our case, the Target URL is similar to the post office's address, whereas the Redirect URL is similar to the post office's mailing location. The Website is at the same place, just as the post office is at the same place, but you access them either through an "address" or a "location."

Redirect E-mail addresses

When you find an ISP, they will give you an E-mail address. This allows you to fellowship with other Brothers and Sisters in the Lord throughout the "world." The negative thing about having an E-mail address, just like a Website URL, is that they "mostly" end in an extension such as ".com, .net, etc. (again, all commercial). So, what are we to do about this?

Just like your Website URL, you can simply go from an address to a location! A further advantage to a Redirect URL is that they give you an alternative E-mail location! For example, the E-mail address my ISP gave me is "godlyman2u@lycos.com" (which will be called the "Target E-mail henceforth). The ".com" extension at the end of this E-mail address signifies commercial activity. But since I'm not engaged in commerce, I don't want that extension! Therefore, when I created my Redirect URL, I also received an alternative E-mail location. My E-mail location is "the-door@i.am". Notice there is no .com, .net, .org" or any other commercial designations in this alternative E-mail location. When someone sends an E-mail to "the-door@i.am," I can read my messages in two ways. Firstly, I can log on to a certain Website to read my messages, or secondly, I can have my alternative E-mail location automatically Redirected to my Target E-mail account. Even if you choose to have it forwarded to your Target E-mail address, you can hide your Target E-mail address (the one ending in "com, net, org, etc.") from everyone so that nobody can ever associate this address with you--even when you send E-mail from your target E-mail account!

Remember, there is not enough darkness in the world to extinguish the light of a small candle. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) May our Father guide you to pierce the darkness of Caesar's Web with the Light and Sword of His Word. Amen.

If you would like additional information on how to use the Internet to advance the Kingdom of God, you may contact Brother Richard Anthony at the following Website location, or you can write to him at:

http://devoted.to/truth

the Christ's assembly at California
general post-office
Piru, California

P e r f e c t i o n ?

Part Two

by Randy Lee

(Continued from Issue the Fifty-fifth)

After the flood, we see the covenant (established at Genesis 6:18) remains with "all men," to wit:

And I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you, and between every living soul in all flesh; and there shall no longer be water for a deluge, so as to blot out all flesh." Genesis 9:15

Further truth of this is found at John 17:2-3:

"As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him [*all flesh, all men]. And this is life eternal, that they [*all men] might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent [*to all men]." (KJV)

Before we continue here, we must clearly understand at this point that all men know God because they were made in the image and likeness of Him from the beginning, and His covenant is between Him and all men; and because of these truths, we find at Romans 1:19-23 that the unrighteous are without excuse:

"Because that which is known of God is manifest among them [*the unrighteous], for God to them manifested it; for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world by the things made being understood are perceived, both His eternal power and divinity; for them to be without excuse. Because having known God, not as God they glorified Him or were thankful; but became vain in their reasonings, and was darkened the heart of them without understanding; professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and quadrupeds and creeping things."

And, as it was with Jeremiah, it is with all of His children:

"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from the womb I sanctified thee;" Jeremiah 1:5

And:

"Did not He that made me in the womb make him? and did not One fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15

But we also know that, as was the case with Adam and Eve, as soon as we listen to that old crafty serpent and eat of his tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil, we shall surely die (Genesis 2:17). The tribulation begins as soon as we come forth from the womb, and we are taught by "the world" to partake of that tree, and that "ye shall not surely die;" or put in modern terms, "you only go around once so grab all the gusto you can," or "try it, you'll like it." With those constant beaconing calls, we are "trained up" in the ways of the world to love the world and the things that the world has to offer. But those things are the poisoned fruit which we are forbidden to be partakers of; the result when partaken of is a false life of "transgression":

"If thou sit to sup at the table of a prince [*Satan is the prince of this world], consider attentively the things set before thee: and apply thine hand, knowing that it behoves thee to prepare such: but if thou art very insatiable, desire not his provisions; for these belong to a false life." Proverbs 23: 1-3

Predestination and Transgression

The word "predestinate" and its "true" meaning has always been a "multi-doctrinal bone of contention" for the "scholarly" theologians of the world. I have, up until this time, avoided their Hegelian controversy and will continue to avoid it because all of the "theories" are designed to divide and seen for what they really are--spiritually dead theories. The thesis and antithesis of the two opposing "sides" to this controversy ultimately end up looking either to "fate" or to "free will" in order to "decide" the issue. For them it is one of two extremes--"once saved, always saved" (fate), or "you can save yourself" (free will). Of course, we find that neither one "decides" the issue, but simply imputes "religious dogma" that will give an "appearance" of truth. The question by them is, "which one appeals to your senses and reasonable mind." The spirit that is imputed with these humanist theories is either, "We live under grace, not under law" (fate), or "We are saved by our works" (free will). All of these theories create an invitation to transgress "the Law."

We speak here not of the transgression of "the law" (ceremonial, civil, and ecclesiastical), but of the transgression of going from being conformed to the image and likeness of His Son (that He might be the firstborn among many brethren), to being conformed to the image and likeness of the world (apathetic and disobedient to His Will):

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called [*all men to the covenant] according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow [*all men], He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren." Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV).

We must first note here that the KJV has interpolated (added) "to be," thereby imputing the false idea that it is a future event; but, in truth, all men were conformed to His image and likeness from the beginning. In the original Greek, it actually reads, "He also did predestinate conformed to the image of His Son." Additionally, take note that the purpose of "salvation" was always, from the beginning, instituted "according to His purpose," (not for our purpose), to wit:

"Therefore thou should not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor me His prisoner; but suffer evils along with the glad tidings according to God's power; Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the ages of time, but made manifest now by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who annulled death, and brought to light life and incorruptibility by the glad tidings;" 2 Timothy 1:8-10.

We see then that all men are called ("before the ages of time") because of God's good pleasure (grace) and not because we deserve it (fate and free will)(see Ephesians 1:3-11). And we see from the above verses of John and Romans that it is always qualified with "should" and "might." For example, Adam and Eve "should have" and "might have" remained conformed to His image and likeness, but they loved the whisperings of the prince of the world, rather than our Fathers Word; they loved disobedience.

We must also make it clear here that from all of those who are conformed from the beginning, there is only a remnant that repent from the corruptions and temptations of the world and return to the original conformation; those "born again" according to His good pleasure (grace); not by their works, fate, or free will. Being conformed to self-will and the works of the flesh is what keep all others from entering into His rest.

We offer the following observation by Greek etymologist Spiros Zodhiates for your consideration as an alternative to the "Church world's" humanist doctrines of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Lock, etc., concerning predestination:

"4309. (Predestinate) proorizw proorizo; fut. prooriso, from pro (4253), before, and horizo (3724), to determine. To determine or decree be forehand (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). The peace of the Christian Church has been disrupted due to the misunderstanding which surrounds this word. It behooves the Church to consider the divinely intended meaning of this word by carefully examining the critical passages where it is used.
In Rom. 8:29, 30, predestination is used of God's actions in eternally decreeing both the objects and goal of His plan of salvation. Proorizo has a personal obj., the pl. relative pron. hous, whom. This relative pron. refers to those previously mentioned as those whom God foreknew (proegno [4267]). The translation is, "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate." The objects of predestination are those whom He did foreknow [*all men]. Predestination does not involve a predetermined plan only but also includes the individuals for whom the plan is devised [*for all souls]. The goal of predestination is expressed in the phrase "to be conformed to the image of His Son [*to be was added by the King James translators]." Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament (1992), page 1223.

We will close on this "predestination" issue by leaving you with the following to consider. If all men were not "predestinated conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren," there would be no purpose for Him to have said to His Apostles:

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15 (KJV)

How Soon the World Corrupts

At an earlier time, in this thing called "my life," every other street corner in our neighborhood didn't have a 7-11 store or a supermarket, as is the case today here in the San Fernando Valley.

At that time, there was a man by the name of Helms that formed a company called The Helms Bakery Company. To facilitate the lack of access to fresh bread for those that had abandoned the old paths of making their own (and for profit-sake of course), this company sent out panel trucks every morning to the various neighborhoods, stopping periodically in the street, letting blow their unique air whistle, opening the back doors and rolling out the drawers full of fresh bakery. Each driver was called a Helmsman.

Today, there is a one inch by six inch by six foot piece of pine attached to a beam in the kitchen of the dwelling-house where I am currently staying. As odd as it may seem, this piece of pine has a "life-changing" link with The Helms Bakery Company. It is not just any ordinary piece of pine, but a piece of pine that has burned into it, in Old English script, the words: "Give us this day our daily bread."

These words from our Lord's prayer were burned into this piece of pine by my mom with a "wood-burning kit" at the time when the Helm's Bakery Company existed and at a time that I had not yet learned to read, but I had learned how to ask questions! When she had finished "crafting" this piece of pine, she fastened it to a beam in the kitchen of the dwelling-house where we were staying at that time.

The same piece of pine is displayed today, these many years later in the kitchen here, not as an icon, but as a constant reminder of how quickly our Father's little children can be corrupted by the ways of the world.

"Corrupted," you ask? Yes! The first question I had asked after she fastened it to the beam was an obvious and innocent one by someone who had not yet learned how to read--"what does that say?" But my next question to her answer--"Give us this day our daily bread"--shows the corruption. It was, "how is the Helmsman going to see it in here?" On the surface, it appears to be a very innocent and comical question, but when we look at the deeper implications, we see the corruption.

The Helmsman, in my mind, was the "giver of our daily bread." In my mind, this peddler, this merchant of the earth, was now my provider. This was evidence of my "transgression."

But, by the Grace of God, my mom's understanding of the verse corrected that delusion, and through her answer, she was moved in a subtle way to attempt to fulfil her duty to "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Not being able at this latter time to remember her exact answer, she had told me in so many words that the daily bread in the verse had nothing to do with the bread we eat, but the spiritual bread--the True Bread of Life from God. Though I don't remember having understood exactly what she meant, with her answer I was left with a most important impression from it; that there is a difference between what God freely gives and what the merchants of the earth sell. And although through my self-will I ignored this Truth most of "my life," His Bread of Life has sustained me in spite of myself; His patience with me is truly awesome. I now know, as I should have acknowledged those many years ago, that "without Him, we can do nothing."

I pass along the above occurrences to those who will read this article, not for the purpose of speaking about myself, but as a simple example of how we are so easily, and on the surface, innocently, corrupted by the whisperings of the wicked one and our own vain imaginations, and how important it is to correct those corruptions as soon as they are revealed to us by Him.

The Book of Life

With our Lord speaking through David, we find in the following verses, for the first time, the warning concerning the unrighteous being "blotted out" of the Book of Life. Through this revelation, we see that all men, the "eventual" righteous and unrighteous alike, are all written in that book from the beginning. How can anyone be blotted "out," if they were not "in" it to begin with:

"They gave me also gall for my food, and made me drink vinegar for my thirst. Let their table before them be for a snare, and for a recombine, and for a stumbling-block. Let their eyes be darkened that they should not see; and bow down their back continually. Pour out Thy wrath upon them, and let the fury of Thy anger take hold on them. Let their habitation be made desolate; and let there be no inhabitant in their tents: because they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they have added to the grief of my wounds. Add iniquity to their iniquity; and let them not come into Thy righteousness. Let them [*the unrighteous] be blotted out of the book of the living, and let them not be written with the righteous." Psalm 69:21-28

And David, further along, again confirms that all men are in the Book of Life from the beginning:

"My bones which Thou madest in secret were not hidden from Thee, nor my substance, in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes saw my unwrought substance, and that all men be written in Thy book; they shall be formed by day, though there be no one among them." Psalm 139:16

After the above Psalm, the Book of Life is not mentioned again until Philippians 4:3 by Paul:

"And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."

Now, when we come to Revelation, all of the above concerning the Book of Life is made very clear to everyone, by our Lord:

"He that overcometh [*the world (see 1 John 5:4-5)], the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels." Revelation 3:5

Again, from the above verse, we see that to be blotted "out," one must first be "in" it. So much for the Church world's favorite blasphemy, "once saved, always saved."

And we see from the following the confirmation of James 2:17--faith without works is dead:

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Revelation 20:12

And we see the eternal habitation of those who are blotted out of the Book of Life:

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15

And we see the eternal habitation of those who are not blotted out:

"And there shall in no wise enter into it [*the New Jerusalem] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27

And there is a "blotting out" for those who make our Father's Word of none effect:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19

"Be ye therefore perfect?"

We must first note that this verse is spoken by our Master directly in the middle of His Sermon on the Mount. In the KJV, "Be ye therefore perfect" is not only mistranslated, but it is also misarranged (out of sequence). The KJV makes it appear to be a "command" from our Master. But when we go to the syntax and correct translation of the original Greek, we find that it should read;

"Ye therefore shall be complete (teleioj, or teleios--full, wanting in nothing)."

With this true translation, we see that it is not a command, but a "positive" statement concerning the previous truths and admonitions brought to light in The Sermon. That is why we find the word "therefore"--He is referring back to the previous verses.

And most importantly, the "Ye" being spoken to by Him is not one "individual," as to you or I "singularly," but to His whole body, His ekklesia.

A Second Epistle

concerning the Spiritual Gifts of Faith and Works,

to His whole assembly throughout His Kingdom

from the Christ's assembly at Maine

(Footnotes ( {1} ) are found at the end of this article)

The following Epistle comes to us again as it did last month, by the Grace of God, from the Christ's Lawful assembly at Maine. Again, their qualifying preface to this Epistle reads as follows:

We, being unprofitable servants of God our Father and His Son Jesus, the Christ, wish not to offend you but would have you to know, For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin [*this is not a literal "dead," but rather ye have overcome the flesh in all aspects]; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.{1}

As Moses, Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;{2} so we also! Knowing, Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised [*i.e., nurtured] thereby.{3}

Though He [*the Christ] were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him;{4} He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.{5}

Believing on His name does not mean that you honor Him with your lips but your hearts are far from Him, for this is in vain that ye do worship Him teaching strange doctrines, Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the Knowledge of the truth."{6}

Study [*be diligent] to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker [*i.e., gangrene]...; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.{7}

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."{8} If that which was sown corruptible is not raised incorruptible, ye can in no wise enter in.

Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.{9}

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?{10} Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead [*the old man) is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him [*in newness of Spirit]: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him [*or us]. For in that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."{11}

We are grieved by the thought of some, knowing that, If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:{12} Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth.{13}

This brings us to remembrance when, Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?{14}

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.{15}

We have talked to many and said, Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."{16} But some have said, "For God so loved the world"; And we say Christ says, Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.{17} If this is not your thought on the Divine Love, then all that can be said is, For His counsels are not your counsels nor are His ways as your ways, saith the Lord.{18}

And He saith, If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after Me, cannot be My disciple."{19} In other words, if we compromise with things or people around us to the point where we are kept from doing what we are commanded, we are not disciples of the Christ.

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.{20} Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:{21}

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:{22} Put off concerning the former conversation [*life, manner of] the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."{23}

All that can be said to what sounds like justification is what has already been said from the beginning: Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.{24}

It has been said "His grace and mercy is renewed everyday." As it has been written from the beginning, My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.{25} And, Thou shalt not have respect persons in judgment; thou shalt judge small and great equally; ye shalt not shrink from before the person of a man [*i.e., pastor, policeman, president, pope, etc.]; for the judgment is God's: and whatsoever matter shall be too hard for you, ye shall bring it to Me, and I will hear it.{26} Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?{27} Have ye not heard Him say from the beginning, If ye love Me, keep My commandments.{28} And again He has assured us from the beginning, He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.{29} If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For He shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?{30} Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.{31}

Ye may still say in your mind, "His grace and mercy is renewed everyday." But the Christ sayeth, If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.{32} We must all remember that it has been written from the beginning, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.{33}

And what will become of those that love the world: And after a time there shall be no green thing in it because of the grass being parched. Come hither, ye women that come from a sight: for it is a people of no understanding; therefore He that made them shall have no pity upon them, and He that formed them shall have no mercy upon them.{34}

The Lord spoke unto Moses and said, I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.{35}

All that can be said concerning those who continue in their hypocrisy is: It has been written from the beginning, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, as ye tempted Him in the temptation.{36} For ye have need of patience [*endurance], that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.{37} Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son [*and sons] Jesus Christ [*the Spirit of God upon man, Logos] our Lord (Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth:{38}), which was made of the seed of David [*which is by interpretation 'well beloved'] according to the flesh [*manifested in the flesh]; And declared to be the Son [*and sons] of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness [*manifested in the Spirit of holiness], by the resurrection from the dead:{39} [*But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen, And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also in vain.{40} God forbid.]. By Whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:{41}

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols [*looking to the "man" Jesus Christ to take away your sins is Idolatry] [*That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.{42}] [*Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.{43}], even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.{44}

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.{45}

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the Word of Truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.{46}

I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers.{47} Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.{48}

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained [*i.e., Reverends, Pastors, Evangelists, etc.] to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness [*licentiuosness] and denying the only Lord God, and

our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having mercy on the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.{49}

Therefore thus saith the Lord: Since ye believe not My words, behold, I will send and take a family [* "family" is singular in the Septuagint, plural in the KJV] from the north, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants of it, and against all these nations round about it, and I will make them utterly waste, and make them a desolation, ahissing, and an everlasting reproach. And I will destroy from among them the voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the scent of ointment, and the light of a candle. And all the land shall be desolation: and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years.{50}

(Our) Father, if this cup may not pass away from (us), except (we) drink it, Thy will be done.{51}

And finally brethren, whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus [*the Christ], giving thanks to God and the Father by Him.{52}

So be it, so be it.

Endnotes

{1} Romans 8:5-10 Please read all of Chapter 8 of Romans.

{2} Hebrews 11:25

{3} Hebrews 12:11 Please read all of Chapter 12 of Hebrews,.

{4} Hebrews 5:8-9

{5} John 1:11-13

{6} 2 Timothy 3:5-7

{7} 2 Timothy 2:15-19

{8} 1 Corinthians 15:53-54

{9} Romans 6:4

{10} Romans 6:16

{11} Romans 6:6-12

{12} I John 1:6

{13} John 9:31 Please read all of Chapter 9 of John.

{14} Acts 8:29-30a

{15} Hebrews 5:12-14

{16} I John 2:15-17

{17} John 3:16

{18} Esaias 55:8 (LXX)

{19} Luke 14:26-27

{20} Ephesians 5:1-2{21} Ephesians 4:13

{22} Ephesians 4:17-18

{23} Ephesians 4:22-24

{24} James 4:4

{25} James 2:1

{26} Deuteronomy 1:17 (LXX)

{27} James 2:5

{28} John 14:15

{29} John 14:21

{30} James 2:8-14

{31} James 2:17-19

{32} Luke 9:23

{33} Proverbs 28:13

{34} Esaias 27:11 (LXX)

{35} Exodus 33:19 (LXX), Romans 9:15

{36} Deuteronomy 6:16 (LXX), Matthew 4:7

{37} Hebrews 10:36

{38} John 16:13

{39} Romans 1:2-4

{40} 1 Cororinthians 15:14

{41} Romans 1:5-6

{42} John 3:6

{43} II John 1:8

{44} 1 Corinthians 12:1-3

{45} Colossians 2:8

{46} 2 Corinthians 6:2b-10

{47} Philemon 1:4

{48} John 5:39

{49} Jude 1:4-5

{50} Jeremiah 25:8-11 (LXX)

{51} Matthew 26:42

{52} Colossians 3:17

The Power of His Word

......Continued

By Joseph Robert

Our Brother Joseph Robert, currently sojourning with us here in Southern California, recently sojourned from here to the Northwest and back again. The following is an account of one of his encounters during that sojourn and the blessings thereof, and his afterthoughts that we hope will be for your edification.

September 23, 2000. Interstate 5 at Brownsville exit, thirty minutes north of Eugene, Oregon. Linn county Sheriff's (two of them) allegedly investigating a nearby grass fire (which looked more like a farmer burning his field -- very common at this time of year) with the wind blowing towards the freeway. The first sheriff stopped 'because the fire department (there were none) said the fire could have been started from the freeway (it couldn't due to the direction of the wind).

On this fine day, sojourning with the Lord and waiting for whomsoever He was to send to meet me, and along comes Johnny Good Boy number one.

"Hello," says he. My response, "Greetings in the name of my sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ."

"We're looking for a possible arsonist that started that grass fire; can I see your I.D.?"

And, as always, my response, "Identification: that which is used to describe the status of the holder as a citizen, resident, person, driver, operator, hitchhiker, passenger, pedestrian, none of which I am, and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my Father God, for it is written, thou shalt not bear false witness. But I have something better, I have here the Holy Scriptures which describes me as a bondservant of Christ Jesus."

"What's your name?"

And, again, my response--"Name: a note, mark or symbol of something given by those in authority only to those subject to that authority, and I am only subject to the authority of my Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ. However, if you call me Joseph Robert, I will respond."

"Well, Joseph Robert, how long have you been standing here?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, have you been standing here a long time, or a short time?"

My response was, "What I deem a long, or short time is irrelevant. I am required to wait patiently on the Lord. My sense of time is irrelevant. Sometimes He has me wait hours, days or weeks. It's all up to Him. How do you define a short or long time?

"Well, a short time would be like a few minutes or an hour..."

"OK. a short time," I said.

And then he inquired, "Can I see the contents of your waist pack?"

"Certainly. No problem." I proceeded to reveal the contents of the waist pack and he seemed satisfied. About this time, number two Johnny Good Boy arrived and stood next to number one without saying a word.

"Well, Joseph, how old are you?"

"I don't have any personal knowledge; and besides, in your law it would be irrelevant and hearsay.

"Well, I'm not going to leave until you tell me your name, age, and how long you've been standing here."

"You're going to do what you're going to do. I can only tell you what my Lord and Saviour says...

"What's that?"

"Not to fear those who can harm the body, but to fear He who can take the soul and the body and cast them into hell."

"Do you have any weapons?"

"Only the sword of Truth (holding up my Bible)...we are after the Truth, yes?"

"Yes. You should know that hitchhiking in Oregon is illegal." (In truth, it's not!)

"Excuse me?," I said.

"I said hitchhiking in Oregon is illegal."

"That may be so, but it only applies to persons, and it doesn't concern me, because as I told you before, I'm not a person, nor am I a hitchhiker."

He then asked, "What are you doing?"

"I'm waiting here to meet someone to whom I am to witness for the Lord. This is what I do; I move along the common way and witness for the Lord."

"Where do you live?"

"I live, move, and have my being in Christ Jesus."

Having given them nothing but the Truth at this point, he was left with, "Can we check the contents of your pack?"

I replied, "Certainly, but let's go down to the grassy area off the shoulder so as to keep things clean." (As we proceeded down the hill, he asked):

"Where do your earthly parents live?"

"I don't know." (They have passed on.)

"Do you have a wallet?"

"No, only this waist pack."

"Where do you get money to stay so clean and wear such nice clothes?"

"At the risk of sounding facetious, When God guides, God provides."

Beginning to mellow, he asked, "Will you tell me your...uh....your other...what else are you called besides Joseph?"

"Joseph Robert."

"Thank you." At this point, the first one went back to his car to check for warrants, or instructions on what to do; I'm not sure which. The other one stood by while I carefully laid out the contents of my pack and revealed the contents of all the pockets. The second one now said,

"You understand, we have a job to do."

And I said, "I understand that you have a job to do, and you must also understand that I also have a job to do; and no offense, but my Boss is Superior to your boss." Then the first one came back and joined the second one.

He asked, "Where were you born?"

"I have no personal knowledge. My Father has never revealed that to me."

"Where do you get mail?"

"I don't get mail. But if I did get any First class mail matter, it would be at the general post office.

Excited, he asked, "Where?" As I thought about this question, we all chimed in together as if they were reading my mind by now:

"Wherever I happen to be at the time."

Then they both said together, "In whose name do you get it?" Here I had to seek guidance as I thought, and then said:

"In the name of the church."

By this time their hearts were definitely softening, as they were now in good spirits. They were all smiles as I rearranged my pack, and the first said to me: "Well, Joseph Robert, I must compliment you on being so neat and organized."

My reply--"If any good comes from me it is only the work of my Lord and Savior."

"Well, thanks for your cooperation."

"Yes. God bless both you fellows." And as the Lord would have it, they replied:

"God bless you too."

And the Lord had me add, "By the way, next time you see me out here, stop to say hello, and we'll have some Bible study together."

And again, as the Lord would have it, they said, "Sure thing....goodbye."

Afterthoughts

I had recently left the southland of California and had a wonderful fellowship with Randy Lee. During our conversation at that time, I had mentioned to Randy my distaste for these encounters with the police, and Randy enlightened me with the attitude to look upon them as a blessing as well as an opportunity to witness to them. Needless to say, when the first officer appeared, the thought that immediately came to mind was to think of this as a blessing. And indeed, the very idea seemed to bring a fresh source of inspiration and goodwill in the handling of the matter that resulted in the positive outcome of the event. There can be no doubt that the spirit we hold in mind and heart in such situations indeed gives us 'fuel for the fire,' honors the Father, and, as in this case, 'heaps coals upon their heads.'

Our Father's Word has already told us of these truths:

"And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." Acts 5:41 (KJV)
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:17 (KJV)
"And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:" 1 Corinthians 4:12 (KJV)
"If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ." 1 Corinthians 9:12 (KJV)
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:" 2 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)
"Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;" Hebrews 11:25 (KJV)
"My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;" James 1:2 (KJV)
"For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." 1 Peter 2:20 (KJV)
"But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;" 1 Peter 3:14 (KJV)
"For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing." 1 Peter 3:17 (KJV)
"Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." 1 Peter 4:19

The King James Masoretic Hebrew Text

and

The Septuagint

Compared

(continued from Issue the Fifty-fifth)

In the left-hand column on the following two pages, we have listed several verses from the New Testament which are quotations and citations of the Old Testament by the Christ, the Apostles and Epistle writers. In the center and right-hand columns is the verse being quoted from the Old Testament--the center being from the KJV Masoretic Hebrew translation, the right-hand being from the Greek Septuagint. In the right and left columns, we have set in bold type the major words that conform to one another and that are not found in the Masoretic text. Take note how many verses from the Masoretic text have lost their clear and pure meaning as compared to the New Testament and Septuagint. We may have a short history of the Masoretic text in an upcoming Issue, Lord willing.

King James New Testament Translated from Greek texts 1611 A.D.	King James Old Testament Translated from Masoretic Hebrew texts circa 1000 A.D.	Septuagint Manuscripts Translated from Original Hebrew texts to Greek 285 B.C.
Hebrews 11:5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.	Genesis 5:24. And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.	Genesis 5:24. And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him.
Hebrews 11:21. By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.	Genesis 47:31. And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.	Genesis 47:31. And he said, Swear to me; and he swore to him. And Israel did reverence, leaning on the top of his staff.
Hebrews 12:20. (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:	Exodus 19:13. There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.	Exodus 19:13. A hand shall not touch it, for everyone that touches shall be stoned with stones or shot through with a dart, whether beast or whether man, it shall not live: when the voices and trumpets and cloud depart from off the mountain, they shall come up on the mountain.
2 Timothy 2:19. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.	Numbers 16:5. And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who are His, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto Him: even him whom he hath chosen will He cause to come near unto Him.	Numbers 16:5. And he spoke to Core and all his assembly, saying, God has visited and known those that are His and who are holy, and has brought then to Himself; and whom He has chosen for Himself, He has brought to Himself.
Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.	Deuteronomy 27:26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.	Deuteronomy 27:26. Cursed is every man that continues not in all the words of this law to do them: and all the people shall say, So be it.
Hebrews 12:15. Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;	Deuteronomy 29:18. Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;	Deuteronomy 29:18. Lest there be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart has turned aside from the Lord your God, having gone to serve the gods of these nations; lest there be in you a root springing up with gall and bitterness.
Matthew 4:6. And saith unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.	Psalm 91:11-12. For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.	Psalm 90:11. For He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up on their hands, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Hebrews 1:10-12. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of Thine hands: They shall perish; but Thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.	Psalm 102:26-28. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.	Psalm 101:26-28. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. The children of thy servants shall dwell securely, and their seed shall prosper forever.
1 Peter 4:18. And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?	Proverbs 11:31. Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.	Proverbs 11:31. If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?
1 Corinthians 15:55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?	Hosea 13:14. I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.	Hosea 13:14. I will deliver them out of the power of Hades, and will redeem them from death: where is thy victory, O death? O Hades, where is thy sting? comfort is hidden from mine eyes.
Romans 9:29. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.	Isaiah 1:9. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.	Isaiah 1:9. And if the Lord of Sabaoth had not left us a seed, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been made like unto Gomorrah.
1 Corinthians 1:19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.	Isaiah 29:14. Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.	Isaiah 29:14. Therefore, behold, I will proceed to remove this people, and I will remove them: and I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will hide the understanding of the prudent.
Matthew 12:22-21. A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.	Isaiah 42:4. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till He have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for His law.	Isaiah 42:4. He shall shine out, and shall not be discouraged, until he have set judgment on the earth: and in His name shall the Gentiles trust.
Romans 11:26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:	Isaiah 59:20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.	Isaiah 59:20. And the Deliverer shall come for Sion's sake, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

The Christmas Manger Scene

by Gary Verne Crosley

As the Christian Church and heathen alike continue to "celebrate" the physical birth of Jesus every December 25th (which never occurred in Scripture on any date), our Brother Gary Verne, currently sojourning amongst the Christ's assembly at New Mexico, has sent to us the following article in the hope that it will be for the edification of those who read it.

Is your Church's doctrine (teaching and instruction) based upon the Holy Bible-- the inspired Word of God? Is your Church's "light of truth" in your community? Does your Church celebrate the birth of Jesus, or display a Manger Scene? Considering the situation of "The Church" today, most "Church-goers" would answer "yes" to the above three questions. Our Father's Word warns us many times not to be deceived. Is there a "chance" that "your Church" has deceived you--or perhaps you have simply deceived yourself?:

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many." Matthew 24:11 (KJV)
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Matthew 24:24 (KJV)
"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5 (KJV)
"Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
Wherefore He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
Redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Ephesians 5:6-16 (KJV)

Is there anything wrong with the picture of the Manger Scene? Do you know the truth about the Manger Scene? Does God's Word give us the date of Jesus' birth or instruct us to celebrate the birth of His Son? The answer to both of these questions is "no."

Herein, we will take a close look at the Manger Scene and His "birth date" in light of the truth of God's Word.

By the best "calculations" from the Scriptures, Jesus came forth from the womb around September 25-28. Thus, the date of December 25th as Jesus' birth date is a lie. Nor do a single one of us know the date or time of our birth. Life begins at conception. Only our Father, God, knows the date and time of Jesus' birth, and any of our births.

Since God has not told us of the date of Jesus' birth, where did the lie of December 25th come from?

On about December 21st, the winter solstice begins, which is the day of the year having the shortest period of sunlight. Also, it has always been a pagan holiday.

In Ethelbert William Bullinger's "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth," he points out to us that:

"There is no subject which can rank with this as of equal importance, if we are to have a right understanding, or even to approach a right understanding of the Word of God
This blessed Word comes before us with various titles, and each title which God has given it brings with it its own corresponding responsibility to our hearts. If it is called "the engrafted Word," as it is in James 1:21, we are to receive it. "Receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." That comes first.
Then it is called in Titus 1:9, "the faithful Word," and as the faithful Word, it is our duty and our privilege too, to hold it fast--"holding fast the faithful word." Just because it is faithful, we can hold it fast for our soul's peace and our heart's comfort and strength.
Then in Philippians 2:16, it is called "The Word of life." What is our duty to it as the word of life, the life-giving word? Our duty is to hold it forth; "holding forth the Word of life," so that others may receive that life which it reveals, and that new life, eternal life, spiritual life, which it imparts.
But then it is called in 2 Timothy 2:15, "the Word of truth"; and with regard to the word of truth our duty is to rightly divide it. You see how these responsibilities are divinely perfect.
We are not told to rightly divide "the faithful word." We have to hold it fast. That is all.
We are not told to hold the "Word of life." We are told to hold it forth that others may enjoy that life which it brought to us.
And that which concerns us as to the "Word of truth" is the right division of it. This division refers, not merely to its inward truth, but it even embraces its outward form.
Man always thinks he can improve upon what God has done. He has always got a better way. Whatever he may say, or whatever he may do, man's thoughts and man's ways are always the opposite of God's. Man will always attempt improvements, but his improvements always end in his own disaster.
God has given us a way of righteousness, but man has invented a way of his own, and those two ways are brought before us upon the very fore-front of Revelation, the way of God and the way of man--the one which Abel took and the other which Cain invented. These are the only ways from that moment to this.
God has given us a "blessed hope" in His Word. "That blessed hope" is not enough for man. He thinks he can improve upon that. So he has got a "larger hope" in His Word. God's hope is not large enough for him. And so, whatever department you may take (even as to God's way of holiness), whatever line you may pursue, man thinks he can improve upon it, and he always tries to." Ethelbert William Bullinger, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.

Were there three wise men in the Manger Scene? Not according to Scripture. Again, God's Word does not tell us how many wise men there were. It could have been as few as two or as many as twelve. "Three" wise men are based on the gifts given of gold, frankincence, and myrrh.And we know from His Word that the wise men were not at the Manger Scene.

The fact is, the wise men did not find Jesus until He was at least fifteen months old. They were never in the manger, to wit:

"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshipped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Matthew 2:11 (KJV)

Please note from this verse that the wise men "were come into the house" (not a place to find a manger). And note that Jesus is called a "young child" (paidion), and not a "babe" (brephos) as at Luke 2:16 when He was "lying in a manger." Thus, the wise men being in the Manger Scene is a lie!

Additionally, Herod did not slay all of the young children until two years after the wise men originally showed up in Judea:

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men." Matthew 2:16 (KJV)

Were the angels in the Manger Scene? Again, this cannot be shown from Scripture. We are told in God's Word at Luke 2:8-9 &15:

"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid." (KJV)
"And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us." (KJV)

There is no evidence found anywhere in Scripture that places any angels at the Manger Scene. Thus, we can only conclude that there were no angels at the Manger Scene, and that this too is a lie.

Were the shepherds in the Manger Scene?

"And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger." Luke 2:16 (KJV)

Thus, the shepherds were there. But they were not there on December 25th, as that day is in the middle of winter and they would not have been in the field at that time of the year. And, of course, we know that Jesus was not born that time of the year. Thus, the shepherds were not in the Manger Scene at that time of the year, and therefore that "image" is a lie also.

Each year during the so-called "Christmas Season," many Churches advertise the celebration of Jesus' birth through Christmas Pageants, Christmas Musical Specials, etc. As shown above, the Manger Scene is a lie. Is not the "image" of the Manger Scene just like the "image" of Santa Claus, both being a lie and another product that they can market. We can see each year that Jesus' "created" birthday celebration has become nothing more to most Churches than a way to "sell" the lie of the Manger Scene to a heathen world? This is a different Jesus than the one found in the Word of God. The Jesus of Scripture paid the price for all sin, and He can not be bought or sold:

"And there shall in no wise enter into it [*the New Jerusalem] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27 (KJV)
"For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:15 (KJV)

The words maketh a lie means to do or practice a lie. The Manger Scene is the practicing of a lie. God's Word tells us that those who practice a lie are partaking of the plagues and will never enter into His kingdom:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)

After considering all of the above, if you still think the traditions of men such as Christmas and its Manger Scene are "OK," then please consider the following verses:

"But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matthew 15:3 (KJV)
"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." Mark 7:8 (KJV)
"And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:9 (KJV)
"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." Mark 7:13 (KJV)
"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." 2 Peter 1:16 (KJV)
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8 (KJV)

The Ten Commandments were not only given to us to honor, but also as a "measuring stick' to identify sin. When sin is identified, we are to repent and partake of it no more:

"Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." John 5:14 (KJV)
"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 8:11 (KJV)
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." I John 3:6 (KJV)
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Bless, Blessed, Blessedness, Blessing

(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words)

A. Verbs.

1. eulogeo ^2127^, lit., "to speak well of" (eu, "well," logos, "a word"), signifies, (a) "to praise, to celebrate with praises," of that which is addressed to God, acknowledging His goodness, with desire for His glory, <Luke 1:64; 2:28; 24:51,53; Jas. 3:9>; (b) "to invoke blessings upon a person," e. g., <Luke 6:28; Rom. 12:14>. The present participle passive, "blessed, praised," is especially used of Christ in <Matt. 21:9; 23:39>, and the parallel passages; also in <John 12:13>; (c) "to consecrate a thing with solemn prayers, to ask God's blessing on a thing," e. g., <Luke 9:16; 1 Cor. 10:16>; (d) "to cause to prosper, to make happy, to bestow blessings on," said of God, e. g., in <Acts 3:26; Gal. 3:9; Eph. 1:3>. Cf. the synonym aineo, "to praise." See PRAISE.

2. eneulogeomai ^1757^, "to bless," is used in the passive voice, <Acts 3:25>, and <Gal. 3:8>. The prefix en apparently indicates the one on whom the blessing is conferred.

3. makarizo ^3106^, from a root mak--, meaning "large, lengthy," found also in makros, "long," mekos, "length," hence denotes "to pronounce happy, blessed," <Luke 1:48> and <Jas. 5:11>. See HAPPY.

B. Adjectives.

1. eulogetos ^2128^, akin to A, 1, means "blessed, praised"; it is applied only to God, . In the Sept. it is also applied to man, e. g., in <Gen. 24:31; 26:29; Deut. 7:14; Judg. 17:2; Ruth 2:20; 1 Sam. 15:13>.

2. makarios ^3107^, akin to A, No. 3, is used in the beatitudes in <Matt. 5> and <Luke 6>, is especially frequent in the Gospel of Luke, and is found seven times in Revelation, <1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7,14>. It is said of God twice, <1 Tim. 1:11; 6:15>. In the beatitudes the Lord indicates not only the characters that are "blessed," but the nature of that which is the highest good.

C. Nouns.

1. eulogia ^2129^, akin to A, 1, lit., "good speaking, praise," is used of (a) God and Christ, <Rev. 5:12-13; 7:12>; (b) the invocation of blessings, benediction, <Heb. 12:17; Jas. 3:10>; (c) the giving of thanks, <1 Cor. 10:16>; (d) a blessing, a benefit bestowed, <Rom. 15:29; Gal. 3:14; Eph. 1:3; Heb. 6:7>; of a monetary gift sent to needy believers, <2 Cor. 9:5-6>; (e) in a bad sense, of fair speech, <Rom. 16:18>, RV, where it is joined with chrestologia, "smooth speech," the latter relating to the substance, eulogia to the expression. See BOUNTY.

2. makarismos ^3109^, akin to A, 3, "blessedness," indicates an ascription of blessing rather than a state; hence in <Rom. 4:6>, where the KJV renders it as a noun, "(describeth) the blessedness"; the RV rightly puts "(pronounceth) blessing." So <v. 9>. In <Gal. 4:15> the KJV has "blessedness," RV, "gratulation." The Galatian believers had counted themselves happy when they heard and received the gospel. Had they lost that opinion? See GRATULATION.

Note: In <Acts 13:34>, hosia, lit., "holy things," is translated "mercies" (KJV), "blessings" (RV).

Bits and Pieces

Socialis Commercium Romanus

"The question of what is commerce is to be approached both affirmatively and negatively, that is, from the points of view as to what it includes and what it excludes. While commerce includes trade, traffic, the purchase, sale, or exchange of commodities, and the transportation of persons or property, whether on land or water or through the air, according to various definitions of the term, and according to judicial exposition apart from formal definitions, nevertheless commerce is broader than, and is not limited to trade, transportation, or the purchase, sale, or exchange of goods or commodities.

Commerce is more than any one of these things in that it is intercourse. The terms "commerce," "interstate commerce," and "commerce among the states" or "commerce among the several states" embrace business and commercial intercourse in any and all of its forms and branches and all its component parts between citizens of different states, and may embrace purely social intercourse between citizens of different states, as over the telephone, telegraph, or radio, or the mere passage of persons from one state to another for social intercourse and traffic, but also the subject matter thereof, which may be either things, goods, chattels, merchandise, or persons." Corpus Juris Secundum, v. 15, pp. 383-385.

"And I saw another beast rising out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, and spoke as a dragon; and all the authority of the first beast it exercises before it, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it that they should do homage to the first beast, of whom the wound of its death was healed.

And it works great signs, that it should cause even fire to come down out of the heaven to the earth before men. And it misleads those who dwell on the earth, by reason of the signs which was given to it to work before the beast, saying to those who dwell on the earth, to make an image to the beast, which has the wound of the sword, and lived.

And it was given to it to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should also speak, and should cause as many as would not do homage to the image of the beast that they should be killed. And it causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bondman, that it should give them a mark on their right hand, or on their foreheads; and that no one should be able to buy or sell, except he who has the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name.

Here is wisdom. He who has understanding let him count the number of the beast: for a man's number it is, and its number 666." Revelation 13:11-18

Depravatus Arbitrarius Debetum

"Debt. From the Latin "debere," meaning to owe, "debetum" meaning something owed. It is a word of large import, having several recognized meanings which vary greatly, according to the subject matters and the language in connection with which the word is used. It is a common-law word of technical meaning; but it has no fixed legal meaning, and it does not have a fixed or variable signification. It takes shades of meaning from the occasion of its use, and color from accompanying use, and it is used in different statutes and constitutions in senses varying from a very restricted to a very general one. The word implies the existence of a debtor, legality of the obligation, the existence of a consideration, and execution or performance by the creditor.

In a purely technical sense, it is that for which an action of debt or "indebitus assumpsit," will lie; a sum of money due upon contract, express or implied; or one which is evidenced by a judgment; although a debt, technically so called, may be evidenced by record, by contract under seal, or by simple contract only.

[In its ordinary legal sense] it has been said that the basic idea of "debt," as a legal term, is that an obligation has arisen out of contract express or implied, which entitles the creditor unconditionally to receive from the debtor a sum of money, which the debtor is under legal, equitable, or moral duty to pay without regard to any future contingency; and following this concept, "debt" has been defined as meaning a liability voluntarily incurred by express contract, an obligation founded on contract, express or implied, for the payment of money or other thing of value. If any time elapses between the performance of the service on the one hand, and the payment of the money or thing of value for which the contract for that service calls on the other, the relation of the parties to each other will be that of debtor and creditor, and the thing which is owed by the one to the other is a debt." Corpus Juris Secundum, v. 26, pp. 2-4.

"To no one nothing owe ye, unless to love one another: for he that loves the other has fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8

"No servant is able to serve two lords, for either the one he will hate, and the other he will love; or one he will hold to, and the other he will despise. Ye are unable to serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13

Venari Extortus Perditio

"Gain. As a noun- A generic term referring to whatever is obtained from the use of property, and defined as profits, that which is acquired or comes as a benefit, profits or something of exchangeable value, something of exchangeable value proceeding from property separate from capital. It sometimes signifies the difference between the receipts and expenditures, and sometimes the difference between the the sale price and the original purchase price; and imports ordinarily an element of chance, venture, or business hazard. It has reference to an actual, not a fictitious, gain, and in the singular is not necessarily limited to pecuniary gain. It may be derived directly as well as indirectly, and may be applied to an indemnity against loss under a contract.

The term, in the plural, may be equivalent to "income," interest," and profits.

[As a verb it means] to get (a profit or advantage), as to "gain a living"; "gain a lawsuit"; also to acquire or obtain, as to "gain jurisdiction." The term, in a particular connection, has been held synonymous with "extort." Corpus Juris Secundum, v.37, pp. 1421-1422.

"Gain. v., L. venari to hunt, E. gain profit." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), p. 883.

"...therefore they say, As Nimrod the giant hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon." Genesis 10:8-10

"..Esau was a man skilled in hunting...; and Jacob a simple man,..." Genesis 25:27

"For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul? or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

"Vain argumentations of men corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, holding gain to be piety towards God: withdraw from such. But piety towards God with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, it is manifest that we are neither able to carry out any thing. But having sustenance and coverings, with these we shall be satisfied. But those desiring to be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many unwise and hurtful desires, which sink men into destruction and perdition." 1 Timothy 6:5-9

"Go to now, ye who say, To-day and to- morrow we may go into such a city and may spend there one year and may traffic, and may make gain, ye who know not what will be on the morrow (for what is your life? It is even a vapour, which for a little time appears, and then disappears.) Instead of saying, If the Lord should will and we should live, we may do this, or that." James 4:13-15

Issue the Fifty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den again, Part One...

Perfectionism, Part Three...

The Duty of all True Bondmen..

For His Name's sake...

Friendly Fire...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den again

with commentary by Randy Lee

Part One

Of God's merciful power shown at Daniel 6:22, our Brother Daniel said to king Darius:

"My God has sent His angel, and stopped the lion's mouth, and they have not hurt me: for uprightness was found in me before Him; and moreover before thee, O king, I have committed no trespass."

In Issue the Fifty-third we were shown our Father's tender mercies toward our Daniel of today when he had refused to make supplication to the secular kings of the municipality where he is currently sojourning because he had committed no trespass, and how our Father's Providence stayed the lion's mouth.

In this long running spiritual battle, those same kings these many months later have again falsely accused our Brother of another "trespass," this time in the form of "failure to appear" on a charge of "practicing medicine without certification" and other sundry "violations" concerned with his making available our Father's healing herbs to those in need.

After having abated and defaulted the charges four months earlier, they came on a Sunday to the house where he was staying, and arrested him. After spending two nights in vinculus in their grey-bar hotel, he was brought before "THE COURT" on a Tuesday morning. The following "record" is the "arraignment" on that day. If the Lord wills, over the next month or two we may present the "record" (with commentary) of the "pretrial conference" which took place about a week after the "arraignment."

In these transcript's, we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original copies. Randy Lee's comments are in bracketed italics. The comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, and it is not an effort to put words in anyone's mouth, for only the Holy Spirit can do that. The comments are simply given for the edification and guidance of those that may at one time or another be in the same type of situation. Again, we must remember that only the Spirit of God will give you the words to say in that hour.

ARRAIGNMENT

OCTOBER 10, 2000

THE COURT: DANIEL.

DEFENDANT DANIEL: Are you trying to address me?

COURT: Yes, Sir.

DANIEL: I couldn't be the person... I mean I couldn't be who you think I am because the name you have is in all capital letters, which is a misnomer.

COURT: (Yes) it is in all capital letters.

DANIEL: My God-given name is spelled capital "D," lowercase "a-n-i-e-l," uppercase "C"...

COURT: Let's go over this. I want to get the spelling correct here. Your first name... go ahead and stand up, sir. Your first name is capital "D," and then it is a lowercase "a"...

[*Comment: We should recognize here that the judge's patronizing acceptance of the proper spelling is done for deceptive purposes. After the acceptance of the proper spelling by the Court, one should object to this acceptance because the Court can "normally" only prosecute the "person" (name in all caps), not the substance. If objection is not made, it is taken by the Court that you are giving permission to be prosecuted.]

DANIEL: Lowercase "a," lowercase "n," lowercase "i," lowercase "e," lowercase "l."

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: Uppercase "C"..... [*etc.].

COURT: All right.

DANIEL: And I do not accept or use the designations, which are heathen, of "Sir" or "Mister."

COURT: All right. On this matter I have corrected the spelling to reflect the spelling that you have given the Court.

[*Comment: With that, they have recognized his substance in Christ and have abandoned the ability of prosecuting him as a "person" (name in all caps). At this point, one should object to being prosecuted under his true name and point out that the Court does not have the ability of prosecuting him under his true name without his permission, and that he does not give them permission to do so.

...And without the objection, the Court now reads the charges]:

In this matter you are charged in Case No. 1645 in Count I with practicing medicine without certification, a violation of Business and Professions Code Sec. 2052. Count II alleges practicing medicine without certification, a violation (of the same Code). Count III alleges conducting business without a license, a violation of the Beastly Municipal Code Sec. 4.09.030. And Count IV alleges not having a food permit, violation of Health and Safety Code Sec. 10554(a). How do you wish to plead? Guilty or not guilty?

DANIEL: I could not be willful in this thing that I am accused of because I do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, and nothing about Him is evil.

[*Comment: "I could not be willful in this thing" is defensive and goes to the "facts" of the case, which causes "joinder." At this point, the "charges" are still against the "person" only. Better is: "Those charges are against the person DANIEL C.... in all capital letters, which I am not, because I am known by and do the will of my Father only." But with the "defensive" response, the Court "assumes" jurisdiction with a plea for the "DEFENDANT"]:

COURT: All right. That will be a not guilty plea to all four charges.

Are you going to represent yourself, hire an attorney, or do you want the Court to appoint an attorney to represent you in this matter?

DANIEL: I am going to represent myself. I wish...

[*Comment: A bondmen of Jesus the Christ cannot represent "himself." The Christ is your Advocate and Wonderful Counselor. "Myself" denotes self-will. Always remember that any "benefits" offered by the Court are the same "benefits" that were offered to our Lord by Satin when he offered Him the glory and powers of the kingdoms of the world. As He rejected them, we must also.]

COURT: You would like to represent yourself?

[*Comment: Here, the Court gives him the ability to recant by asking him to reconfirm that he "would like" to represent "himself."]

DANIEL: I wish to address the District Attorney.

COURT: All right. On what issue do you wish to address the District Attorney at this time? On the issue of the charges?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: Okay. Before I go ahead and allow you to do that, I am going to go over some information with you just to make certain you understand.

[*"The Court" then stated all of his (civil) "rights" to an attorney, the "right" to represent himself, etc.]

COURT: With that in mind, do you understand and give up your right to have an attorney in this case so that you can represent yourself?

[*Comment: Again the judge gives him the opportunity to say "Get behind me Satin".]

DANIEL: I give up the right to have an attorney.

[*Comment: Giving the "impression" that he "had" rights allows the Court to "presume" that he is a 14th Amendment citizen and that he has previously exercised (civil) "rights." In this position, we must remember that all of the questions coming from the bench are "loaded." The Court is seeking the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to "fully" acquire jurisdiction.

COURT: All right. If you wish...

MS. DA: Are you able to tell whether this is a City Attorney or a District Attorney matter?

[*Comment: Here, the Ms. suggests that see is unaware of what the case is concerned with. But, the District Attorney's Office had been working on the case for close to six months. It would "appear" that the Ms. came to court unprepared. Don't be fooled!]

COURT: This is a District Attorney filing. There is a Beastly Municipal Code violation that is included in the filing; however, the case was filed by the District Attorney's Office by Ms. Gantry.

MS. DA: Thanks. I didn't have my file.

COURT: All right. Sir, what is it that you would like to talk to the District Attorney about?

[*Comment: He finally receives the opportunity to set the "record" straight. The following should have been stated at the time of the "name spelling," so as to set "the state of the forum" at the beginning of the proceedings. The blessing is that he was able to seize the moment in the name of the Lord and make manifest his duty as a bondman of the Christ]:

DANIEL: Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is my Sovereign. I am a bondservant of Him. And the law of God and the law of the land are all one and the same, and both preserve and favor the land. And all power and authority in heaven and earth has been given unto the Lord Jesus Christ, and I would like to see a record in law leading to the establishment of this Court under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not a person, I am not a human being or... or a natural man or a resident because it is written from the beginning the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them because they are spiritually discerned. I am not a person because it has been written from the beginning God is not a respecter of persons, and, also, if you respect the person you have sent and are convinced of the law and are a transgressor of the law...

COURT: I know you don't like to be addressed as "Mr. Daniel." How do you choose to be addressed here?

[*Comment: Here, the judge deliberately interrupts, changing the subject with a patronizing "bone." His above statement is a blessing, but at this point he had already given the "impression" to the Court that he is "a person" due to his acknowledging "rights," and "representing himself." But for witnessing purposes, the Spirit of God wrote it on his heart to state the Truth.]

DANIEL: "Daniel."

COURT: All right.

DANIEL: Upper and lower case letters.

COURT: Okay. In this case the issues that you are discussing right now appear to be of a jurisdictional nature, and those are issues that you are discussing with the District Attorney in court; Ms. DA represents the People of the State of California, and it is by the authority vested in her by the State of California that the District Attorney's Office is pursuing this prosecution. Certainly, the issues that you are raising, if you wish to set forth in motions, that would be fine.

[*Comment: Here, the judge seeks further jurisdiction by "suggesting" that "motions" be "set forth." Whether "set forth" or "filed," whether on a jurisdictional question or otherwise, any "formal" motion gives the Court jurisdiction over "the person," because motions are created for "persons" only.]

At this point in time I also would like to note that there... let's see. I have taken a look at the... on the issue of bail, that is something that needs to be discussed today. Daniel, we need to talk about bail. I note that you did fail to appear and that you were cited to appear on July 25th, and I would ask that you address the Court on that issue so... since that is a determination that I need to make at this time.

[*Comment: Here again the judge seeks the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to further "enhance" the jurisdiction of the Court. In this situation, one must stay with the Sword of the Word, avoiding any defensive posture or addressing the facts of the case, thereby avoiding any further joinder. But Daniel defends]:

DANIEL: Yes. I have never practiced medicine or attempted to practice medicine or have any intent to practice medicine at any time, and so I haven't broken the law. I work with God's herbs to help people. I have never diagnosed, treated or operated on anyone for any disease whatsoever. I have never used drugs or phamacia or practiced sorceries.

And I had 22 people come into my ministry, the sanctuary where I work for my Lord and Savior, and they tore the place apart. They had a warrant, they said, a so-called warrant. They were looking for antibiotics, prescription drugs, drugs with expiration dates, medical equipment, which they found none. So whoever made up the affidavit lied about it, and so I did not break the law. And they told me if I didn't sign the citation that I would go to jail, and I was - - I did it under duress and threat of jail time.

[*Comment: With this "defensive" statement, he has given all that the Court needs to proceed with the prosecution--full joinder. But since he has, more importantly, brought the Power of the Word to bear down on the Court and the District Attorney's Office in this arraignment and in the Abatement/Default (of which they never answered), he will ultimately fare well. And they know that they will still have to deal with the Abatement issue at some point due to their experience with him in the previous traffic case.]

COURT: All right. Daniel, I have to ask you a question. If, in fact, I order that you return to court... because now these charges are pending, and they have been brought by the People of the State of California... will you promise me that you will appear in court? Because without that promise, I have no choice but to set bail in this case. Otherwise, based upon the nature of the charges... I have had an opportunity to read through the reports in this particular case. I am familiar... because there was another case a while back involving a traffic ticket. We have had the discussion before on the appearance issue, if you will recall, so I am familiar with what your belief system is in regard to that; however, I need to know that you would come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, to defend the charges against you.

[*Comment: As we can see, she is very familiar with whom she is dealing. At this point, the judge is simply "following procedure".]

DANIEL: Would that be signing a contract or losing my venue if I came back to court? Because when I walk through that door there (the bar), I would be under... I would be giving you jurisdiction; is that right.

COURT: Well, the Court... basically, the way you look at it, the Court, essentially, forces the jurisdiction upon you. I mean, I know that you do not accept the jurisdiction of the Court. I know that that is your position. Nonetheless...

DANIEL: But I accept the law.

[*Comment. This is an ambiguous statement. When we mention the word "law," we must clarify which "law" we are talking about. If not, the judge will "presume" that you mean man's law.]

COURT: This is the law. You are charged with a case. There is a Complaint. The People of the State of California brought this Complaint.

And at this point in time, I would deny any motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the statements that you have made today in court. [*Emphasis added.]

[*Comment: With this full revelation from the bench, it would do everyone good to study and analyze this transcript to better understand what was said by Daniel to give the Court full jurisdiction. We must also consider that the judge is admitting that the Court's original jurisdiction is only "presumed," and that it is the words that come out of your mouth which transforms the "presumption" into a "reality" for them.]

I need to know that you would, in fact, come back to court, if I ordered you to do so, so that this case can be litigated, if necessary, or settled, so that you could have a further conference with the District Attorney on the issue of settlement and... or, if it is necessary, to set the case for trial.

[*Comment: It is interesting that the judge is already talking about "settlement." Could it be that the Sword of the Word has already broken the bands of their fasces, and at this point they're only going through their motions of jurisdictional procedure?]

DANIEL: We can do that today?

COURT: The People have 30 days from today's date to bring this case to trial. I anticipate the People aren't ready to start a trial today.

MS. DA: I don't have my file, Your Honor.

[*Comment: How convenient!!]

COURT: So, no, we would not be able to start a trial in this matter today. We could set the case for trial now if you want to do so.

Normally, the procedure is to set a pretrial conference, which would give you an opportunity to discuss the matter with the District Attorney, to see whether or not you had any discovery motions or any other motions that you might want to file and then, also, set a trial date.

[*Comment: The Court is still trying to lure him in by "suggesting" that he "might want" to "file" a motion.]

DANIEL: No. I, basically, have the evidence to dismiss the case.

COURT: Do you want me to set the matter for a jury trial or a court trial?

DANIEL: Court trial...

[*Comment: At this point, due to the Court "having" jurisdiction because of his previous defenses and giving acknowledgment to 'rights," it was best for him to request a Court trial-- not a jury trial--since juries cannot consider the Law in their verdicts, whereas the judge can. But either way, he would have the opportunity to let his light shine before them and thereby honor the Father and glorify our Lord and Master. That is Daniel's purpose in this situation. We must remember that the Spirit of God has been giving His minister (Daniel) the words to speak for His purposes.]

COURT: Let me just cover...

DANIEL: May I say one thing first?

COURT: Yes, sir. I am sorry. Yes.

DANIEL: Thank you. Would I be losing any jurisdiction?

[*At this point, the judge has already made it clear that jurisdiction was already given "based on the statements that you have made today in court". But he has not yet compromised the Non-statutory Abatement, as will be seen later.]

COURT: To make your arguments?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: No. At this point your motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. You can renew that motion at a later date if you choose to do so.

[*Comment: Here, the judge tries to reduce the Power of God's Word to a "motion." To counter this 'reduction,' he now brings up the subject of the Non-statutory Abatement, which nullifies any idea that a "motion" was made.]

DANIEL: Yes. Well, the People and the District Attorney were served with an abatement and were lawfully abated, and all the defendants were abated, and I don't know why I am standing here.

[*Comment: It was very important for him to have brought up "the abatement issue" during the arraignment, thereby giving him the ability to force their hand in either a pretrial conference or in a trial itself if it came to that.]

COURT: That is something you can discuss with the District Attorney. I don't have any information on that issue, and Ms. DA doesn't have her file at this point in time. That is something that should be discussed at a pretrial conference. The question I need you to answer is an assurance from you that you will be here if I set another date. If you do assure me of that, I will release you on your own recognizance and order that you come back to court.

DANIEL: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar...

COURT: Well... if you do what?

DANIEL: If I come up to the bar, will you arrest me and bring me across the bar on my return?

COURT: Why would I? Why would I arrest you if you come in here? No, not if you come in here. If you don't come, then you get arrested. I have a question. If you want to represent yourself, you have to come up to the table here.

[*Comment: Here, we see the implications of "representing yourself." It brings you "in bar."]

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: You walk up here on your own free will.

DANIEL: I don't have any free will.

[*This is an excellent point to make. It is not defensive, and it makes it clear in this "trial of spirits" that Daniel does not serve the natural man's god. And it also forces the Court to show the extent of its police power when it has determined that it has full jurisdiction over "THE DEFENDANT"]:

COURT: Well, you walk up here because I tell you to.

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: That is going to happen, isn't it?

DANIEL: Yes, if you order me back. And I can't sign any contracts with you.

COURT: Well, then you don't waive time. If he doesn't waive time, he doesn't waive time, does he? He doesn't have to sign anything if he doesn't waive time? He has to sign an O. R.

[*Comment: At this point, we see from the above statement from THE COURT that the judge is flustered and probably running out of patience. The statement is what is known as "convoluted diatribe" for confusion purposes.]

BAILIFF: Promise to appear.

COURT: You have to sign a promise to appear. You do have to do that. I am just checking with the procedure. That is also in the Penal Code. That is a law of the State of California. I know that you abide by the law of the State of California because you have told me that before.

[*Comment: This last statement stems from Daniel's earlier statement that "I accept the law." We see here that the judge hears every word that comes out of your mouth.]

DANIEL: If I did not sign it, I would be... I would be arrested and put in jail; is that correct?

COURT: If you don't sign it, then I can't release you O. R. This is an order by the Court that you return to this court for your pretrial conference.

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: I can't release you O. R. without your signature on this, and that is Penal Code Sec. 1216, which is noted right here on the bottom of the page.

DANIEL: I would like to get this over with because I have been persecuted by the Beastly Police Department for ten months.

[*Comment: This reference to "ten months" consists of "building code violations," the earlier "traffic case," and this present case.]

COURT: All right. I am going to... I want to release you on your own recognizance. In order for me to release you on your own recognizance, you must sign the O. R. form. Will you do so, sir?

DANIEL: I will sign this, yes.

COURT: You are released on your own recognizance pending your complying with the Court order that you sign an O. R. form. And we will set this matter for a pretrial conference on October 16th, 9:00 a.m., Division II. That would give the People sufficient time to find their file on this case, and then you can have a conference with the Deputy District Attorney that is in court. Do you want me to go ahead and set a jury trial or a court trial date at this time? Or what we could do is just set that pretrial conference date, have your conference with the District Attorney and then see if the matter can be resolved.

[*Comment: With this last statement, the judge sends a "message" to the District Attorney that "the Ms." may have a difficult time with a conviction, since it would be the judge that would be determining the final outcome if it was to go to trial.]

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: Is that what you wish to do?

DANIEL: Yes. Thank you.

COURT: All right. And then pending that appearance... I do not know the status currently of the... I am familiar with the allegations. I have read the allegations in the police report. And a condition of your being released on your own recognizance is that you are not to practice medicine.

DANIEL: I have never practiced medicine.

COURT: So you do understand and accept that condition. All right. Please have a seat, and Deputy Swenson will have you sign the form and give you a date... a slip of paper with a date on it.

If the Lord wills it, we may present the "pretrial conference" and its resolution in the next two Issues.

P e r f e c t i o n ?

Part Three:

Without Him we can do nothing!

by Randy Lee

(continued from Issue the Fifty-sixth)

The Word "Perfect"

We must first point out that the word "perfect" is of Latin origin, meaning "per - by way of" and "-fectus, to make, do" or, "by way of doing"; whereas today's humanist understanding of this word denotes being "morally" and "physically" faultless. And of course, there is not an equivalent word in the Greek of the "New Testament" intended for this last definition. Therefore, when we use or think of the words "perfect" or "perfection," we must avoid the humanist idea of it, for that definition represents the spirit "of the world."

"Be ye therefore perfect?"

This KJV translation of Matthew 5:48 is spoken by our Master directly in the middle of His "Sermon on the Mount," so-called. But, "Be ye therefore perfect" is not only mistranslated, but it is also misarranged (out of sequence). The KJV makes it appear to be a "command" from Him. But when we go to the syntax and correct translation of the original Greek, we find that it should read, "Ye therefore shall be complete (teleioj, or teleios--full, wanting in nothing)." With this true translation, we see that it is not a command, but a "positive" statement concerning the previous truths and admonitions brought to light in "The Sermon." That is why we find the word "therefore"--He is referring back to the previous verses. Therefore, if we are to use the word "perfect," it must be understood in its original meaning--"Ye therefore shall be perfect [*by way of doing in truth and in spirit that which I have instructed you to do.]"

Additionally, the "Ye" being spoken to by Him is not one "individual," as to you or I "singularly," but to His whole body, His ekklesia. The original word in the Greek for "ye" is Ømej, which is 2nd person plural. We must note that His Sermon was directed to His disciples, ("His disciples came unto Him: and He opened His mouth, and taught them, saying ..."). In all of Matthew, chapters 5, 6 and 7, He is simply directing His whole ekklesia as to the paths in which they are to walk to be complete in Him, wherein His unspotted Bride will be "full-grown (matured in Him)," wanting and requiring nothing from the world, and not partaking of the same.

"Fear the Lord, all ye His saints: for there is no want to them that fear Him. The rich have become poor and hungry: but they that seek the Lord diligently shall not want any good thing. Come, ye children, hear me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is there that desires life, loving to see good days? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Turn away from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to destroy their memorial from the earth. The righteous cried, and the Lord hearkened to them, and delivered them out of all their afflictions." Psalm 34:9-17

Through His glad tidings, His "Bride to be" is able to find The Door by following that path to the straight gate and narrow way which all of those who are His must find, and take to avoid the "other" path of the Harlot.

At the beginning of His Sermon, He tells us what our walk must be to be "blessed" (approved of God). By and through His Grace, He tells us how to be partakers of these "dispensations of Life"--that we must be:

"Poor in spirit," meaning an "emptying" or denying of one's "self," and being "refilled" with the Spirit of God and His image and likeness by Him. Without Him we can do nothing! John 15:5.

"I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all humility and meekness, with longsuffering, bearing one another in love; being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, Who is over all, and through all, and in you all. But to each one of us was given grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ. Wherefore He says, Having ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men." Ephesians 4:1-8 (see also Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:24, Luke 9:23).

"Mournful," not mourning the "loss" of temporal "things" (the sorrows of the world), but mourning, "in truth" without compromise, the manifest tribulations of the world's evil and fallen condition when and where those iniquitous depravities raise their ugly head. Without Him we can do nothing!

"Unjust witnesses arose, and asked me of things I knew not. They rewarded me evil for good, and bereavement to my soul. But I, when they troubled me, put on sackcloth, and humbled my soul with fasting: and my prayer shall return to my own bosom. I behaved agreeably towards them as a neighbour or brother: I humbled myself as one mourning and sad of countenance. Yet they rejoiced against me, and plagues were plentifully brought against me, and I knew it not: they were scattered, but repented not. They tempted me, they sneered at me most contemptuously, they gnashed their teeth upon me." Psalm 35:11-16

"Meek," meaning an unselfish, unquestioning, and complete submission to the Will of our Father--to His Word, to His Rod of Correction, to His Order; not to the "designed" word, correction, and order of the natural man. The meek are also those who would forgive "490" injuries rather than take revenge on "1" injury, for the meek--knowing that they belong to the Lord--know, therefore, that all injuries are against the Lord, and that vengeance belongs to Him alone. Without Him we can do nothing!

"The meek will He guide in judgment: the meek will He teach His ways. All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth to them that seek His covenant and His testimonies. For Thy name's sake, O Lord, do Thou also be merciful to my sin; for it is great. Who is the man that fears the Lord? He shall instruct him in the way which He has chosen. His soul shall dwell in prosperity; and his seed shall inherit the earth. The Lord is the strength of them that fear Him; and His covenant is to manifest truth to them." Psalm 25:9-14

"Hungry and thirsty after righteousness," meaning to not hunger and thirst after the "righteousness" of the world (which the world does not have), but to seek and pursue in Him those spiritual blessings that He alone can provide--truth and wisdom, justice and mercy, love and peace. Without Him we can do nothing!

"Woe to them that rise up in the morning, and follow strong drink; who wait at it till evening: for the wine shall inflame them. For they drink wine with harp, and psaltery, and drums, and pipes: but they regard not the works of the Lord, and consider not the works of His hands. Therefore my people have been taken captive, because they know not the Lord: and there has been a multitude of dead bodies, because of hunger and of thirst for water. Therefore hell has enlarged its desire and opened its mouth without ceasing: and her glorious and great, and her rich and her pestilent men shall go down into it. And the mean man shall be brought low, and the great man shall be disgraced, and the lofty eyes shall be brought low. But the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and the holy God shall be glorified in righteousness." Isaiah 5:11-16

"Merciful," meaning to not only bear our own "personal" afflictions patiently, but more importantly, to patiently bear the afflictions and miseries of our brethren and enemies by putting forth to them that which is needful, and expecting nothing in return ("More blessed it is to give than to receive." Acts 20:35). This would include visiting the fatherless and widows in their time of tribulation, instructing the ignorant, and warning the slothful and careless of their impending doom. Without Him we can do nothing!

"The salvation of the righteous is of the Lord; and He is their defender in the time of affliction. And the Lord shall help them, and deliver them: and He shall rescue them from sinners, and save them, because they have hoped in Him." Psalm 37:39-40
"Blessed is the man who thinks on the poor and needy: the Lord shall deliver him in an evil day." Psalm 40:1
"He that dishonours the needy sins: but he that has pity on the poor is most blessed. They that go astray devise evils: but the good devise mercy and truth. The framers of evil do not understand mercy and truth: but compassion and faithfulness are with the framers of good. With every one who is careful there is abundance: but the pleasure-taking and indolent shall be in want." Proverbs 14:19-23

"Pure in heart," meaning a heart that is no longer polluted and defiled; a heart that has had its worldly lusts thoroughly washed away by and through Him, and remains so--worshipping, honoring and fearing the Lord in spirit and in truth at all times. Without Him we can do nothing!

"Who shall go up to the mountain of the Lord, and who shall stand in His holy place? He that is innocent in his hands and pure in his heart; who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully against his neighbour. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God his Saviour." Psalm 24:3-5

"A peacemaker" is a "repairer of the breach" and a "reconciler." Those breaches can only be repaired through Him with His Word and His Law. Therefore, we must be as our Master, The Prince of Peace. True peace can only come about through boldly reproving, rebuking, and instructing in the ways of the Lord, after our obedience of rightly seeking Him is fulfilled. This is a true and full reconciliation. Without Him we can do nothing!

"My son, forget not My laws; but let thine heart keep My words: for length of existence, and years of life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee; but bind them about thy neck:" Proverbs 3:1-3
"He that walks simply, walks confidently; but he that perverts his ways shall be known. He that winks with his eyes deceitfully, procures griefs for men; but he that reproves boldly is a peacemaker." Proverbs 10:9-10
"He that seeks the Lord shall find knowledge with righteousness: and they that rightly seek Him shall find peace." Proverbs 16:8
"I hate and abhor unrighteousness; but I love Thy law. Seven times in a day have I praised thee because of the judgments of Thy righteousness. Great peace have they that love Thy law: and there is no stumbling-block to them. I waited for Thy salvation, O Lord, and have loved Thy commandments. My soul has kept Thy testimonies, and loved them exceedingly." Psalm 119:163-167
"The works of righteousness shall be peace; and righteousness shall ensure rest, and the righteous shall be confident for ever." Isaiah 32:17

"Persecuted and reviled for being righteous in His name," comes only upon those who remain in His truth at all times. It will not come upon those who, because of their fear of men, compromise. And note at verse 12 that when we are persecuted, we are to "rejoice and exult because of it." Without Him we can do nothing!

"Then He said unto them, Nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: great earthquakes also in different places, and famines, and pestilences shall there be, and fearful sights and great signs from heaven shall there be. But before all these things they will lay their hands upon you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of My name; but it shall turn out to you for a testimony. Settle therefore in your hearts not to premeditate to make a defence; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all those opposing you shall not be able to reply to, nor to resist. Ye will be delivered up even by parents and brethren and relations and friends; and they will put to death some from among you, and ye will be hated by all because of My name. And a hair of your head in no wise may perish. By your patient endurance gain your souls." Luke 21:10-19
"Judge thou, O Lord, them that injure me, fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and arise for my help. Bring forth a sword, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say to my soul, I am thy salvation. Let them that seek my soul be ashamed and confounded: let them that devise evils against me be turned back and put to shame." Psalm 35:1-4
"How many are the days of Thy servant? when wilt Thou execute judgment for me on them that persecute me? Transgressors told me things; but not according to Thy law, O Lord. All Thy commandments are truth; they persecuted me unjustly; help Thou me. They nearly made an end of me in the earth; but I forsook not Thy commandments." Psalm 119:84-87

Note that our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ was, and is, all of these. Likewise, all of the members of His body must have all of these attributes to be "complete" in Him. And remember, without Him we can do nothing!

In the ensuing verses, He demonstrates how this completeness is attained.

He first makes it clear that His assembly must shine its light before men (v.13-16) in order to glorify the Father. We find that the major error of many today, and in the past, who have fallen into "perfectionism" is their tendency to separate themselves "physically" from the world (i.e., monasticism, remote covenant communities, etc.). This is exactly what He was warning us about in these verses by demonstrating that the temptations of the world are only avoided through spiritual faith in Him (the preserving salt of the earth), not by physical separation. He shows us that any other separation is only outward show, is no better than the elitist ways of the scribes and Pharisees (whose righteousness we must exceed to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, v. 20)--and, by hiding His light that He has given to us, does not fulfil the Law and therefore does not glorify our Father.

Note that as our example, He never separated Himself "physically," but only "spiritually"; whereas in these verses He contrasts the scribes and Pharisees who separated themselves physically through their elitism, being no better than the "moral" heathen (outwardly clean, but inwardly they were full of dead men's bones).

And in the remaining verses of Chapter 5, He contrasts the physical with the the spiritual concerning "killing," "adultery," "oaths," "revenge," "Covetousness," and "love." If we spiritually obey these, His commandments, we are complete in Him.

Towards the end of His Sermon, at Matthew 7:11, He rightly tells us that we are "evil" (poneros, corrupted and imperfect), and that not the lawless, but only those who do the will of His Father shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And lastly, He tells us in His final "therefore" that His Bride will be founded upon the Rock, only--not upon the slippery and "perfect" ways of evil men:

"Every one therefore whosoever hears these My words, and does them, I will liken him to a prudent man, who built his house upon the rock: and came down the rain, and came the streams, and blew the winds, and fell upon that house, and it fell not; for it had been founded upon the rock. And every one who hears these My words, and does not do them, he shall be likened to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: and came down the rain, and came the streams, and blew the winds, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and the fall of it was great." Matthew 7:24-27

Throughout Chapter 7, and in this final warning of His Sermon, He clearly lets His unprofitable servants know that they are not, and cannot become "perfect" in the eyes of the world. But He does show them that only those who hear His words (not the words of the world), and does them are His ekklesia because they are built and founded upon True perfection--Him. They are separated from the ways of the world by and through Him, and are therefore complete and wanting in nothing because they trust in Him only--not in the ways men.

Speaking through John on Patmos (at Revelation 3:5) our Lord clearly lets everyone know that he who overcometh the ways of the world will not be blotted out of the Book of Life, for in His Sermon He has shown them the Way in which to overcome and not partake of those ways.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the assemblies." Revelation 3:6.

Within You?

Additionally, we often hear from the theologians of humanism that "the kingdom of God is within you (personally)." To find out whether or not this "saying" is true we must, of course, go to The Word. This "presumption" (the kingdom of God is within you) stems from the following verse:

"And when He was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, He answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21

We must first note that our Lord is speaking directly to and answering the Pharisees as a group. Was He telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was within each one of them? We can be sure that He wasn't, since He never had a good thing to say about them at any time (i.e. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" see Matthew ch. 23 and Luke ch. 11). What the theologians of the world don't bother pointing out is that Jesus the Christ Himself is the Kingdom of God, and that He was simply pointing out to the Pharisees that He was "in the midst of" or "among" them. This point is well taken by two Brothers who were not theologians of the world, but two Brothers who were concerned with the truth:

"Within. Luke 17:21, marg. among, Here, with Ømîn, within you, i.e. within your midst, within your borders or country. Certainly the Kingdom of God was not within the Pharisees individually, but within their midst, as shown by the presence of Jesus, the King, if they would have Him to reign over them." Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1908), page 891.

And:

"Luke 17:21. Within. Better, in the midst of. Meyer acutely remarks that 'you refers to the Pharisees, in whose hearts nothing certainly found a place less than did the eternal kingdom of God.' Moreover, Jesus is not speaking of the inwardness of the kingdom, but of its presence. 'The whole language of the kingdom of Heaven being within men, rather than men being within the Kingdom, is modern" (Trench, after Meyer)." Marvin Vincent, Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament (1886), Vol. 1, page 401.

And the above two truths are clearly supported by our Lord's teaching:

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20

As we know, the Pharisees were never gathered together in His name. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is only "in the midst" (not within) His body who are gathered together in His Name, or as the literal Greek reads, "unto His Name." And remember, without Him we can do nothing!

To be continued next month.

The Duty of all True Bondmen

concerning

the Deceptive Idolatry in America

by William Harry

This writing is for all followers of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ. Those who have not submitted their life to His lordship may not have any hope of understanding the following. Additionally, there may not be any hope of resisting the overwhelming power of the so-called "New World Order" which is rolling across the world like a steamroller, crushing everything in its path, to the point that many are saying "who can make war against the Beast?" If you don't know, but desire to know the King of all kings, you should turn to Appendix A and start there. If you are already committed to the love and service of Him, prepare to be challenged, and read on.

I suppose some who read this will question my motives in writing it, or will at least wonder how I came to the conclusions that I have. It may be helpful to some of you, therefore, to have a short biography on the author.

I grew up in Alabama in a nominally Christian family and attended a Methodist Church as a child. Although the Methodist Church in general does not preach a strong gospel message any more, and is for the most part a "a Social Club," I had opportunity on at least one occasion as a teenager to give my life to Christ Jesus, and declined to do so. I went away to college at M.I.T in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1961 and was immediately taught that Christ is a myth, and that all truth is "scientific"; and having no solid Rock foundation, I accepted that lie. I accepted evolution, and Capernicus, Newton and Einstein as I was taught. I was "a good little student" and accepted a lot of lies as if they were the truth, and I am sure that the professors who taught them believed them too. It would only be later that I would understand that false apostles and teachers go about "deceiving and being deceived." Having turned away from God, I fell into a lustful relationship with a woman I would marry my Junior year against the advice of my parents. Neither of us understood anything of a "Christian" concept of marriage at this point. I also developed an allergy to grass (the lawn type), which got progressively worse until after being born-again and having the Christ heal me.

I received a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering and was working toward a Ph.D until I left M.I.T. in 1969 to start a computer company with two other students. We raised venture capital and grew the company to approximately 400 people, when the capitalists sold it out from under us. I collected a substantial sum of "money" from that and moved to New Hampshire to avoid some taxes, and started worrying about how to protect this "money" from inflation. I read a book by Howard Ruff which started me thinking. Then I started getting some "survivalist" newsletters. I built a bomb shelter, got a generator, buried a 2000 gallon oil tank, got a wood stove, bought a year's supply of dehydrated food, etc. One of my "survival food" sources had a book in their catalog titled, "Christians will go through the Tribulation - and How to Prepare for it." I bought the book on the presumption that I was "a Christian" because I had grown up in "a Christian family" and I wasn't Jewish or Muslim. I hoped it would help me with the question that was on my mind in those days: If trouble comes, and neighbors try to take my stash of food, am I justified in shooting them? That is not my issue today, but back then, that question troubled me.

Well, the book did not help that question at all, but it talked about the soon coming return of Jesus Christ to the earth. I had never heard that concept, or at least I never received the concept. Later the Lord would remind me that in the Methodist Church we had used the Apostle's Creed which said "... and He will come to judge the quick and the dead." I had never considered that the will come meant a physical return, but only that there will come a time for judgment. In any case, the book on the Tribulation opened my eyes and I later read a book by Hal Lindsey called "Late, Great Planet Earth." He presented many scriptures showing that events that were happening on the earth in my lifetime had been prophesied thousands of years ago. In those days, these two books opened my eyes to this concept: If events that I am seeing were predicted accurately over a thousand years ago, then there must be an "Intelligence" with a control of events. This "Intelligence" must be far superior to man's intelligence and "its" life span must far exceed ours. I suppose I would have been susceptible to falling into the Alien error at this point, and I praise God that He led a friend to me, who led me to make a commitment to Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this friend, who was a recently born-again, spirit filled, Roman Catholic, stayed in the Catholic heresy and never repented of the false doctrines, and later fell away from the Truth.

I remember the decision point of giving my life over to the Christ. It felt like I was stepping off of a cliff, being told that there was some way I was going to be held up, but not being able to see it. But after I took this step of faith, I found that indeed, He did hold me up! In fact, I found that my spiritual eyes were opened to spiritual things like my physical eyes had been opened to physical things when I had received my first pair of glasses in second grade. I had never realized that anyone could see such detail! Suddenly His Word came alive! I could not put it down. I was starting to see the magnitude of the deception that I had accepted. But I was going to learn a lot more about this over the years.

The next lesson in deception was when I went to tell the pastor of the local Congregational Church about my recent "born-again" experience. He put a "fatherly" arm around me and said, "Don't worry, it will pass." I was crushed! The greatest event in my life had just happened to me, and this was his reaction! I had just met the Truth! I had just met my Creator, who knows the answer to every question! I had just met He Who had paid the penalty for my deserved punishment! and all this "Christian" could say was "it will pass."! Actually, I found that most people I told about my experience were not particularly interested. My wife was quite disappointed also. There seems to be tremendous pressure on a new creature in Christ to get him to forget his new life and go "back to normal." Later, I would find this same kind of pressure on people who would consider giving up a heresy and returning to the Truth.

Over the years after answering His call, I also got into some deception when attending a "Bible-believing Church" which got into the "hyper-faith" movement. I remember going into a christian bookstore, and picking up a book titled "God Wants You Rich." That intrigued me so I picked it up. Then I saw the subtitle, "... and other Enticing Doctrines." Not wanting to read it anymore, I tried to put the book back, but there was absolutely no room on the shelf that I had just pulled it out of. I "figured" God wanted me to read it, so I did, and it helped me get a better balance on what faith really means (and the enticements of "the wicked one" we must avoid). Later I met a woman who has a ministry to people in cults, and she helped me to see some other deceptions that I had gotten into. I learned first hand how easy it is to fall into deception when you want to believe the deception! I also learned a bit of how to minister to people in cults and I came to realize that if someone has a false understanding, it is much harder to get them to see the truth than someone who is coming at the issue with no pre-conceived ideas. If we let someone teach us what "truth" is, then when we start to find out for ourselves, and come across the real Truth, we may reject it because it does not fit with our teaching. So what would you expect a god-less government-controlled school system to teach you? Do you suppose that maybe there are some ideas implanted by these god-less government-controlled schools that might make it hard for you to see the real Truth? We can be assured that they have implanted many such false concepts that many have accepted as truth, and which make it very hard to see the real Truth. It must be settled in the heart and mind that the only source of truth is His Word, better known as the Bible. There is no other standard of truth.

All of my lessons in deception show a pattern. Initially, I had been deceived into believing a lie that there is no God. I had wanted to be deceived, and I had not loved the Truth. Later I wanted to believe that God wants his people rich. The pattern is this: People are deceived because they want to be deceived. They want to believe that the lie is really true, because to hold to the Truth costs them something in terms of their relationships with others, or in terms of their reputation or wealth. Our Lord calls it the "cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches."

Over the years following my new birth, I ran into many deceptions in "the Church." I found Christians who "appeared" to love Jesus, but would not let go of a false doctrine because it was comfortable to hold it, and it would cause discomfort to change it. I have been "kicked out" of several Churches because I have never "learned" to "submit to the pastor" (which means to agree with what he teaches) when he has a false doctrine. I don't ever cause a ruckus, but I do try to show the pastor his error. I am convinced that the Lord will hold each of us accountable if we do not at least attempt to sound the alarm (Ezekiel 33) when we see error or danger. We are also commanded to do unto others as ye would have them do unto you, i.e., "Love your neighbor as yourself." But we must remember that "love is the fulfilling of the Law." If we want others to point out any spiritual danger we fall into, we must be willing to point out their spiritual danger also. The issue is not that they have to listen. They don't, and usually they won't. But if you want God to send someone to help you in your errors, you must be willing to help others in their errors. You may not listen when they tell you, and they may not listen when you tell them. But each of you will have done his duty before God. If you will not attempt to help show a brother or sister the error that they are clinging to, then you are telling God that you do not want anyone to show you your error if and when you fall into one.

If you don't like what I have written, you can just toss it out. You need not get mad at me. I will not complain if you ignore me. I am pointing out what I believe are serious errors in "the Church in America" today. I don't hear many voices exposing these particular errors, which I believe are idolatry, so I am taking action to do what I can to sound the alarm. If you think I am crazy, well, you are entitled to that opinion, and it is probably the majority opinion. You will find many people on that "broad way" who will all agree with you. I prefer to search for the middle of the Narrow Way, the way of holiness (Isaiah 35:8), where there is Life. I drift off of it often enough anyway, so unless I am actively seeking for it, I know I will wander far from the Truth. I hope you are also a seeker of Truth and holiness.

Years ago the Lord gave me "a picture" to explain how being born-again affected me. When I was going for my Ph.D., I had to go before a board of Professors to defend my Thesis. The "picture" that the Lord gave me was "as if" I had done a thesis on the Subject: "2 Plus 2 - What is it?" Now I had studied this topic thoroughly. I had concluded that it had to be "4." I had all the research papers, I had done all of the experiments. There was only one possible answer, and I had it. But when I came before the Board of Professors, and before I started my presentation, one of them said to me, "You should know that I just read a new study that shows that 95% of Americans know that 2 plus 2 is greater than 5." Another Professor told me, "I have a letter from a major foundation that says they are willing to fund further research on 2 plus 2 if the researcher is open to the idea that it is at least 5." Then finally the last Professor said, "I have a letter here from your wife, where she says she will leave you if you don't say 2 plus 2 is at least 4.5."

What does an honest researcher do? Is the truth important to anyone? Well, over the years, the Lord Jesus Christ has proven himself to me as surely as I know that 2 plus 2 is 4. I have "studied it out." I have "done the experiments." I have followed up on testimony of "other researchers." I know. He is the Answer to any question of Life. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ is the Truth. He is the Way. I am beyond being convinced or coerced to change my mind, no matter what the "enticing" incentive is.

There are many people who probably have tried to convince or coerce you into giving up your Life in Him, and there are many who will try to convince you to stay with whatever errors you now hold, if you have any errors. But if you really know the Truth, Jesus the Christ, you must resist all temptations to compromise with a lie. Because if you knowingly hold to a lie, you are without excuse:

"... And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:10 (KJV)
"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." 1John 1:6 (KJV)
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Revelation 21:8 (KJV)

My understanding of this topic came about over a number of years, but it started with me seeing that "the government" was not behaving in a way that I could endorse. I remember asking God one time, "Lord, I don't feel right about contributing to this ungodly activity, but it seems to me that I don't have any choice in it. Lord, show me what I should do." Shortly after that, I came across some material from Save-a-Patriot which showed me that the tax was voluntary, and that we volunteered by joining Social Security. I agonized over the first step I took of actually sending an affidavit of recision of the application for Social Security. I felt like I was stepping off of a cliff without any visible means of support. I had the same feeling as when I was led to return my life to Him. Later God brought many people into "my life" to lead me on a path of better understanding. It seems that no one group has all of the answers, only fragments and blocks. I suppose that there is much more than I have uncovered, but there is enough here to be a good starting point for any serious "christian."

Just remember that the miracle of crossing the Red Sea could not have happened if the people had not left Egypt, and the miracle of crossing the Jordan could not happen until the priests took a step into the water. We may not understand everything that will happen, or have all the answers to all questions until we all start on the journey together. That is what faith is all about. Abram left the comfort and security of "home" and went out seeking to obey God, not knowing where it would all lead. That journey may "appear" to be different today, but it is, in deed, the same.

My prayer is that all who read this will be seekers of the Truth, and that our Lord, Christ Jesus, will open your spiritual eyes to enable you to see any idolatry in which you may be involved, and to give you courage and strength to repent and turn from it, and follow His ways only.

For His Name's sake

by Daniel Wendell

It is now approaching two years since the "school shooting" at Littleton, Colorado. Many may consider it "old news." But this article was written by our Brother Daniel Wendell sometime after that "event," and is now being presented; for the distance of time between now and then can give us a perspective that, otherwise, would have been clouded by the "world of rhetoric" which spewed forth from "the mouth of the beast" at that time.

With a mad rush to add a few more unlawful gun control statutes to the seventeen or so broken in connection with the shootings at Columbine High School ... with the endless trotting out of modern "experts" ... with opinion after opinion being expressed, analyzed, and sent through the ether (mostly by those who look not to God's Word for answers but to opportunistic political agendas) ... I became so frustrated by the endless chatter, I sought for and was given an explanation of the root problem in this matter--"...Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

"...there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." It's an old story bound up within the heart of unregenerate man.

It has been reported that the crime of Clarence Darrow's two clients, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, in many ways mirror's the "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold Story." Two young men, children of affluence, considered intelligent, involving themselves in the abomination of homosexuality, who meticulously plotted their murderous event ahead of time, and Leopold's preoccupation with Friedrich Nietzche's concept of the "übermensch" (whose intelligence places him beyond "moral" considerations) can easily be seen to have grown ripe on the vine in the lyrical content of the German "Techno-Metal," ostensible music, which Harris and Klebold consumed with passion.

But there is another story which should be committed to our memory. The story of Cassie Bernall. Cassie Bernall is the girl who was purportedly asked, by one of the killers, if she believed in God. Upon answering in the affirmative, she was rheorically asked, "Why"; then immediately shot in the face and killed. At least this is how it was reported. Students that were interviewed said she was specifically asked, not whether she believed in "God," but did she believe in "Jesus."

Apparently it's "safer" for the media to use the word "god" in a generic sense. Their "consumers" probably don't want to be "troubled" with hearing about Jesus; nor would a reporter desire to refer to Him on the air. The news media has felt it "good business" to leave Jesus out of their reporting altogether.

This, of course, speaks volumes to us as to what "the world" thinks of the Christ, and the decision every man must make concerning our Saviour. Cassie Bernall, by the Spirit of God, made this decision facing down the barrel of a gun.

I don't want to sound cynical, but I wonder why the Columbine story was carried for weeks and months by the media. There were two other school shootings during the extended press coverage of this event. If camera crews had been sent into those communities there would be interviews of those grieving, a visit by "the First Lady," memorial services, and many of the same type of stories which Littleton "yielded." But these stories weren't given anywhere near the attention. Was there something in the stories of faith and hope in Littleton? Was there something in the vivid detail of the various deaths of students at Columbine that fascinated the media and their "consumers"? It's not so strange an irony that in this "culture of death' any truthful discussion of death is forbidden; thus making the subject taboo, and all the more alluring.

This was not always the case, though. In early Puritan "school primers," the mortality of man was taught hand in hand with the hope of salvation. The letters of the alphabet were memorized in short rhymes. For example: C: "The Cat doth play, And after slay"; G: "As runs the Glass, Our Life doth pass"; or Y: "While Youth do cheer, (sic) "Death may be near." I can hear the cry of the psychologists already, "How traumatizing to "our" children; they should be protected from such a preoccupation with death!"

The subject of death, though, is not completely ignored in "public schools"; it's made sterile and "positive" for "their" children. Tara Becker, a student at Columbine High fifteen years ago, stated that Death Education was ubiquitous at her school. To paraphrase Tara: "Students were instructed that life is difficult; whereas death is an escape from those difficulties. Upon death we return to a better 'life form,' eventually making our way to the 'oversoul' where we become one with "God." Additionally, she said that suicide was taught in a "non-judgmental" manner. Can anyone be surprised that "teen suicide" is commonplace when death is portrayed as a "happy affair"?

This "Death Education" is not peculiar to Columbine either. The truth that there is a One True God Who is Judge of the quick and the dead has been completely "eradicated" from public schools everywhere--a far cry from the intent of the first congress in 1790 which appropriated fifteen thousand dollars lawful money to print Bibles for use as school text books.

Today's teachers are hopeless, i.e., their "intellectual de-fanging" of death is truly vacant and offers no comfort or real hope and truth. Consequently, they will never, if possible, teach that "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Furthermore, any teaching that the second death is real, i.e., hell (mentioned by our Lord more times than He mentioned heaven) must be strictly forbidden.

The current "school children" are in the "teddy bears and hugs" generation. What does this say for the next (de)generation? It has been reported that a young child wearing a cartoon character backpack, attending the "casket signing" (previously called a "memorial service") for those who were killed at Columbine, saw the balloons around and asked his father, "Are we going to a party?"

With the words of Jonathan Edwards ringing in the ears of early America, there was not much worry that children would go about shooting one another, and themselves, just to watch the blood splatter--"...you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things,, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw His hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it...if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock."

But "progressives" must progress; even if they take a horribly wrong turn somewhere. "Their children" shall continue to be taught that "abiogenesis took place through stochastic chemical processes"; then through "evolutive speciation" our fair "species of thinking animal stumbled into its present state"..."well," they say, "let's teach this, but with not such big words."

"This a blunder so enormous..." (to quote Christopher Dawson) "...that no advance in scientific method nor educational technique is sufficient to compensate for it." Yet, these are the avenues pursued; along with the media's cries for "answers from the priests of the brave new world," the psychologists.

I heard one of these "priests" telling us that "boys" do all the shooting in these school "tragedies," and that there is something wrong in the brains of these aggressive male criminals. He 'explained' that "the natural aggression of boys shows itself on the playground, where girls gather in small groups to express themselves verbally, and boys play 'rough and tumble' games with structure and rules over large areas." He will probably be granted a sum of "money" by the government to figure out if these games are the cause of male violence. Couple this report with the "timely" report that women may not need men to bear offspring, and we see that perhaps there is hope for the secular world after all. Perhaps coming to your town one day soon, football and men will be outlawed altogether, along with the "evil patriarchy" and God the Father.

So where is the 501(c)(3) tax exempt non-profit corporation--those that call themselves "the Church" and "the Clergy"? Wasn't there a time when the news reporters would ask "pastors and Church leaders" for answers at such times? Today we turn on the radio and hear "Christian" psychologists advising their callers that they might need "meds" to help them over their problems ... wait ... "meds?" Now isn't that a euphonious euphemism! Isn't "pharmakia" the original Greek word for "sorcery" in the book of Revelation.

It was these 'enlightened priests" of the "new age," the psychologists, who in 1973 gave the imprimatur to the doctrine that homosexuality is simply an "alternative lifestyle." Without a doubt, these vain imaginations led to the acceptability of N.A.M.B.L.A. pederasts marching world wide in "gay pride parades." And now, similar overtures are being made by the same "school of thought" concerning pedophilia.

A former friend of mine, whom I had to abandon because she is unrepentant, told her "Christian" counselor that she "self-medicates" by smoking marijuana. The counselor told her, in a "non-judgmental manner" of course, that "this is something we can deal with later" (perhaps after they find 'just the right legal drug' for her). My former friend liked the "pro-psychologist Christians" because they were "less judgmental" than any other "Church group" she had found, and she had looked "far and wide." The last time I spoke with her she was "doing ecstasy" (a popular "designer drug" among the youth of the world, although she's fifty years old). She claims that because of her "uncaring, liberal Massachusetts, Brahman W.A.S.P. upbringing," the only time she can "feel" close to God is when she is "stoned." She has "rationalized" all of this with her "reasonable mind," telling me that the Bible teaches we should give "strong drink" to the sick and dying and to those who are suffering. I wonder whether the "Church" she attends is sick and dying--they certainly aren't suffering for need of money.

The basis of all sin is found in the inspired statement of the prophet Isaiah, "All we like sheep have gone astray; and we have turned every one to his own way." It's not enough for us to go our own way, but also in going that way, we want to make believe that it is "God's way." It's the ways of the world to dampen the flames of their conscience with pharmaceuticals; it's for us to be healed with our Father's herbs, and the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands by His elders.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were being "counseled" after breaking into a car. They were sent to an "anger management class," and Harris was given a "psychotropic" pill or two, and was apparently spoon fed all the politically correct verbiage which he spiced up with his own violent emphasis. He was quoted as having said that anyone who is a racist should have their legs cut off. This was not widely reported because the shooting was portrayed as a "racist hate crime." It is made manifest that, without the Spirit of God to free men from enslavement to their self-will, all the God-less words and vain imaginations of all the God-less men everywhere will do nothing but come back void.

Chuck Colson reported that eleven of the students killed were Christians. A female "news person" in an exclusive television interview Live From Littleton, Colorado (with freshly made Tragedy in Littleton on screen graphics) was "caringly" holding the hand of, and seated to left of, the father of the "African American" (a currently "in vogue" phrase which will become an insult in a decade or two) student who was shot and killed. Another student who had been in the library the day of the shooting and had witnessed the killing of this man's son, was seated at the grieving father's right hand. As this student spoke it became clear that he was a Christian, and when he spoke of his faith, the father, recognizing a fellow Christian, took his left hand out of the hand of the reporter and put both his hands into the hands of the student. The reporter, being left out in the cold and spiritually shrinking from perhaps not wanting to see the true counsel of our Lord, continued in her "professional caring manner," asking the father whether he would seek "counseling" (which left the impression that this "faith stuff" is "nice," but will only go so far). The father answered "no," explaining that he's a Christian and he'll get through it.

The Federal government was spending "their" taxpayer money sending specially trained "grieve counseling and conflict resolution teams" to "help" the people of Litteton, but this meek man wasn't going to avail himself to their warm Freudian mental hugs.

It has been reported that Cassie Bernall's mother was comforted by the Lord as well. A few days after her daughter's death, while in the shower, she received the message: "it was for this purpose Cassie was born." Also, the day after the shooting, her brother found a poem Cassie had written which suggested she was already aware of God's plan for her life, or as Cassie put it: "...to find out what it really means to suffer and die with Him."

Before her conversion, Cassie was involved in drugs, bad friends, and witchcraft. Her parents were advised to take her out of school and away from her friends and allow her only to attend church. This was exactly what they did as they prayed for a miracle. Vali Wilson, a church volunteer, held little hope for Cassie--"nothing was going to penetrate that shell."

The miracle took place, and somehow I don't think God was trembling with hat in hand hoping she would "come around" in time. Cassie became deeply devoted to her Bible study, began working with "inner-city" gangs, openly wearing clothing which declared her faith in Christ Jesus, and expressed a desire to have her long blond hair cut to be donated to a charity which made wigs for children undergoing cancer treatment.

Cassie's mother and brother were comforted; and the "African American" father, whose son was killed, stated that he sees the hand of God in this and someday he'll come to understand God's will in this matter. I'm certain he will because I could see by the faith he expressed in his interview that his hope is not in this world.

We should always bring to remembrance the example Cassie Bernall displayed. How many of us have placed ourselves in that library, asking ourselves what we would have done in her place?

We read of instances in the early church where Christians were challenged to deny their Lord. These inquisitions were every bit as dramatic as Cassie's. In some cases, a pig's blood was shed to run in a gutter. The Christian was then asked to spit into the blood and say it had no more power to cleanse sin than the blood of Christ. The denials of Christians since the inception of this country have not been so dramatic. The enemy has learned that ostensible "Christians" are more easily tempted with riches, earthly goods, and other things that appeal to the flesh. The enemy has been successful with his approach. This is why Cassie Bernall's story is all the more powerful. She declared her faith in our Lord while facing down the barrel of a gun. She stood firm in the presence of the enemy. She went to be with the Lord where He will brush away all tears. Of this present era, in this country, she is clearly one of the first to be martyred for His Name's sake.

Friendly Fire

by Diana Childs

To my friends who are beloved and precious to me:

I am writing to present to you truths of God's Word you may never hear in or out of most Church environments. Please, I beg you, do not dismiss my words as merely the teachings of just another "Christian sect." The simple truth is that, like the first disciples of the Christ, I cannot contain what I have come to know of our Lord this past year. I must shout it from the rooftops, this Truth I have encountered, which has shattered every "knowledge of religion" I have ever had and burst into my life with such a power; I have been completely transformed, and continue daily in His great presence to be renewed in mind, in accordance with His Word and Spirit. In Romans 12:1-2, the inspired words of the apostle Paul to the assemblies of the Living Christ reads:

"I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, your intelligent service. And not fashion yourself to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for to prove by you what the good and well-pleasing and perfect Will of God is."

Consider this letter an invitation to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Such an invitation was extended to whomsoever would return to our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ when He walked on this earth approximately two thousand years ago. Today He continues to bid whomsoever will return to Him, to Come, follow Him (walk in His ways), and receive His promise of eternal life. As was true in the time of His earthly ministry, as is true today, only those who are "willing" (conformed to His will) to forsake the things of this life in laying down their lives, picking up their cross (crucifying the flesh) and following His ways, are worthy to be called His bondmen and disciples. I encourage you to seek Him like you've never sought Him before, so that you too can be engaged with the greatest joy and peace you will ever know, and have revealed to you by Him the true meaning of life and the purpose for which you were created by His precious hands. It is my hope and prayer that this brief recounting of my life's "experience" will help you as you seek to know Him completely.

I was raised in the teachings of Roman Catholicism, which I "practiced" with sincerity and true devotion. As an adolescent I ran from God to escape the terrible guilt I felt pursuing worldly lusts and pleasures I "told" God "perceived" as evil. In college, I became a student of world religion and adopted a more "ecumenical" view of God which incorporated the tenets of Eastern and Western mysticism. As soon as I began to make plans for marriage, my need and desire to know God and "be right" with Him returned to me. When my parents were introduced to the Bible as a book for daily living and heard the glad tidings of salvation quite different from that which we had been taught in the Pope's Church, they were transformed and eagerly tried to persuade their loved ones to share in the Treasure they had found. It was at that point in my life that I first began to read His Book and study it diligently, searching its pages for the His Truth. I was changed by my encounter with His Word and the new relationship with our Father in Christ Jesus.

Once I entered this "non-Catholic world of Christianity," there was a new dilemma I faced. --Of the many denominations of "Protestantism," which one followed most closely to the teachings of our Lord and His apostles found in the pages of His Word?-- For two years I visited "Churches," looking for one that did not have man-made traditions and their vain imaginations at its center, but the Word of God and the Christ's ecclesia of Scripture as its model. Finally I found a "non-denominational Church" with a "vision" to become "a New Testament Church." Though their intentions were probably good, it was not too long before the "vision" got watered down and corrupted by the sins and whims of pride and human rationale, and the ability of the "Church members" to live their lives Holy and separated from the world went by the wayside. What had begun as a group of His followers unified in their devotion to the teachings of God's Word, ended with a group of "believers" who "agreed to disagree," accepting any and every "personal" interpretation of God's Word that arose among us. It was a warm, close knit community of people who cared for and helped one another in daily life. However, in time, there was little there to distinguish it from the PTA or the Kawanis club or any other "social organization" in town. Eventually, I was led to leave, in search of our Father's Way again. For three years I was unable to find a place and a people who shared my desire for His Way.

In the ninth month of 1995, I was told that I had an advanced stage of cancer and underwent surgery, medical evaluation, and follow-up. During this time I cried out to God for His help, and He came to me in a way I had never seen in all the years I had loved Him and served Him. For fifteen years I had longed to know Him more intimately, to live a life completely sold out to Him, and to find a people who had the same desire. Finally, as a result of a series of events linked with my cancer diagnosis, I was led to and found what I had spent my entire life longing for. I was shown the Way to enter God's Kingdom as revealed in the original teachings of the Christ and His apostles in The Word. I followed after these "new" ("there is nothing new under the sun") teachings, and as a result, my past sins were washed away in the Living Waters of The True Baptism in the saving Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ while praying alone in my house. It was exactly like His Word promises in Acts 2:38:

"Repent, and be baptized each of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

For the first time in my life I had found true peace and joy within, and there was not a shadow of doubt that what was found (which was lost, and is now found) was the "new birth" He has promised to all, and which the "Old Testament" prophets had prophesied of.

To think that there can be such a vast difference in one's ability to relate to God based upon what they are taught as "truth" from God's Word is "mind-boggling"! However, His entire Word is replete with passages warning His people about departing from the original teachings of the Christ and His inspired apostles and prophets--that which He has given to all to learn and seek His righteousness. After all, the original sin of Adam and Eve was that of believing the lie of the crafty serpent, Satan. He deceived them into believing that they could be their own god, being "free" to learn of his tree of the knowledge of good and evil by simply turning their back on their Father and biting into the fruit of that tree--that which He had forbidden them to partake of. They became the children of disobedience, ignoring His rightwiseness and believing they no longer needed instruction from their Father. Rather, they wanted to be able to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong--they became "moral persons."

Today, "the world" and its prince have simply continued the very same rebellious spirit in "mankind" toward God and His Truth. But, just like in the Garden, for a lie to be passed off as the truth, a little truth must be mixed in with it. Therefore, many of these "moral" people and Churches uphold the teachings of "the man" Jesus, in part, but very few will follow the Christ in full. In spite of these "moral persons," our Lord's call to His bondmen and disciples to "overcome the world" is just as True today as when He called us from the beginning.

I must admit that I have previously searched and studied many "world religions." I have been a "believer" of the dogma which espouses that there are many ways to God. Additionally, I have studied in depth the subject of "Church history." But, only by the Grace and Mercy of God did He not give up on me. For years in the Roman Catholic Church I was told I had my original sin washed away in the water of baptism and that at Confirmation thereafter I was born of God's Spirit. Later, in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, I was prayed over and told I had received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Finally, in my "non-denominational" Church, I was reassured on numerous occasions I was indeed "saved" by my faith "in Jesus," even though I doubted it because of a genuine feeling of confusion and a longing for something "deeper" and more substantial than that which was the status quo there.

One thing I am certain of--His Word is not to be misconstrued or ignored. It is full of prophesy about God's plan for all of us, and no one will escape its Truth. In the end, every one of us will stand before the throne of God to be judged. He has detailed in His Word a Way for us to draw near to Him and be covered by His forgiving arms.

There are not numerous paths to God!!

There are not any acceptable "forms" of worship and devotion to God! There is no substance or truth in "form"!!! God is One, and He will not accept man-made traditions in place of what He has ordained as the Only Way into His Kingdom!

So what does all this have to do with you? Coming soon ("and now is") to "the world's" neighborhoods, Churches, schools, supermarkets, televisions, etc., is the reign of what the Bible calls the Antichrist. "World peace" is coming, and with it the worship of "world unity" and a "world religion" comprised of all those who "agree to disagree" in the name of "Christlike" love. But "the world" fails to tell us what love is--but our Lord has already told us:

"If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15.
"And this is love, that we should walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, even as ye heard from the beginning, that in it ye might walk." 2 John 1:6.
"Love works no evil to the neighbor: therefore, love is the fullness of the law." Romans 13:10.

If you are unaware of what His Word teaches, it will be very easy for some to be deceived into "believing" the world's propaganda machines which teach that "the world" is now entering an era of love, peace, and unity. Many are preparing for "their" great celebration. But we are told:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1.

But I must tell you the truth--it was not until last year that I "discovered" (was led to) the "Pearl of Great Price," the True Glad Tidings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, and obeyed that call. It was then that I received the True Baptism of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost. I have also become more sober in my walk with Him, realizing that His promise that He would return as a thief in the night is a true one. I have found His assembly--they that love and fear God and walk in His ways--not in the flesh do we assemble, but in His Spirit and Truth, gathered together in spirit by Him, fellowshiping one with another according to His "non-social" and "non-systemized" way; not being made merchandise of, but being made a partaker of His promise by and through Him.

I do not know of any other way to communicate to you the gravity of this message that our Lord has had me bring herein. I do not care what one might think of me, nor do I concern myself that someone might be offended at the teachings of our Heavenly Father. All I know is that once I did not understand these Truths, and at that time I was no different than those of the world today. But I know that I will spend the rest of "my life" (which belongs to Him) sharing what has been revealed to me to be True with anyone who recognizes that there is a God Who can be known, and hungers to know Him. I hope and pray that all will seek these truths out on their own, and will also begin to pray to God to reveal Himself to them and to reveal the Truths of His Word to their hearts and minds.

May our Lord bless you by leading you into His precious and glorious Kingdom. So be it, and so be it.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Perfect (Adjectives, verbs and adverbs),

from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

A. Adjectives.

1. teleios ^5049^ signifies "having reached its end" (telos), "finished, complete, perfect." It is used (I) of persons, (a) primarily of physical development, then, with ethical import, "fully grown, mature," <1 Cor. 2:6; 14:20> ("men"; marg., "of full age"); <Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:15; Col. 1:28; 4:12>; in <Heb. 5:14>, RV, "fullgrown" (marg., "perfect"), KJV, "of full age" (marg., "perfect"); (b) "complete," conveying the idea of goodness without necessary reference to maturity or what is expressed under (a) <Matt. 5:48; 19:21; Jas. 1:4> (2nd part); <3:2>. It is used thus of God in <Matt. 5:48>; (II), of "things, complete, perfect," <Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 13:10> (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter); <Jas. 1:4> (of the work of patience); <v. 25; 1 John 4:18>.

2. teleioteros ^5046^, the comparative degree of No. 1, is used in <Heb. 9:11>, of the very presence of God.

3. artios ^739^ is translated "perfect" in <2 Tim. 3:17>: see COMPLETE, B.

B. Verbs.

1. teleioo ^5048^, "to bring to an end by completing or perfecting," is used (I) of "accomplishing" (see FINISH, FULFILL); (II), of "bringing to completeness," (a) of persons: of Christ's assured completion of His earthly course, in the accomplishment of the Father's will, the successive stages culminating in His death, <Luke 13:32; Heb. 2:10>, to make Him "perfect," legally and officially, for all that He would be to His people on the ground of His sacrifice; cf. <5:9; 7:28>, RV, "perfected" (KJV, "consecrated"); of His saints, <John 17:23>, RV, "perfected" (KJV, "made perfect"); <Phil. 3:12; Heb. 10:14; 11:40> (of resurrection glory); <12:23> (of the departed saints); <1 John 4:18>, of former priests (negatively), <Heb. 9:9>; similarly of Israelites under the Aaronic priesthood, <10:1>; (b) of things, <Heb. 7:19> (of the ineffectiveness of the Law); <Jas. 2:22> (of faith made "perfect" by works); <1 John 2:5>, of the love of God operating through him who keeps His word; <4:12>, of the love of God in the case of those who love one another; <4:17>, of the love of God as "made perfect with" (RV) those who abide in God, giving them to be possessed of the very character of God, by reason of which "as He is, even so are they in this world."

2. epiteleo ^2005^, "to bring through to the end" (epi, intensive, in the sense of "fully," and teleo, "to complete"), is used in the middle voice in <Gal. 3:3>, "are ye (now) perfected," continuous present tense, indicating a process, lit., "are ye now perfecting yourselves"; in <2 Cor. 7:1>, "perfecting (holiness)"; in <Phil. 1:6>, RV, "will perfect (it)," KJV, "will perform." See ACCOMPLISH, No. 4.

3. katartizo ^2675^, "to render fit, complete" (artios), "is used of mending nets, <Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19>, and is translated 'restore' in <Gal. 6:1>. It does not necessarily imply, however, that that to which it is applied has been damaged, though it may do so, as in these passages; it signifies, rather, right ordering and arrangement, <Heb. 11:3>, 'framed;' it points out the path of progress, as in <Matt. 21:16; Luke 6:40>; cf. <2 Cor. 13:9; Eph. 4:12>, where corresponding nouns occur. It indicates the close relationship between character and destiny, <Rom. 9:22>, 'fitted.' It expresses the pastor's desire for the flock, in prayer, <Heb. 13:21>, and in exhortation, <1 Cor. 1:10>, RV, 'perfected' (KJV, 'perfectly joined'); <2 Cor. 13:11>, as well as his conviction of God's purpose for them, <1 Pet. 5:10>. It is used of the Incarnation of the Word in <Heb. 10:5>, 'prepare,' quoted from <Ps. 40:6> (Septuagint), where it is apparently intended to describe the unique creative act involved in the Virgin Birth, <Luke 1:35>. In <1 Thes. 3:10> it means to supply what is necessary, as the succeeding words show." See FIT, B, No. 3. (From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, p. 101). Note: Cf. exartizo, rendered "furnished completely," in 2 Tim. 3:17, RV; see ACCOMPLISH.

C. Adverbs.

1. akribos ^199^, accurately, is translated "perfectly" in <1 Thes. 5:2>, where it suggests that Paul and his companions were careful ministers of the Word. See ACCURATELY, and see Note (2) below.

2. akribesteron ^197^, the comparative degree of No. 1, <Acts 18:26; 23:15>: see CAREFULLY, EXACTLY.

3. teleios ^5049^, "perfectly," is so translated in <1 Pet. 1:13>, RV (KJV, "to the end"), of setting one's hope on coming grace. See END.

Notes: (1) In <Rev. 3:2>, KJV, pleroo, "to fulfill," is translated "perfect" (RV, "fulfilled"). (2) For the adverb akribos in <Luke 1:3>, KJV, see ACCURATELY; in Acts 24:22, KJV, see EXACT. (3) For the noun akribeia in Acts 22:3, see MANNER.

Bits and Pieces

Lincoln's Legacy

We thank Odell Hobbs at Missouri for sending us the following information:

The Associated Press reported on April 13, 1998 that "amateur historians Thomas and Beverly Lowry of Virginia have come up with interesting Abraham Lincoln information that generations of historians have "overlooked." While indexing Army court-martial records at the National Archives, they found almost three dozen strong denunciations of President Lincoln made post mortem by Union soldiers that resulted in court-martial proceedings against the soldiers, and convictions. The disclosures add to the already overwhelming evidence of dictatorial federal rule during Lincoln's tenure, and afterward. Punishment of soldiers that spoke out against Lincoln ranged from dishonorable discharge to several years in prison at hard labor. Henry Brainard of New York's 98th Regiment received a dishonorable discharge and two months at hard labor for saying: "Damn him, he shot have been shot four years ago." Sgt. Alexander Keegan received five years in prison for remarking: "I'm glad the old SOB is dead. It was no more than he deserved." Private Elijah Chapman was sentenced to two years at hard labor for saying that Lincoln 'took off his hat to Negroes and ignored white men.'"

In a Nutshell

Our Brother John Nelson, sojourning with the Lord in the Indiana territory currently, gives us his "in a nutshell" defining view of 'the State' and its 'law' and 'taxes,' devoid of their "juris prudent" argot:

The State - that entity, existing in the minds of men and verified by words placed on paper, created by and on behalf of the propertied class ("owners" of the means of production), with the chief purpose of promoting and protecting the position(s) and possessions of that class through any and all means necessary (through their "magic word" necessity).

One extremely valuable propaganda technique to promote and protect State goals revolves around "nationalism" and "patriolatry."

Man's law - that body of codes, rules, regulations, etc., created by men in the name of the State (or similar entity), for the purpose of assisting the "propertied class" in promoting and protecting their position(s) and possessions. These "laws" must be continuously transitory in order to accommodate the "evolutionary" nature of the goals and objectives of the "the class."

Taxes - those funds extorted by the State, through the operation of its agents, for the purpose of maintaining and expanding the policies and positions of control executed by the propertied class. The "payers" are maintained in a state of submission through economic (wage) slavery, coercion, deceit, propaganda, intimidation, etc.

The Points of Deception

In Hebrew, the prerogative to select vowels is the prerogative to select words. As they went about their "business" with the Hebrew text, the Masoretes had the power to dramatically change the meaning of the text, as is evidence in many places when compared to the Septuagint.

Adam Clark, in the General Preface of his commentary on the Scriptures titled The Holy Bible...with A Commentary and Critical Notes..., A New Edition, with the Author's Final Corrections, published in 1810, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes in adding their vowel points to the last remaining Hebrew texts of the Old Testament (which the King James "Authorized Version" is derived) was much greater in scope and consequence than is commonly appreciated, to wit:

"The Masoretes were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, etc., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjunctions to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the word of God; for there is no one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to A.D. 1030. Some think it did not commence before the fifth century A.D."

London Tea Party

"A mock British proclamation to U.S. citizens declares: "In the light of your failure to elect a president of the U.S., and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states ... except Utah, which she does not fancy." from The Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2000.

Issue the Fifty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Terrorism or the Rod of Correction? ...

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den again, conclusion...

Identification...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Terrorism or The Rod of Correction?

by Brother Eugene Milton

Grim Statistics

American War Casualties

Revolutionary War ........... 25,324
Civil War ..........................498,332
World War I ......................116,706

World War II ....................407,316
Korean War .......................54,246
Vietnam War ......................58,655

War on the Unborn ..............33,000,000

[Our Brother Eugene Milton, by the Grace of God, is currently (and has been over the past 75 years, or so) sojourning in the Minnesota territory.

We do hope that his article will be for everyone's edification. For those who are led to seek further fellowship with him, his contact information will appear at the end of this article.

While reading it, keep in mind that our Father's Word tells us, and His Spirit bears witness, that only when a people obey His voice, will He be an enemy unto their enemies, and an adversary unto their adversaries.]

Greetings in the Mighty Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ!!!

There is one lawgiver--not many as the liars have told us (James 4:12).

".....if the LORD be God, follow Him: but if Baal [*Caesar], then follow him [*them]." I King 18:21 (KJV)

No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), not even by cunning craftiness. All human "so-called" governments are cults, as evidenced by the fact that:

"Those who worship the State will tolerate no rival faith." Sir Edmund Burke
"No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please Him who hath chosen Him to be a soldier." 2 Timothy 2:4 (KJV)
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16 (KJV)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to Me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6 (KJV)

Terrorism or The Rod of Correction?

There has been much conversation, and many implied threats of revenge since the events of eleven September two thousand and one, even to the threat of war! (That has now come to pass.) But, I ask, "Whose definition of terrorism are we accepting?"

'Personally,' I find it absolutely amazing that the hijacking of four aeroplanes, the destruction of two buildings, and the partial destruction of a third, is considered "terroristic," and the cold-blooded murder of the defenseless unborn is considered a "right" by nine derelict attorneys known as the supreme Court (most often spelled Supreme Court)--which is another blasphemy against the Creator of this world and all that therein is--because the the Supreme Judge is the entirety of the Supreme Court.

However, making light of and ignoring the Commands of the Creator is nothing new, or different. It began in the garden of Eden [*the garden of Delight in the Septuagint], and has persisted ever since.

There are many historical evidences of evilly "inspired" men who were going to outsmart God. They have all failed, and will continue to fail! Why? Because the Law(s) of the Almighty are immutable --and while they may be disregarded, evaded, eluded, dodged, ducked, ignored, made fun of, mocked and laughed at, or whatever--they are etched in the granite of His integrity, and will remain so until the end of time:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 (KJV)

It may also come as a shock, to all who have received a commercial education, that men have never-ever been given the authority to "make law(s)," With their fleshly and personal pride, arrogance, haughtiness, insolence, and much overrated opinion of their knowledge and self-worth, combined with their ego(s) beguiling them to believe they can make law(s), but are in truth limited by their "humanness" to making only suggestions in the form of rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes. These by comparison to Law(s) are mere suggestions, because rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes are only enforceable when voluntarily submitted to. That hard fact is never admitted to by any attorney, judge, politician or other defender of "the god known as the government, or the State." The withholding of that fact from the people at-large is an act of deception that only supporters of Lucifer could engage in; for, while simultaneously pillaging and plundering the very folks whom they "claim" to work for/represent, they enslave them to make-believe and imaginary "law", so-called.

To clarify the matter, the following is a well-known definition of a politician:

"1. One versed or experienced in the science of government. 2. One addicted to, or actively engaged in, politics as managed by parties; often, one primarily interested in political offices or the profits from them as a source of private gain."

I am fully aware that no lawyer or politician will openly agree to the reality of the same, because to do so would absolutely document the age-old truth that:

"If it weren't for lawyers and politicians, no one would ever believe they needed them!"

To these lawyers and politicians: What an empty feeling to realize that, at best, you have been a parasite feeding off the ignorance of those whom you have claimed to "educate"--not teach--and for eons you have managed to work the scam to your "perceived" advantage.

Again, the hard fact is:

"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? James 4:12 (KJV)

The Author of the Law states with extreme clarity the above Truth; and further, that:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD [*YHVH] your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV)

And a second witness is found at Deuteronomy 12:32:

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (KJV)

There are defenders of the "mockers" who vehemently insist that so-called man-made law(s) are modeled after God's Law(s), which is an open-faces lie, as the straight forward (not froward) command is: "....thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Where am I going with all of this? Straight forward to the "politically acceptable," but vehemently denied "double standard" as practiced by those purported "leaders" of the U.S.A.

First of all, America imagines it has legalized "a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n," which is an absolute total impossibility by virtue of the fact that "a-b-o-r-t-i-o-n" is Lawful, and was initiated and authorized by the Creator Himself. "A-b-o-r-t--i--c-i-d-e" is the name of the crime the supreme Court perceives it has the authority to make "legal," attempting to nullify the Creator's Law, which states with no ambiguity whatsoever, that, "Thou shalt not do wanton murder," (Exodus 20:13). And take special notice of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, supra.

Let it be known--while I have no agreement with the perpetrators of the events that transpired on eleven September two thousand and one--I have no more agreement with any man or group of men, irrespective of their personally assumed "whizz-dom" and imaginary authority,who thumb their noses at the Almighty Creator by stating in effect, "We'll commit murder if we want!" The most amazing thing about such activities by them, is that they apply a pious countenance while having the audacity to ask for God's blessings and mercy to save?heal our land; and that after His Word has either been evicted from, or locked out of virtually every "government" space in the country by the very who all of a sudden "seem" to recognize that there's "No power or authority other than Almighty God!" What an act!

The "terrorists" destroyed possibly five to eight thousand lives. Yet, those venerable old murderers in the supreme Court have authorized the wanton murder of thirty-three million totally defenseless unborn, and that total goes back at least ten or more years. Who is threatening to hunt those murders down, and eliminate them from the face of the earth? Well, for what it's worth, I'll offer a hint:

"Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. But unto the wicked [*that's all of the wicked--titles and origins not with standing] God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God." Psalms 50:14-23 (KJV)

I would also add the following as an aid to clarifying the above:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?......Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42 (KJV)

There is, and has been, conversation all of my life about those who have died in vain. It is in that light that I sincerely ask: who of you can imagine a more vain sacrifice of life than that taken from the defenseless unborn? The shysters authorized it, as if in deed and in fact they had the authority to do so; and the preachers are speechless and impotent, because if they open their mouths to preach the true Law of God, they will lose their 501(c)(3) status with the government [*the bribe], in spite of the fact that all public servants take an oath to uphold the Constitution for the United States of America, which states clearly and unequivocally that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Please take notice that the make-believe so-called "law" was initiated by an imaginary administrative agency, and voluntarily accepted as law by the unincorporated Churches.

So how did those who claim to be of the Christ's ekklesia become a ward of the State and separated from the True Master they claim to serve? By seeking the solace of incorporation, and becoming an object of the commercial world--for its illusory benefits--thereby casting off its relationship with the Almighty Creator to partake of the imaginary benefits of mammon. This is nothing more than a reenactment of, and submission to, "Did god really say that?," i.e., "Incorporation is good for you! It will protect you from lawsuits and all that kind of stuff." This is one more absolute truth that there is only one Lawgiver, not many, as the liars have whispered.

It is the failure, for whatever "reason" to comprehend that fact, that has virtually handcuffed these purported servants of the Lord, and enslaved them to multiple gods they have never known and should have never never met.

But our Lord's remnant continue to serve Him in spirit and in truth.

The following is contact information for further fellowship with our Brother:

Brother Eugene Milton
general delivery
New Auburn, Minnesota
(320) 864-4128

Another Daniel in the Lion's Den

again

Conclusion: The Plea

with commentary by Randy Lee

Of God's merciful power shown at Daniel 6:22, our Brother Daniel said to king Darius:

"My God has sent His angel, and stopped the lion's mouth, and they have not hurt me: for uprightness was found in me before Him; and moreover before thee, O king, I have committed no trespass."

In Issue the Fifty-seventh we were presented with the ARRAIGNMENT of the charge of "trespass" against our Daniel of today, designated by the natural man to be "practicing medicine without certification" and other sundry "violations" concerned with his making available our Father's healing herbs to those in need.

During that ARRAIGNMENT the COURT determined, from some of the words that were spoken by Daniel, that they had jurisdiction to proceed with TRIAL. But, due to some of the other words spoken by him, the COURT and DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE were confronted with a dilemma. They now had to address the Sword of the Word spoken by Daniel; and secondarily, the Non-statutory Abatement and Default that had been served upon them by the Christ's assembly at Los Angeles, which they had taken cognizance of during the ARRAIGNMENT. The dilemma was:

"They were confronted with, and had to answer to, the Truth."

As we will gather from the following record, the Truth will set you free.

As in the earlier record, we have changed only the names and places, but the discourse is unchanged from the original copies. Randy Lee's comments are in bracketed italics. Again, the comments are not a criticism of our Brother's noble and blessed witness of the hope that is in him, and it is not an effort to put words in anyone's mouth, for only the Holy Spirit can do that. The comments are simply given for the edification and guidance of those that may at one time or another be in the same type of situation. Again, we must remember that only the Spirit of God will give you the words to say in that hour.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND PLEA

MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2000

THE COURT: Daniel, if you want to step forward.

DANIEL: Spelled in upper and lowercase letters.

THE COURT: We took care of that on the last date where we corrected the spelling on the Complaint.

DANIEL: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Come up to the table. This case today was set for a pretrial conference. Today would be the time for you to discuss the case with the District Attorney, Ms. Gravely [*Ms. DA], who is present in court today, so that if there are any discovery issues or any legal motions you want to file today I would note that the Court did receive a -- on October 12th the Court received a packet including numerous letters, character letters and letters from people on behalf of you, sir, and the People, I believe, also received copies of those letters from Walker.

MS. DA: I believe so.

[*Comment: We do not know what kind of an effect on the judge and DA these letters had. But, as we will see, they obviously didn't hurt Daniel's case.]

COURT: Do you have that? So, sir, if you have a seat, I am going to continue calling the calendar, and then when the Court takes a break, that would give you an opportunity to discuss any issues that you have with the District Attorney.

MS. DA: Your Honor, I would like to put the offer on the table... the offer on the record.

COURT: That is fine. We can do that. In fact, the conference can be on the record as well, which is very common when people are representing themselves that the conference is held on the record.

All right. Please have a seat in the audience.

[*Comment: At this point, the regular "business" of the COURT is tackled in an expedient fashion, thereby leaving them with a cleared courtroom in which to tackle the not-so-regular "business" of "dealing" with our Daniel of today.]

Continuation

COURT: On the Daniel matter, step forward, please.

All right. Daniel is present in court. There has been no time waiver on this case. On October 10th I released the defendant on his own recognizance and set today for a pretrial date.

First of all, do you anticipate that you are going to want to... that there would possibly be a disposition involving a plea to any of the charges, or are you anticipating that the case will go to trial? What...

[*Comment: As expected, the judge immediately solicits Daniel to "cop a plea," and thereby walk away from the Abatement process. But our Brother does not listen to the whispers of the crafty one, and interrupts her beaconing call:]

DANIEL: I think it should be dismissed as everyone, all the defendants, were served with abatement and default.

[*Comment: We see our Brother fending off the fiery darts thrown at him, by immediately brings up the abatement and default, and putting them on the defensive by calling them "the defendants."

[ *As a side note, he could of also plead that the alleged offense is "not chargeable," due to the fact that they had not answered to the Truth in the Abatement, thereby disqualifying them from even bringing charges. If they cannot walk in the Truth, they have no ability to prosecute or judge him. "...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." John 8:7 (KJV).]

COURT: Abatement and default?

DANIEL: Yes.

COURT: Okay. And how is it, from a legal perspective, that you believe that that would cause the Court to have the authority to actually dismiss the charges?

[*Comment: Here, the judge is testing the spirits. The test is: Will Daniel allow her to reduce the Truth within the Abatement process to mere "legalism" and mere "belief," or will he stand on The Rock; does he "truly" walk with the Lord?--for by his words he will be justified and by his words he will be condemned.]

DANIEL: Well, I am not who they say I am, and so everything was abated and... well...

COURT: When you say "abated," could you, please, define what you mean in terms of your motion to dismiss on that ground.

[*Comment: We see here that when he said earlier that the case "should be dismissed," the COURT considers that "a motion." Whereas, "not chargeable" leaves them no choice but to inquire as to why he is "not chargeable," thereby giving him the ability to abate them verbally in open court. Instead, he is put in the position of explaining the abatement process. Though the "not chargeable" was not brought up, he is still given the opportunity to shed some Light on the situation.]

DANIEL: Well, abatement is a process where you, basically, say that what paperwork they have is not correct, and until those corrections are made, they cannot continue forward in prosecution.

COURT: Now, let me turn to the People for just a moment.

Have you received any documents or motions regarding abatement?

[*Comment: We see now how important it was for Daniel to stand with the Abatement and its Default in the previous week's ARRAIGNMENT. They are forced to address the abatement process, as long as Daniel continues to bring it to their attention that they failed to answer to it.]

MS. DA: Apparently, yes, Your Honor, our office has. Deputy D.A. Ms. Gantry has informed Ms. Miser and I that it has been received by our office, and she will be handling that end of it. We have... also had an offer. I don't know if he is interested in it.

[*Comment: We now see how important it was for him to bring the Sword of the Word to them at every opportunity, and to also stand with the Abatement. After the principality had spent hundreds of man hours, and who knows how many "dollars" investigating Daniel, they are now reduced to offering him "a deal."]

COURT: Let me just clarify on this issue. Has the Court... on this case I have a motion that was filed October 11th, a statutory... or a non-statutory abatement.

DANIEL: That was served to all defendants on the... June the 20th.

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: And it was... the two men came back for answer, which no answer was given, and then everyone was served with it.

COURT: Excuse me one moment. I have it in the file. I just normally know there will be a tab on the bottom to direct the Court's attention to it. It is... what I have... let me look at the file now so it is clear what the Court has.

I have filed on October 11th... I don't know... I want to make sure the People have this, the non-statutory abatement.

MS. DA: That is a seven-page document, Your Honor?

[*Comment: Note that MS. DA gives the Abatement the status of a "document." This is a very good sign of what is to come.]

COURT: Yes.

MS. DA: I believe the People do have a copy of that. It is not conformed, so I believe it is a copy of a copy.

COURT: And that is your argument regarding your abatement issue.

[*Comment: Here the judge attempts to reduce the Truth of the Word within the Abatement, to an "argument." We must remember that when the Truth is brought to someone, it is not an "argument" or an "apology"--it is the Truth.]

DANIEL: It is not my argument. It was served on the defendants, and they defaulted.

[*Comment: This is an excellent response. Again, he reminds them that they are "the defendants" who did not answer to the Truth, therefore in Default, and that the Abatement is not an "argument."]

COURT: It was served on the Plaintiff? You are the defendant. It was served on the Plaintiffs?

[*Comment: Here, the judge attempts to reverse the roles, but Daniel clarifies:]

DANIEL: Well, in the abatement they are the defendants.

[*Comment: Again, he reminds them that the Abatement question is still pending, and until it is answered, they remain defendants.]

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: Anyway, everyone was served...

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: ... and they came back for an answer. No answer was given. They were promptly served with a default. And until they correct their "incorrections" or presumptions, then they cannot move forward lawfully.

[*Comment: This is the strongest statement yet that he has brought to them. It hits to the core of the question, and keeps the line drawn in the sand--keeping their feet to the fire. But, of course, the judge continues to test the spirits by attempting to reduce the Abatement process to a criminal procedure defense "motion," which it is not:]

COURT: Okay. First of all, a failure to respond in writing, in criminal law, to a Defense motion does not result in a default or a dismissal of the case. That is the procedure -- there is civil procedure. There is criminal procedure. And you are charged in a criminal Complaint wherein the issues, therefore, are guided by criminal procedure, and criminal procedure does not require a written response from the People, or either party, for that matter. If a motion is filed, it is not automatically dismissed or granted if the other side fails to respond in writing.

Are the People going to respond in writing?

MS. DA: I do not believe so, Your Honor.

COURT: All right.

DANIEL: It wasn't a motion. It was an abatement that was served.

[*Comment: Excellent! Excellent! He does not allow the judge to diminish or reduce the standing of the Abatement, thereby keeping their feet to the fire.]

COURT: The People are saying they are not going to respond in writing. Will somebody actually be here from the District Attorney's Office to argue?

MS. DA: As to the abatement?

COURT: Yes. We do have to deal with the issue. The motion has been filed.

[*Comment: This is deception! She's still trying to reduce the Abatement to "a filed motion," but admits that they still have to "deal" with it. But because Daniel has continued to remind them that they have not answered to the substance of the issue--"unlike kind ought not to be joined."]

MS. DA: That, Your Honor, I would have to check with Ms. Gantry. She has contacted us here. She has received that. She did not intend on responding in writing. I do not know if she will personally be before the Court.

COURT: If she does not, will you or another representative of your office just be prepared on this?

MS. DA: I would assume so, yes.

COURT: Okay. So that needs to be resolved. Are you prepared to argue it today?

MS. DA: No.

[*Comment: With this answer of "no," we see that the natural man and his institutions are never prepared to answer to the Truth. If they cannot "skirt" the Truth, all that is left for them is to succumb to the Truth. Therefore, we have the following chain of events. But first, to further bring them to a full understanding of their lack of standing, and to leave no doubt as to Who he serves and Who does the healing, our Brother brings their own maxims, and more importantly the Sword of the Word, to bear down on them in a fashion that leaves them with little breathing room:]

DANIEL: May I speak a few minutes? Maybe I can clarify.

COURT: Certainly. Go ahead.

DANIEL: I am a bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I am here to execute His will and testament, and it is written from the beginning that man does not live by bread alone but by all the words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and so I have to do His will. And I believe it is written, as He has accepted me, I will also accept you. From the beginning it is written... and it is also written that thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and only Him thou shall serve.

I am His bondservant and must do His law. I believe it is written in your law that any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all. I do His will. I am a minister.

It has been written from the beginning that the fruit of the trees are for -- the fruit of the trees are for meat, and the leaves are for medicine, and it, also, has been written from the beginning that the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And so I couldn't be willful in the thing that I am accused of.

And I believe it is also written in your law that an act... any act... an act does not make a man guilty unless the intention be guilty. It is not my will. It is His will. And so first in time is first in right. That is written in your law, I believe.

And so it has been written from the beginning that Jesus Christ went from village to city healing the people and curing their afflictions. And, again, as He has accepted me, now I have accepted you. I am commanded by Him to do this.

And, again, he who is before in time is preferred in right. I believe that is written in your law. It is also a perpetual law... that no human law can be perpetual.

And manifestation of the spirit has been given to every man to profit with all and so some, the gift of faith, some, the gift of healing, and if a man knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to Him, it is a sin.

I believe in... also, in your law it says that afflictions arise from law and law... and not law from afflictions. And so I could not... also, bankrupt entities have no force or effect in law, and I believe it has been written in your law that cities such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the City of Beastly and corporations such as the State of California or the County of Los Angeles have no soul and, therefore, cannot be sued, and they are dead. The dead cannot receive an injury. I believe that is also written in your law.

And the word of God says the body without the soul is dead, and the dead know not anything. We are to avoid the appearance of evil.

And I believe it is written in your law that licenses are permission to do what would, otherwise, be unlawful, illegal, a tort or a trespass.

And I do the will of my Father in heaven, and nothing about Him is evil.

And there is also no law that says that the living should be joined to the dead.

COURT: All right. Have you completed what you wanted to state for the record at this time?

[Comment: With this question, we see that the judge is becoming very uncomfortable, and is trying to come up for air. But our Brother does not allow it:]

DANIEL: No. It is also... we are commanded not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and I believe it is written in your law that the unequal things ought not to be joined.

[*Comment: With these last two points, the nails have been thoroughly driven into the coffin of which the COURT lays in. But the judge does not relent. She is still testing the spirits, by "playing dumb":]

COURT: I am not sure that I understand that, what you just said, so if you want to clarify. How does that apply...

DANIEL: Unequal things should not be joined, so...

COURT: What are you talking about that is unequal?

[*Comment: He has already explained what is meant by this. But she continues to test him as to the implications of it, and to see if he has a full understanding of those implications. He answers the challenge and seals the lid on the coffin:]

DANIEL: It goes back to, there is no law that says that the dead should be -- or the living should be joined to the dead, and the corporations are dead. It is ruled in God's law and, also, I believe, your law. So I should not be joined to the dead.

COURT: You mean by being...

DANIEL: The authority of my Father in heaven.

[*Comment: Here, he ends the question once and for all by interrupting her "You mean by being...," and unequivocally states from whence all Authority is derived. There is none Higher; and the judge has no choice but to agree, in a rather "legalistically" confused and round-about" way, of course:]

COURT: I see what you are saying. You are saying... basically, what... I have heard your arguments, and, basically, you have got two different areas that you are arguing. One, again, relates to factual issues, the factual issues being that you lacked the criminal intent. You have stated that. And your other argument was, along those lines, relating to use of... I am assuming there is some use of herbal healing, and that is...

DANIEL: I use God's herbs.

COURT: ...that that is not a violation of the law.

DANIEL: That is correct.

THE COURT: And so those are factual issues. And then, also, the legal issue would be whether or not the People would be able to proceed against you...

DANIEL: Lawfully.

[*Comment: Here, Daniel does not allow the judge to reduce everything to "legality," but reminds her that the points that have been raised must be answered according to Law, not legalese.]

COURT: ...lawfully based on the argument that you have made about not being able to join the living with the dead.

And so we have both the legal issue that needs to be resolved by way of your motion and then the factual issues. Depending upon how the Court rules on your legal issue, the factual issues are issues that then would be determined by a jury and... or a court, depending upon whether or not the sides in this case want to proceed and agree to proceed by way of a court trial or a jury trial.

Now, since you are representing yourself on this case, do you have any issues at all at this point by way of discovery? Have you received the police reports in the case? I think on the last date when you were in court, you received a packet. Yes.

[*Comment: We see that the judge continues her "Court Procedure" in an attempt to draw Daniel away from the substance, and to avoid the Truth that has been brought to her. As we shall see, it's only a cover.]

DANIEL: Yes. I am not interested in that.

COURT: You don't have any issues right now. There was someone else here earlier that had an issue regarding a desire for the People to do an investigation. Is there anything at all at this point in time that you feel you do not have that you would need from the Prosecution by way of discovery for alleged evidence?

DANIEL: No. God is my witness and the Holy Spirit and the Son.

[*Comment: We see here that our Brother is not accepting any of the poisoned fruit that is being offered to him.]

COURT: Also... I believe I discussed this with you on October 10th... you have the right to have a trial within 30 days of October 10th. You have not given up your right to a speedy trial. Is it still your desire to have a speedy trial on this case, meaning, is it your desire to be brought to trial within 30 days of October 10th?

DANIEL: Did not the Prosecution have an offer?

COURT: What is the People's offer? Thank you for raising that. You had an offer on the case. What is the offer?

MS. DA: Yes, Your Honor, if I can find the file. A plea to Counts III and IV.

COURT: Counts III and IV. Let me take a look and see. Count III is conducting business without a license. Count IV is no food permit. Those relate to licensing issues. Then you are willing... if he pleads to those, you would be willing to dismiss Count I, which relates to practicing medicine without certification, and you would be willing to dismiss Count II?

MS. DA: That is correct, Your Honor.

COURT: And you would, in exchange for pleas of either guilty or no contest... A no contest plea on a misdemeanor is a plea that is entered... or can be entered because the defendant believes that it is in his or her best interest to do so. That can have many different meanings, including the desire to resolve the case before a trial. The People are offering those charges. Do you... In terms of resolution or disposition, is there anything else that you...

MS. DA: Yes, Your Honor. We would be asking for a fine and for the defendant to cease and desist.

COURT: Cease and desist what?

MS. DA: I believe it is the operation of the business without a license, the activities in Counts III and IV, that the People allege he was partaking of.

COURT: So what you would be asking for is summary probation or informal probation. You don't report to a probation officer. Basically, the Court is the... you would be on probation to the Court. And the People are asking that you would be ordered, as a condition, to not operate a business without a licence.

MS. DA: That is correct.

COURT: Then the fine, I think, would be in the discretion of the Court, I am assuming.

MS. DA: Correct.

THE COURT: You have also served some time in custody. I would be inclined to suspend the fine.

Basically, what the People have offered is to dismiss Counts I and II, which relate to practicing medicine without a license. They will dismiss those charges. They would want you to plead to the conducting business without a license, no food permit, which relate to what you discussed in your papers as licensing issues with the City and the City's requirement of a license; and that if you pled to those, the Court would put you on informal probation and order that you not operate a business without a license, and I would give you credit for the time because you were in custody, and I would not impose any fine. That would be the resolution that is being offered.

[*Comment: We see from the above dialogue that the COURT and the DA's OFFICE has gone into an "offer in compromise" mode, with a lot of compromise. We must remember that the charges that were brought against him carried a possible two year jail term. With the Truth that has been brought to them, they are having to make a stretch just to give themselves some justification for having pursued the prosecution to begin with. Daniel reminds the judge what kind of business he is about doing, for her future reference:]

DANIEL: The only business that I am about is my Father's business, who is in heaven. And what would the restitution be?

COURT: There would be no fine because you served time. I would give you time served. Basically, credit for time served. I don't know how many days you were in. I know I saw you in custody on October 10th. So when were you arrested on that warrant? Was it the day before?

DANIEL: It was on a Sunday.

COURT: Actually, then, you were in custody three days. You would be entitled to three days, credit three, and I would impose no further... there would be no fine payments due.

DANIEL: Okay. I will accept the People's offer.

COURT: You want to accept the People's offer?

DANIEL: I don't want to waste the Court's time...

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: ...or the People's time.

[*Comment: He makes it clear to the COURT that all of these many month's of their investigation, harassment, jail time, court time, etc., has not been a waste of time for him. It was a Glorious time for him, because he was able to witness to them and shine the Light on their darkness. But for them, the time had come to end their folly.

And it would appear from the following question from the judge, and the ensuing discourse, that she appreciated his candor. She even appears to be acknowledging and pursuing the Truth, which she did not have to do in open court, since he has already agreed to their offer:]

COURT: Let me just go over something. You have raised the non-statutory abatement issue. I have reviewed the documentation here, and, as I understand that issue to be, it relates to whether or not the People have the authority to pursue this at all, given your arguments that the original lawful authority comes from the Lord Jesus Christ. Basically, that is what I understand the crux of your argument on the abatement to be.

DANIEL: To some degree. They need to follow lawful process before they have a jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction needs to be followed all the way back to the Lord Jesus Christ, who has been given all power in heaven and earth.

COURT: All right. So... okay. Anything else on that argument that you would like to make on the abatement? Because we do need to deal with that issue. If you want to accept the People's offer, I would be willing to go ahead and resolve this matter today, but I need to make a ruling on your abatement issue.

[*Comment: What we see from the above statement from the judge is that, firstly, she didn't hear him accept the offer, as the record shows; and secondly, even if Daniel accepts the offer (a second time), the Abatement issue still has to be resolved. This is an acknowledgment that the Abatement and Default take precedent over and above their prosecution. In short, it is an acknowledgment on her part that they have no law. But she tries to get out from underneath the Abatement by playing "the dating game":]

DANIEL: Well, it seems to be that you are denying -- you did not receive abatement on the 20th of June.

COURT: Let me review the court file, sir, because I did not... October 10th was when I had the court file before me, and it may be that it was in the court file prior to that date.

THE CLERK: The case wasn't filed until July 24th.

COURT: It wasn't filed until July 24th. There was not a court file put together on it. Let me just see what documents have been included here. I want to make... I think Mister...

DANIEL: This, I believe, is what was served to you, the Court, on the 20th.

COURT: Of June.

DANIEL: Of June.

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: And on the 4th and 5th... the 5th and 6th of July, the year of our Lord, it was served... the default was served when the two messengers came in and asked for a response and there was no response, and...

COURT: I can... I am sorry. Go ahead.

DANIEL: Also... it was served on the District Attorney also on the 20th of June, and on the 6th of July, the...

COURT: If you could, Deputy Stevens...

This is the Complaint date. I am just showing you here that that is... the date that the case was actually filed by the District Attorney's Office was in July, and so just procedurally... so I want to make sure that you understand. Those documents did come into the clerk's office, but the case... the Court would not have even had a court file on it until the District attorney filed the charges, so that may explain, in part, why...

DANIEL: Why I am standing here.

COURT: Well, why there was... that the Court wouldn't be able to respond because there wasn't a court file on it. Then you filed the motion again, once we had the case before us, in October on that same issue, which is the abatement. But at the time that you filed the abatement, the District Attorney's Office had not yet pressed the charges, which means there wasn't actually a court file or formal charges pending against you. I, just for clarification...

DANIEL: July 24th,

COURT: Correct. Yes.

DANIEL: I believe the District Attorney was also served. I have a proof of service here by the Sheriff's Office. I don't know how they can say they didn't receive it. But you have... I mean, they didn't get served...

COURT: Let's assume that they received this. If they disagreed with it, they are not required to respond in writing as a matter of criminal procedure in the State of California, and they went ahead and they filed the charges.

Your position on the abatement, Ms. DA, is what? That... do you think that the abatement would cause the People to dismiss the charges?

MS. DA: No, I do not, Your Honor.

COURT: Okay. So, basically, your argument is that the abatement has no place in terms of your complying with the laws of the State of California by way of your prosecution?

MS. DA: That is correct, Your Honor.

DANIEL: So she is denying that use of the abatement for over 15O years is... doesn't pertain to her in law?

COURT: Essentially, in terms of this criminal prosecution, is that your position?

MS. DA: That is correct, from the District attorney's standpoint in the State of California.

[*Comment: Note the words used by MS. DA, "in the State of California." That is an acknowledgment that "the State of California" is void of True Law, because "the State of California" is a fiction. And the judge goes on to admit that manmade law is separate from God, and that the bible of the State of California is written by its legislators; and Daniel pushes the envelope:]

COURT: Okay. The People are proceeding under the laws of the State of California, the Business and Professions Code and the Beastly Municipal Code and the Health and Safety Code. Those are all, granted, manmade laws, the People of the State of California, as in the Penal Code, which is a book that has been written by the legislators. And that is how they are proceeding, and they --

DANIEL: I believe I said before it was written in her... their law that no law is a perpetual law... that no human law can be perpetual...

COURT: Okay.

DANIEL: ...and any law... it is also written in their law that any law contrary to the law of God is no law at all, so, I mean...

[*Comment: We see here that Daniel, even though he has already agreed to accept their offer, continues to speak with boldness and does not back-off from bringing the Truth to bear down on them. This whole discourse is a sign that the Holy Spirit is moving both sides. In the following discourse, the judge first interrupts Daniel, and then reverts to her "reasoning." But she gives recognition of the substance of what Daniel has brought to the courtroom, in a round-about and dodging way. It is all quite double-minded:]

COURT: Let me just go ahead and make my ruling at this time because -- and state for the record the Court's reasoning. My understanding of the abatement is -- what you have put on the record and quite articulately today -- that it is not lawful for the People to proceed with these laws against you and that the fact that they were served with the abatement, essentially, would have required them to cease and desist in the prosecution. And that is simply not the criminal procedure in the State of California. It does not require that they cease and desist with their prosecution. They are not required to do so, nor were they required to respond to your abatement in writing.

First of all, the abatement that was filed in June preceded the case even being filed. They have a one-year statute of limitations on the case. They are not required to file the case immediately. And it is my job to follow the law of the State of California in terms of the criminal procedures that apply in criminal proceedings. The Court, obviously, received the documents, which were placed in the court file, prior to the case being filed, but they, obviously, were maintained by the clerk's office, and then when they finally came through, they were placed in the file. You again filed the motion on October 11th, which I also have --

[*Comment: The judge continues to try to categorize the Abatement as a filing. She does this for the COURTS own purposes.]

DANIEL: That is... I gave it to you because you said you had not received it or had not been served.

THE COURT: And it may be because... I also note there was no file stamp or tab. It wasn't tabbed. The other information wasn't tabbed. That is what I am used to seeing is a little piece of colorful paper. My apologies. Looks like it was in the court file. What you served was file-stamped. The document you served needed to be file-stamped. You have done what you need to do to preserve your record in this case.

DANIEL: Yes. So the Court is saying that the law of God and the law of the land are not one and the same, and both do not preserve and favor the land or...

[Comment: Here, he continues to press the question, seeing if she is sincere in what she has said, or whether she is just giving him lip-service.]

COURT: I don't want to...

DANIEL: You are not bringing that in.

THE COURT: I am not bringing in the... because the facts of your case involve alleged use of herbal medication to heal people. When you talk about the law of the land and what is right, I am not passing any judgment on that. I am simply dealing with the criminal procedure.

DANIEL: Yes. The Court doesn't decide decisions that would be outside their jurisdiction is what you are saying.

COURT: Correct.

[*Comment: Again, Daniel keeps the pressure on. With every question he asks, the answer given by the judge can be learned from. Forced to follow her court procedure, the remainder of the record speaks for itself.]

DANIEL: It would be political.

COURT: That is correct. It would only be before the Court if there were a court trial in the case and I were to hear the facts of the case, and at that point if I were then required to apply the law to the facts, then I would be in a position of having to rule on that issue.

But the fact of the matter is the People are willing to dismiss the charges relating to the practice of medicine and at this point are willing to do so provided you enter a plea of guilty or no contest to the license violations, and so since -- if you, in fact, work out that disposition, then that is something that I merely accept as a disposition. And I have indicated to you that I would follow the recommended sentence of the Prosecution, and that would resolve the matter, the sentencing being the probation and not to operate a business without a license.

DANIEL: And the probation stays here? I do not have to report to anyone?

COURT: No. No.

DANIEL: Okay.

COURT: So based upon the arguments that you have made on the abatement, that at this point is denied without prejudice. And when I say "without prejudice," what that means is if the case is not resolved today, then you can raise that as an issue later. If the case is resolved, then everything is off the table. But, procedurally, that is the proper way for me to do it, okay?

So having denied that motion without prejudice, is it your desire to accept the People's offer at this time?

DANIEL: I will accept the People's offer.

COURT: Okay. I am going to go over your Constitutional rights. I will do it orally.

DANIEL: If the Court assumes that I have Constitutional rights, they can also assume to waive them. I do not claim any Constitutional rights.

COURT: Okay. I...

DANIEL: But you may...

COURT: As a practice, I have to do this, so I am going to go ahead and do it.

All right. You have the right to have an attorney. If you can't afford to have an attorney, I would appoint one for you free of charge. You have the right to have a jury trial or a court trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to present a defense and the right to remain silent. Do you understand and give up those rights?

DANIEL: I do.

COURT: With your rights in mind, how do you plead to Count III, which alleges a violation of the Beastly Municipal Code, and Count IV, which alleges a violation of the Health and Safety Code? Count III alleges conducting a business without a license. Count IV alleges no food permit. Guilty or no contest?

DANIEL: No contest.

COURT: Sir, I find that you have expressly, knowingly, understandingly and intelligently waived your Constitutional rights. I find that your plea has been freely. and voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature and consequences thereof, and there is a factual basis for the plea.

At this time I am going to go ahead and impose sentence. Imposition of sentence is suspended. You're granted a conditional sentence for three years on the following terms and conditions. That is the informal probation.

You are ordered to serve three days in the Los Angeles County Jail with credit for three days time served.

You are ordered to pay a restitution fine of $100. That is waived because of the County Jail sentence that you served.

You are ordered to obey all laws and orders of the Court.

And you are ordered not to conduct business in the City of Beastly without a valid business license.

Do you understand and accept these terms and conditions?

DANIEL: I do.

COURT: All right. Are Counts I and II relating to the practice of medicine dismissed?

MS. DA: People so move.

COURT: Excuse me. On People's motion, Counts I and II are dismissed. And if you would have a seat, Deputy Stevens will give you the documents here. And since this case has been resolved by way of a plea agreement, then the motion regarding the abatement is something that, also, is off the table. I denied it without prejudice. Now that the case has been resolved, essentially, the status we are in now is the probationary status, and it is ended but for the probation, the order not conducting business without a permit. Okay. Anything else?

DANIEL: Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record)

The following is an account of what was said off the the record and some additional thoughts, in our Brother Daniel's own words:

"I believe the Holy Spirit led me in what I said on and off the record to the judge. This is for those who would like to know what was said off the record.

I spoke directly to the judge. I told her that I have been praying for her for her, and praying that her judgment would be a righteous judgment as God would have led her to make. I told her that I know that her job is not easy, and prayed that God would bless her with the strength and wisdom to do it well, and that God continue to bless her.

I believe that the judge is born again, or well on her way. I know that she was under some political pressure from the city, and the from the court that she works in.

I could have gone to trial, and most likely been victorious by and through our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, having had all of the charges dropped. I believe though that it worked out according to God's Will, and each one learned the lessons or heard the words that God wanted us to learn and hear.

I thought that I had also made mistakes, and I thank God that the two main charges were dismissed. I also knew that there would be much more stress put on my family and I if I was to wait forty-five more days for the main trial.

I am so glad that God is True to His Word, and is always with His children in times of trouble."

[In the aftermath of these proceedings, Daniel was mildly harassed by the Beastly Police Department from time to time. It was usually in the form of them driving by the house where he stays from time to time, and turning on their bubble-gum machine and giving a quick siren whistle. That has now ceased.

He continues to minister God's herbs for healing to those that are in need of them.

He has not heard from the judge.]

Identification

by Randy Lee

There have been several Brothers around the country that have called here to inform me that, since the carnage in New York, there appears to be several moves by the news media to promote the National Identification Card. And we are beginning to see more and more of "the great defender of Civil Liberties," Allen Dershowitz, promoting this card to be "mandatory."

Additionally, Time Magazine, and all of the major T.V. news stations (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX) have sent their correspondents over to The State of Israel to interview different "residents" there who have been living under the "threat of terrorism," and the "importance" of their National I.D. Cards (which they all have to have) in fighting terrorism. In every single case, the reports had these "residents" saying that it was good in the "long run," and that after a while, "you get use to it."

Therefore, the following article is written to remind our Brothers and Sisters that if these "mandatory" cards come about, they are for the natural man, only.

We hope the following, and the traffic stop scenario at the end of this article will give some information on the implications of "Identification"

Firstly, we must remember that as we are confronted by the natural man to provide some type of identification, we can only fend off their poisoned fruit in accordance with the following:

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" Ephesians 6:10-17

The State/National Identification Card

Though "the powers that be" may use necessity ("necessity knows no law") to justify a "mandatory" National Identification Card, their own "law" points out to them that it can only be forced upon the natural man, and prohibits them from using their "necessity" against the Christ's Lawful assembly:

"Non debet dici tendere in praejudicium ecclesiasticae liberatatis quod pro rege et republica necessarium videntur --That which seems necessary for the king and the state ought not to be said to tend to the prejudice of spiritual liberty [*the liberty in and of the Christ's assembly/elect]." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), p. 1201.

Note that in the Latin, "ecclesiasticae liberatatis" does not mean "spiritual liberty," but literally "the liberty of the ekklesia," our Lord's Elect.

And God's Perfect Order verifies the above maxim:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (KJV) (see Isaiah 52:11).

The Metaphysics of Identity

As will become obvious further along, the natural man's "law of identification" is based on "the philosophy" of metaphysics, or the rudiments of the world's outward appearance:

"Metaphysics. n. Those things which relate to external nature; natural. The primary meaning of metaphysics is derived from those discussions by Aristotle which he himself called the First Philosophy or Theology, and deal with the nature of being. Later, metaphysics was understood as the science of the supersensible." Webster's International Dictionary (1935), p. 1360.

And we must remember what we have been told about philosophy, and where our "identity" is found:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power:" Colossians 2:8-10

The following will make it clear that the whole scam of identification is based on the vain imagination of men:

The Philosophy & Sophistry of Identity

From Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), pp. 65-68:

"In trying to arrive at the nature of Identity we are forced to a certain extent to discuss Metaphysics: this is unavoidable, and it is the neglect of what Metaphysics teaches which has in our opinion led to the confusion and contradictions on the subject which exist in the law.
"We shall begin by insisting on a few propositions: viz. (1) that you cannot be aware of identity unless you have also diversity; (2) that you cannot ask whether a thing is generally the same, but you must confine your questions to a certain aspect of it; (3) that we select that aspect to suit our interests, and such interests are usually practical [*pragmatism]; (4) that identity or the relation of sameness is ideal, it lies in the view we take of things, and not in the nature of things themselves; (5) that the word 'same' is used ambiguously and that it is a different problem when we ask whether an individual remains the same, and when we ask whether two things are the same.
"(1) the first proposition applies whether we are speaking of the resemblance of two things or of the continuous identity of one. 'In order that the mind may perceive the resemblance of two images,' says Binet, 'they must differ a little; if they do not, they become added together and form a single image.' [Binet, Psychology of Reasoning, p. 120.]Professor Sully writes: 'The visual recognition of a thing as identical with something previously perceived takes place by help of the idea of persistence. (It involves) the comparison of successive impressions and the detection of similarity and diversity of change. Thus a child learns to recognize his hat, etc., by discounting a certain amount of dissimilarity.' [Sully, Outlines of Psychology, p. 155.]
"(2) If the persistence is in the object itself, this implies a sameness of character attaching to the thing itself, i.e. a qualitative sameness, and further the avoidance of any absolute break in its existence. When, however, it is asked in what the sameness of quality consists, it will be found that no reply can be given, unless the point or particular aspect of which you were thinking is specified. A general reply cannot be given because we do not know the general character which is taken to make the thing's essence; it is not always material substance, nor shape, nor size, nor color. The identity lies really in the view we take of it, and that view is often a mere chance idea; the character therefore lies outside of and beyond the fact taken [*void of truth].
"(3) How then do we determine in what respect we shall ask of thing whether it is the same or not? Professor Stout seems to have answered this question in his remarks on what he calls 'thinghood.' It depends on interest: we take what answer for practical purposes as real, identical, etc.: on the perceptual level this interest is purely practical. It is the interest of the moment which determines how we look at a thing, and we look at it differently, according to the fluctuation of interest. [Stout, Manual of Psychology, pp. 327 et seq.] And this is why we say that the rule of convenience is the one to be followed in deciding whether events belong to the same transaction or not. Our interest here is solely as to how we shall dispose judicially of the charges brought against the accused in the most convenient manner, and the considerations which chiefly influence us are whether the same witnesses can speak to all the charges and whether those charges can be kept separate before the mind without risk of confusion or prejudice, if they are taken together. The fact that the events happened at different times and places and such like reasons are irrelevant in themselves save in so far as they hinder or promote our convenience.To seek to convert such reasons into an objective general test of identity and difference seems to us to be both meaningless and irrational.
(4)The relation of Similarity to Identity will now be described. 'Similarity,' says Bradley, 'is nothing in the world but more or less unspecified sameness.' 'The feeling that two things are similar need not imply the perception of the identical point, but none the less this feeling is based always on partial sameness,' [Bradley, op. cit., p. 348, and note 1.] and elsewhere he says that Resemblance is the perception of the more or less unspecified identity of two distinct things. It differs from Identity in its lowest form, i.e. where things are taken as the same without specific awareness of the point of sameness and distinction or that from the diversity, because it implies the distinct consciousness that the two things are two and different. It differs again from Identity in a more explicit form because it is of the essence of Resemblance that the point or points of sameness should remain at least partly undistinguished and unspecified. And, further, the feeling which belongs to the experience of similarity is different from that which belongs to the experience of sameness proper. But resemblance is based always on partial sameness, though the specific feeling of resemblance is not itself the partial identity which it involves, and partial identity need not imply likeness proper at all. The writer is aware that this view is disputed by more than one philosopher: they hold that Resemblance is not based on Identity, but is an ultimate idea, or even that Identity is based on Resemblance. This Binet writes, 'to explain the resemblance between two states or by a partial identity of their elements simplifies nothing at all. For it replaces the idea of resemblance by the ideas of Identity and unity which are merely its derivatives. Resemblance is a single, ultimate, and irreducible idea.' [Binet, op. cit., p. 129.] Similarly Professor James says, 'So here any theory that would base likeness on identity, and not rather identity on likeness must fail;' again, 'likeness must not be conceived as a special complication of identity, but rather that identity must be conceived as a special degree of likeness,likeness and difference are ultimate relations perceived. As a matter of fact, no two sensations, no two objects of all those we know, are in scientific rigor identical. We call those of them identical whose difference is unperceived. Over and above this we have a conception of absolute sameness, it is true, but this, like so many of our conceptions, is an ideal construction got by following a certain direction of serial increase to its maximum supposable extreme. It plays an important part among other permanent meanings possessed by us in our ideal intellectual constructions. But it plays no part whatever in explaining psychologically how we perceive likenesses between simple things.' [W. James, Principles of Psychology, vol. I, pp. 532-533.] We remember to have read in a judgment of one of the Indian High Courts (unfortunately we cannot now give the reference) that the judges considered the case was not proved because the evidence only established likeness and not identity, and it is no uncommon thing to hear evidence given that a witness can swear that two things or two persons are very like, but he will not swear that they are the same: such testimony is usually considered to fall short of an identification. Now if identity is based on resemblance, what more is required than the assertion that two things are very like? It is the fact that such questions arise in law that is our excuse for pursuing this controversy concerning Resemblance and Identity a little further. The position of the one side is that Identity is nothing more than a special degree of resemblance with the difference between the two objects unperceived; the contention of the other is that all resemblance is partial identity, but the points of sameness are not fully specified, and that terms such as 'exact likeness' and 'precise similarity' are misleading. For as soon as you have removed all internal difference, and resemblance is carried to such a point that perceptible difference ceases, then you have identity. As soon as you begin to analyze resemblance you get something else than it, and when you argue from resemblance, what you use is not resemblance, but the point of resemblance, and a point of resemblance [*I.D. Card] is clearly identity.
"The physiological explanation, when one state of consciousness is said to revive a similar state, doubtless is that the two similar states have a numerically single nerve element as their basis; the two images consist of a common cell element in vibration and this is called an identity of seat. [Binet, op. cit. pp. 125, 126.] This appears to us to point to identity being the ultimate state. But for the purpose of discussion it seems clear that what is really the important matter is the amount of difference which is perceived; and we think that in most cases when a witness is able to swear to great likeness, in the absence of any specified points of difference it should be accepted as an identification even though the witness shrinks from using that term. If an advocate persists in asking, 'Will you swear that they are the same?' many witnesses will answer, 'No,' and on paper and to the unreflecting mind this will considerably weaken the effect of the evidence. Such an advocate should be asked in his turn to define what he means by 'same,' and if he attempts to do this, it will soon become apparent that his question as so addressed is not one that can be fairly given the direct answer, Yes or No. If the witness attempts to give any other response, he is often charged with prevarication, whereas it is not his fault that he does so, but the form of his interrogator's question compels him to do it. In a case, e.g., of the identification of stolen goods, the magistrate should not be influenced so much by the use of the words 'like' and 'same,' but should rather get from the witness the points in which he is able to say that the objects correspond and those in which he is able to say that they differ. 'Two objects are similar,' says Wundt, 'when certain of their characteristics correspond, while others are different;' and perfect likeness--to indicate which the term 'identity' is sometimes used--whether of quality or of intensity, must be estimated [*height, weight, birth date, etc.] for practical purposes by indistinguishableness when attention is closely directed to the two objects.
"(5) At the same time it must be remarked that difference is not always fatal to identity. But here we are using 'identity' in another sense. A quotation will explain this: 'Real identity,' says Dr. Ward, 'no more involves exact similarity than exact similarity involves sameness of things; on the contrary, we are wont to find the same thing alter with time so that exact similarity after an interval, so far from suggesting one thing, is often the surest proof that there are two concerned. Of such real identity, then, it would seem we must have direct experience; and we have it in the continuous presentation of the bodily self.;The same writer points out the ambiguity in the word 'same' whereby it means either individual identity or indistinguishable resemblance: in the former we have mere relation, for two individuals partially coincide.Resemblance itself may be fatal to identification, when the law of being is changed." Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), pp. 65-68.

And we must remember that there is only "a presumption of identity," and we know that all presumptions are rebuttable:

Presumption of Identity of Person from Identity of Name

"Identity of name, in the absence of all other proof on the subject, raises a presumption in civil cases of identity of person. A good illustration of the value of this presumption may be found in Doherty v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 166 N.Y.S. 838. In this case, the defendant claimed that the policy sued on had been avoided by a misrepresentation on the part of the insured in stating that he had never been under treatment in a sanitarium. The defendant proved that 'James Doherty' had spent three weeks in a certain sanitarium. Plaintiff did not offer any evidence[*did not rebut], and the court ruled that, since identity of name is prima facie evidence of identity of person [*which is rebuttable], the evidence was sufficient to show that the insured had been an inmate of the sanitarium.
"This presumption is very much strengthened when there is a similarity of residence or trade or circumstances, or where the name is unusual. Layton v. Kraft, 111 App.Div. 842, 846, 98 N.Y.S. 72, 75. See, also, Matter of Orange, 272 N.Y. 61, 4 N.E.2d 417.
"The rule is naturally much less liberal in criminal prosecutions. Thus, in People v. Reese, 258 N.Y. 89, 179 N.E. 305, 306, 79 A.L.R. 1329, the court said: 'Identity of name is not always sufficient in a criminal prosecution to show identity of person, but it may be accepted as sufficient if fortified by circumstances [*and not rebutted].' See, also, People v. Rubin, 286 N.Y. 56, 59, 35 N.E.2d 649, 650; People v. Sellinger, 265 N.Y. 149, 191 N.E. 969; Ayers v. Ratchesky, 213 Mass. 589, 101 N.E. 78; note, 85 A.L.R. 1104." Richardson on Evidence (1964), pp. 59-60.

Who's Mark do you bear?

"CHARACTER, distinctive mark xiv; graphic symbol xv; sum of mental and moral qualities xvii; personage, personality xviii. ME. caracter--(O)F. caractere--(mostly late) L. character--Gr. kharakter instrument for marking, impress, distinctive nature, f. khardssein(:-kharakj-) sharpen, furrow, scratch, engrave, prob. F. base meaning 'scratch.' So characteristic xvii. --F. caracteristique --late Gr. kharakteristikos; characterical and -istical were earlier. char-acterize. xvi. --F. Or medL. --late Gr." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 163.
"PERSONATE. In criminal law. To assume the person (outward character) of another, without his consent or knowledge, in order to deceive others, and, in such feigned character, to fraudulently do some act or gain some advantage [*free passage], to the harm or prejudice of the person counterfeited. 2 East, P.C. 1010. To pass one's self off as another having a certain identity. Lane v. U.S., C.C.A.Ohio, 17 F.2d 923." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

We must remember that all identification cards contain the nom de guerre (name in all capital letters), which is not you, but assigned to you for commercial and military purposes:

"Nom. 1679. [Fr., 'name.'] Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name; esp. A. Nom de guerre, lit. 'war-name,' a name assumed by, or assigned to, a person engaged in some action or enterprise. B. Nom de plume, lit. 'pen-name,' a name assumed by a writer." The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles (1933), page 1333.

Identification Card is for verifying 14th Amendment Citizenship

from Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 12-13.

"A member of a State may be either a citizen, occupying the status entitled 'citizenship,' or he may be a resident alien, occupying the status designated by the title 'residence.' A citizen is a permanent member of the State, owes it allegiance at all times [*"No man can serve two masters."], and is entitled to its permanent protection whether he is at home or abroad. The status of his membership ('citizenship') is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth (jus soli), by the nationality of his parents (jus sanguinis), by his election (voluntary choice), or by some form of naturalization [*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside."--Fourteenth Amendment, section one.]." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 12-13.

Fourteenth Amendment, section one.

"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94.
"[She] assumed a legal identity other than `freeman' when she availed herself of the privilege of driving on public thoroughfares. Having availed herself of that privilege, she does, indeed, have the duty to specifically perform in accordance with the laws of the state." Molko v. Milton Birnbaum, L-35855, Decision on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated May 27, 1982 in the 3rd District Court in Canyon County, Idaho, PPP.

Possible response at the traffic stop,

or other occasions of inquiry:

When approached, greet the inquirer with: Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. Do you greet me in the same Name? (This sets the state of the forum, i.e., draws a line in the sand.)

If the answer is negative:

Question:"Let me see your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance."

Response:"I have something better. I have the Law of our Father and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I herewith serve you with His Blessed and Holy Writ with Warrant from our Lord." and hand him your Bible; and ask, "I am a bondman and prisoner of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, executing His Testament. Are you? (If the answer is no:) In whose name or under whose authority do you act? I have sent you greetings from our, to exercise Ministerial powers in this matter." If he begs the question then declare that "The maxims of Law state that the cause of the church is a public cause, and private interpretation is irrelevant."

Question:"What is your name?"

Response:"I don't have a name. Names are the notes, symbols or marks of things, given by only those in Authority to those in subjection. No man has authority over the Christ's bondmen, for it is written in the Law of our Father that, 'Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.' And is it not written in your law, 'That which seems necessary for the king and the state ought not to be said to tend to the prejudice of the liberty of the ekklesia.' I have a name known only by my Father, written in His Book of Life."

Question:"Do you have any identification?"

Response:"My Father has numbered the very hairs on my head, and I am more valuable to him than the birds of the air. Therefore He knows Me. In His Law there is no requirement for identification, because I am sealed by His Holy Spirit, which marks and separates me from natural persons. Identification is for the natural man, for it is written, 'The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for it is foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."

Question:"That is all well and good. But you have to understand, you must have a license or some kind of identification when you are out here on the roads."

Response:"By the Law of My Father, I can do all things in Christ which strengtheneth me, and I am not out here hurting any body, and I have not hurt any body. I was doing the will of My Father, in whom there is no evil or evil intent in executing the Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, being appointed co-executor of His Testament. And by His Law no identification is required, for He has already identified Me, by the testimony I keep. As I have witnessed to you, only (choose one): One, lawless forms of humanity; or, Two, natural persons--must have some sort of identification."

Question:"Where do you live?"

Response:"I live, move, and have my being in Jesus the Christ, which is wherever the Lord directs me to be according to His Will and Pleasure. You are welcome to come and see."

Question:"Where is your home, residence, abode, domicile, or dwelling?"

Response:"I am a sojourner on the land, and have no home."

Question:"Where do you receive your mail?"

Response:"I do not receive mail. I call for First-Class matter from time to time on behalf of the Christ's assembly at........posted to us in the general post-office at ............"

Question:"When were you born?"

Response:"I don't know. Only my Father knows that and He has never told me."

Question:"How old are you?"

Response:"Again, I don't know. Only my Father knows that and He has never told me. And to venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based on speculation or hearsay, which has no truth."

Question:"Where were you born?"

Response:"Again, I don't know. I was not conscious at the time and my Father has never told me. Again, it would be speculation or hearsay, which have no truth, and I therefore can not engage in."

Question:"Where do you plan to return?"

Response:"I do not know. Our Lord tends me as a Shepherd and leads me as He will and I follow Him because I hear His Voice, and a stranger's voice I do not hear. My Father directs my comings and goings during my sojourn here with Him."

Question:"Please sign the ticket."

Response:"I cannot sign that paper, because I am appointed executor of the Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ in subjection and bondage to His completely overriding Superior and Dominant Will. By Law, I cannot make engagements that bind either myself, or Him to any obligation whatsoever. I have no warrant from Him in His Law to do so, and I am specifically forbidden from doing so in His Law."

Though the questions and responses are not always the same, we must remember to always bring the Truth to them. We are the children of the One True Living God, not the State.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

BOLD, BOLDNESS, BOLDLY

from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

A. Verbs.

1. tharreo ^2292^, a later form of tharseo (see CHEER, COMFORT), is connected with thero, "to be warm" (warmth of temperament being associated with confidence); hence, "to be confident, bold, courageous"; RV, invariably, "to be of good courage"; <2 Cor. 5:6,8> (KJV, "to be confident"); <7:16> (KJV, "to have confidence"); <10:1-2> (KJV, "to be bold"); <Heb. 13:6>, KJV, "boldly"; RV, "with good courage" (lit., "being courageous"). See COURAGE.

2. parrhesiazomai ^3955^, "to speak boldly, or freely," primarily had reference to speech (see B, below), but acquired the meaning of "being bold, or waxing bold," <1 Thes. 2:2>; in <Acts 13:46>, RV, "spake out boldly" (the aorist participle here signifies "waxing bold"); <Acts 9:27,29>, "preached boldly" (see also <18:26; 19:8>); in <26:26>, "speak freely." See FREELY.

3. tolmao ^5111^ signifies "to dare to do, or to bear, something terrible or difficult"; hence, "to be bold, to bear oneself boldly, deal boldly"; it is translated "be bold" in <2 Cor. 10:2>, as contrasted with tharreo in <verse 1>, and the first line of <verse 2>, "shew courage" (see No. 1, above); in <10:12>, RV, "are not bold to," for KJV, "dare not make ourselves of." Tharreo denotes confidence in one's own powers, and has reference to character; tolmao denotes boldness in undertaking and has reference to manifestation (Thayer). See COURAGE, DARE.

4. apotolmao ^662^, apo (intensive), with No. 3, means "to be very bold, to speak out boldly," and is used in <Rom. 10:20>.#

B. Noun.

parrhesia ^3954^, from pas, "all," rhesis, "speech" (see A, No. 2), denotes (a), primarily, "freedom of speech, unreservedness of utterance," <Acts 4:29,31; 2 Cor. 3:12; 7:4; Philem. 8>; or "to speak without ambiguity, plainly," <John 10:24>; or "without figures of speech," <John 16:25>; (b) "the absence of fear in speaking boldly; hence, confidence, cheerful courage, boldness, without any connection necessarily with speech"; the RV has "boldness" in the following; <Acts 4:13; Eph. 3:12; 1 Tim. 3:13; Heb. 3:6; 4:16; 10:19,35; 1 John 2:28; 3:21; 4:17; 5:14>; (c) the deportment by which one becomes conspicuous, <John 7:4; 11:54>, acts openly, or secures publicity, <Col. 2:15>. See CONFIDENCE, OPENLY, PLAINNESS.

C. Adverb.

tolmeroteros ^5112^, the comparative degree of tolmeros, means "the more boldly," <Rom. 15:15>; in some texts, tolmeroteron. Cf. A, No. 3.# Cf. tolmetes, "presumptuous"; RV, "daring," <2 Pet. 2:10>.#" Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

Bits and Pieces

Let the Dead bury the Dead

In September of 2001, as George W. Bush announced that American Military Forces were being launched in order to capture Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive," he stated that in this pursuit--"my will be done."

Many centuries earlier, there was a fellow-human being of George's that made virtually the same statement, only using more words to say the same thing.

Incidentally, this fellow-human being of George's is Assur-Nasir-Pal, one of the many rulers of ancient Assyria. He has now been dead and buried these many centuries, but it would appear that George caught the essence of his spirit:

"And now at the command of the great gods, my sovereignty, my dominion, and my power, are manifesting themselves; I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored; I am glorified, I am preeminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic.

I, Assur-Nasir-Pal, the mighty king, the king of Assyria, chosen of Sin, favorite of Anu, beloved of Adad (Baal), mighty one among the gods. I am the merciless weapon that strikes down the land of his enemies...." Quoted in Crane Brinton's 'A History of Western Morals' (1959), page 48.

Meaningful Death

In 1973, a group of human beings got together and rewrote the First Humanist Manifesto from the earlier depression years. They set their sights on this century. It explains the "human spirit' and its vain imaginations in a nutshell:

"No deity will save us, we must save ourselves."

"The next century can and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerate social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life span, significantly modify our behaviour [*B.F. Skinner was one of the signatories], alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life." Humanist Manifesto II, page 5.

The Religion of Humanitarianism

"If humanism is the theological arm of the Religion of Humanity, the ethical arm is humanitarianism. This term is usually thought simply to mean the practice of doing good for people who need help, and in recent years it has attracted the support of Christians to diverse humanitarian projects that seem to have the same goals that the Christian church has always espoused. That is an unfortunate example of the way changing linguistic practice can obscure the truth. Once we penetrate the surface resemblances, it becomes apparent that to link humanitarianism with Christian social action is wholly untenable. they are completely at odds with one another, as we should expect: two systems of thought that have opposing views of what man is must have very different theories of how he is to be served.

Humanitarianism was the term originally applied to the followers of a group of eighteenth-century theologians who affirmed the humanity of but denied the deity of Christ. It was later used when speaking of the Religion of Humanity, and it carries the subsidiary meaning of the worship of the human race. It is only recently that humanitarianism has come to imply almost exclusively the doing of good deeds that help people. That recent usage should not be allowed to obscure the origins and motivations of humanitarianism. It is above all a religious term." Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society (1983), pp. 51-52

Only if the Lord Wills, I will!

"The test of a legally enforceable promise at common law is whether it is supported by consideration. Consideration is the price bargained for and paid for a promise. It may consist of an act, a forbearance or a return promise. The test of a sufficient consideration is whether the act, forbearance or return promise results in a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. By this is meant legal, not actual or economic, benefit or detriment. If as the bargained-for price of the promise the promisee has done or promised to do any act or suffered any forbearance, no matter how slight or inconsequential, on which he was not already legally bound, he has suffered a legal detriment. Furthermore, the mere possibility of detriment bargained for will be sufficient consideration to support a promise." Stevens, Contracts (1954), page 87.

The Incorruptible Ones

"They refuse to perform police duties, because in doing so they must use force against their brothers. They refuse to take part in trials at law, because they consider every appeal to man's law as fulfilling the law of vengeance. They refuse to take part in military preparations and in the army, because they cannot be executioners, and they are unwilling to prepare themselves to be so.

What are governments to do against such people.

To buy them over with bribes is impossible; the very risks to which they expose themselves show that they are incorruptible." Leo Tolstoy, writing about the Christ's Elect in Russia in 1894, from his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You."

Hail Caesar Sr.!!

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance." President George Herbert Walker Bush, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, February 1, 1992.

Issue the Fifty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Law of Slaves, Part One...

The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world compared, Part One...

The Hundreds of England...

War Power...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Law of Slaves

Part One

by Randy Lee

We have made mention on the radio from time to time of "The Law of Slaves," but have never gone into detail concerning the implications of it as it pertains to the doulos (bondman) of Jesus the Christ. We hope and pray that the following will shed some light on the subject, and further reveal the Perfection of our Father's Order and how His Truth reigns eternal.

We must begin by bringing to remembrance that all men are under "involuntary servitude" to He Who created them. We were all made to serve His Purpose:

"Yea, rather, O man, who art thou that answerest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why madest me thou thus? Or has not authority the potter over the clay, out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God willing to shew wrath, and to make known his power, bore in much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he before prepared for glory, us whom also he called not only from among [the] Jews, but also from among [the] nations?" Romans 9:20-23

It is clear that many of His vessels serve Him disobediently by following another master (Matthew 6:24), and that there is always a remnant of His vessels that serve Him obediently (Revelation 22:14); but either way both serve His purpose--some for a short time, and others for an extended duration; either way, that time is His gift of life to His vessels. As we know, only those who follow His expressed Will "shall have right to the Tree of Life."

This record will not concern itself with the "disobedient" ones that take that gift of life, and, seeking the rudiments of the world, "voluntarily" serve other gods, "which are no gods"; but will concern itself with His obedient ones who serve Him only, continually seeking the Riches of His Glory, Mercy, and Blessings.

In the King James version of the "New Testament," the word "servant" appears 82 times. These 82 instances are derived from 5 different types of servants in the original Greek. In the English, they are doulos, diakonos, therapon, oiketes, and pais.

Speaking broadly, doulos views a servant in relation to his master [for one is your master, even Christ]; diakonos, in relation to his work; therapon, in relation to the dignity and freedom of serving his master [used of Moses in Hebrews 3:5]; oiketes, as a household servant; and pais, as a boy (child) household servant. (For further meaning and derivatives of the words translated "servant," see Issue the Thirty-fifth, page four).

When speaking of the bondman of Jesus the Christ or the involuntarily dependant and voluntarily obedient slave under his worldly master, and their inter-connection to and protection under "The Law of Slaves," it is the station of doulos that we speak of.

Doulos is defined by Trench, in part, as:

"Of the five Greek words translated "servant" in the New Testament, doulos is the most common word. It designates one who, (a) was born into his condition of slavery, (b) one bound to his master as his slave, (c) one who was in a permanent relationship to his master, which relationship could only be broken by death, (d) one whose will was swallowed up in the will of his master [*1 Corinthians 7:23], and (e) one who served his master even to the extent that he disregarded his own interests [*Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:44]. This word was used in the first century as a designation of a class of slaves that represented a most abject, servile condition.
The verb douleuo which has the same root as doulos, therefore having the same implications, and which means, (a) to be a slave, (b) to serve, (c) to do service, (d) to obey, and (e) to submit to, -- in a good sense meaning, "to obey one's commands and render to him the services due," is found in Acts 7:6; Romans 6:18, 22; I Corinthians 7:15, 9:19; Galatians 4:3; Titus 2:3; and II Peter 2:19. It is translated either by the word "servant" or "bondage," together with the accompanying verb, and in Titus 2:3 by the word "given" [*wholly given up to, enslaved to (Vine)]." Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament.

And from Zodhiates, in part:

"Doulos; A slave, one who is in a permanent relation of servitude to another, his will being altogether consumed in the will of the other (Matt. 8:9; 20:27; 24:45-46). Generally one serving, bound to serve, in bondage (Rom. 6:16, 17).
Metaphorically spoken of voluntary service, a servant, implying obedience, devotion (John 15:15; Romans 6:16). Spoken of the true followers and worshipers of God, e.g., a servant of God, as Moses (Rev. 15:3; see Josh. 1:1) or prophets (Rev. 10:7; 11:18; Septuagint: Josh. 24:29; Jer. 7:25), or simply of the worshipers of God (Rev. 2:20; 7:3; 19:5; Septuagint: Psalm 34:22; 134:1); the [*true] followers and ministers of Christ (Eph. 6:6; 2 Tim. 2:24); especially applied to the Apostles (Romans 1:1; Gal. 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1; Jude 1:10." Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Dictionary, pp. 483-484.

And from Vincent:

"Doulos, from to bind, is the bondman, representing the permanent relation of servitude." Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. I, page 112.

Although the natural man abolished slavery and involuntary servitude between man and man in 1865 by the implementation of the 13th Amendment to their Constitution, they were not able to abolish the law of slaves. Why? Because that law goes back before the "legal memory" of man, having been applied to the servants of Almighty God, and therefore could not be touched. They can, on paper, abolish the worldly condition of slavery, but not the law governing it, or the Spiritual Law (God's Order) from which their law is derived.

Those laws remain the same today as they existed within the Roman Empire of the 1st century, except in one particular, to wit:

"The master did not have the right to take the life of his slave under the Common Law. It has been refused to him since the birth of Christ. Cooper's Justinian, 411.
Pure slavery, that which gives the owner a right over the life of his slave, never did exist in England or any of the American colonies. 1 Blk. Com. 423." Neal v. Farmer, 9 Ga. 555.

From this, we are able to see that the ministers of man's law recognize that the law of slaves (both physical and spiritual) is fully under the dominion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, and that the power of life and death (physical and spiritual) flows only through Him (Matthew 28:18).

Persons and Slaves

Under the "Roman law of slaves," as it pertained to the slave captured in physical warfare, those slaves were not "persons," in the sense of "rights and duties" under the Roman civil law, because they were fully under the dominion of their master as it pertained to contracts, etc. The following is a collection of the precepts of the Roman law of slaves in relation to the Roman courts and their "justice" system. Additionally included are statements from American court cases as pertaining to slavery. Keep in mind, that when the word "rights" is mentioned, it means "privileges."

Lord willing, next month we will examine the implications, contrasts and parallels between the Roman law of slaves and our Father's Law:

"Captives may be slain: to make them slaves is to save their lives; hence they are called servi, ut servati [Greek equivalent: doulos]." Digesta Justiniana 50. 16. 139. 1.
"A servi is a man without rights, viz., without the power of setting the [*Roman] law in motion for his own protection." Inst. Rom. Jur. priv. 121.
"Judgment against a slave is a nullity: it does not bind him or his master." Digesta Justiniana, 5. 1. 44. 1.
"If a man be enslaved his debts cease to bind him, and his liability does not revive if he is manumitted." Digesta Justiniana 28. 8. 1. pr.
"A servi is pro nullo --akin to death in relationship to civil law." Digesta Justiniana 50. 17. 209.
"In personam sevilem nulla cadit obligatio --The slave is not only rightless, he is also dutiless [*in relation to civil law]. Digesta Justiniana 50. 17. 22. pr.
"Quasi nec personum habentes --a slave is incapable of taking part in legal procedure by the fact that he has no persona." Buckland, Roman Law of Slavery, page 4, quoting the Novellae of Theodosius 17. 1. 2.
"Our system of slavery resembles that of the Romans rather than the villenage of the ancient common law, and hence both the community and the courts have looked to the Roman rather than the old common law of England for rules applicable to it. (Neal v. Farmer, 9 Georg. 555; Byrum v. Bostwick, 4 Dess. S. C. 266; Dulany's Opinion, 1 Har. & McHen. R. 561.) Under the former [*Roman] law, slaves were things and not persons; they were not the subjects of civil rights, and of course were incapable of owning property or of contracting legal obligations; they and all that appertained to them belonged to their master, and they were under his dominion. In a word, slavery was then defined to be 'an institution by which one man is made the property of another,' (Just. Inst. lib. 1, tit. 3)... According to the Roman law, although a slave could not acquire any thing for himself, he could acquire for his master;" Douglas v. Richie , 24 Mo. 177.
"The word 'slave' is supposed to have been taken from Sclavi, the name of the Sclavonian race, a common source for slaves in early times; old Dutch slavven (a slave, anyone held as a bond-servant for life; a human being wholly the property of another; one who surrenders himself wholly to any power, as to an appetite, or to the influence of another; a drudge; v. to drudge; to toil unremittingly." Stormouth's Dictionary (1886)
"... a slave can have no rights adverse to those of his master; he can neither sue nor be sued, nor can he make any contract or acquire any rights under a deed which either a court of law or of equity can enforce." Wicks v. Chew, 4 H. & J., 547; State v. Van Lear, 5 Md. 91
"Where they are held and claimed as slaves they are presumed to be slaves." Hall v. Mullin, 5 H. & J., 190; State v. Van Lear, 5 Md. 91
"[These slaves] ..were incapable of making any contract by reason of their bondage," Bigstaff v. Lumpkins, 16 S.W. 449.
"If one having good title to personal property, should transfer it into the possession of a slave, this transfer would not be void; the title would be changed, but the title and possession must be referred to the master (Fable v. Brown, 2 Hill's Ch. 397).
"When the gift was perfected by delivery, the articles became the property of Mr. Devaughn, the slave's master." Devaughn v Heath, 37 Ala. 595.
"A reference to the definitions in the dictionaries of words whose meaning is so thoroughly understood by all seems an affectation, yet in Webster's 'slavery' is defined as 'the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.' Even the secondary meaning given recognizes the fact of subjection, as 'one who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to strong drink, to ambition,' and 'servitude' is by the same authority declared to be 'the state of voluntary or compulsory subjection to a master.' " Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1.

(to be continued next month)

The Words of His Kingdom

and

the words of the world

compared

Part One: Who are you?

written by Richard Anthony

Note: Part One of this article will hopefully begin to weave an intricate set of sequential information and thought, leading to the ultimate point which is intended in Parts Two and Three. I pray it will all begin to light up for you and you'll see where it's heading. It may be laborious for you, but if you follow one step at a time, you'll see how magnificently the truth unfolds. The scripture does place a very high importance on the words we speak...I pray that we do as well. Richard Anthony

Words have a tremendous impact on us. We have been led to believe that words have been re-defined, but upon closer examination, we find the opposite is true. What has been done is that we have adopted the words of the world to describe us, instead of using the words of Christ to define us. Some claim that the words we speak aren't that important. But if it's not important, why does the scripture prohibit "vain babblings" (1 Timothy 6:20, 2 Timothy 2:16) and "evil communications" (1 Corinthians 15:33)?

As in the health of the body, a doctor can often assess our state of health by looking at our tongues, so too in the spiritual realm. James tells us that the way a man uses his tongue is a test of his spirituality (James 1:26). He also says that if a man can control his tongue he is a perfect man (James 3:2). Jeremiah was told by the Lord that he could be God's mouthpiece only if he was careful about the way he used his tongue-if he separated the precious from the vile, in his conversation (Jeremiah 15:19). Therefore, we should be very careful about the words that we choose to speak.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:12-13. [*Emphasis added]

It is so very important, as this verse states, to not speak the words that we have been conditioned to speak by the world, or by what man's wisdom has taught us, but to speak the words which the Holy Spirit has taught us--to speak in a spiritual manner. These words are contained in the scripture, which are for our "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Who Are You?

Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like 'individual,' and 'human being' do not even appear in scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Colossians 3:9-10).

In Balantine's Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal." A Monster is also defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others." From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being means a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."

Furthermore, humanitarianism means "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid." And in Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."

Therefore, when a servant of Christ calls himself or herself a 'human being', they are saying, "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened, and I reject Christ's divinity, i.e., 'He was a good person'. Thomas Boston did not exercise compromise when he wrote about the natural man, or as the law writers also put it, "monster":

"The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584.

And the Word confirms:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws:

Natural Person: "Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: "The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary,1955, p. 216.
"'Natural Person' means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.

Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11); and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man - the ones who receive not the things of the Spirit of God (rejects Christ); and instead receives Satan, the creator of the 'natural person' and the 'natural child' (John 8:44, 1 John 3:8). Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from Satan's dominion over him-sin (John 8:34). This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God - to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.

The difference between Lawful & Legal

'Lawful' has to do with the substance of Law. 'Legal' has to do with the shadow of Law. Similar to how 'character' is distinguished from 'reputation'.

"Character: Character consists of the qualities which constitute the individual, while Reputation is the sum of opinions entertained concerning him. The former is interior; the latter external. The one is the substance; the other the shadow [*fiction]. Character is what a person is. Reputation is what people say about him." Ballentine, Self-Pronouncing Law Dictionary, (1948), page 138.

Reputation means nothing. What people say about you is worthless, because God doesn't care what people say about you, for he knows you and he's not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). Man sees the exterior, God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7, 2 Corinthians 10:7).

How will we know what is "lawful" and what is "legal"? How will we know which is the substance and which is the shadow? By the giver of the Law. If the lawgiver is God then the Law has substance. If the lawgiver is man then the law is a shadow, a fiction, or as it is called in man's law, it's the "color of law."

Legal Personalities

Nouns have substance, verbs do not. Verbs are not substantial, they only indicate action. The substance is in the noun. The word party was previously only a noun, but now it's a verb, now it's an act. Instead of saying, "let's go to a party", we say, "let's party".

Another example is the word 'nice,' which is derived from the Latin 'nescire.' The archaic definition of nice is defined as, "strange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative," etc. When we use the word 'nice' today, we are trying to make clean that which is unclean. But Scripture tells us we can't do that: Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." Nobody can raise the dead back to life. Once something is dead, there is no power of resurrection in us to bring it back out of the grave; only God can do that. So we can't make clean that which is already unclean.

Person vs. Man:

The term person appears in Scripture, but it is not a noun, it only describes the noun. Matthew 22:16, "...for thou regardest not the person of men." 2 Corinthians 2:10, "...the person of Christ." Person means "presence or countenance", it does not means 'man.' Here is scriptural proof that "person" and "man" are not synonymous terms. For if they are synonymous, then God is a liar.

First of all, the scripture is very clear that God is no "respecter of persons" (2 Samuel 14:14, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). God does not respect persons, period!

Now, if the term "person" is synonymous with "man", then there is a contradiction in the scripture, because throughout scripture, God specifically says he does respect man! For example, "the LORD had respect unto Abel" (Genesis 4:4), God had respect "upon the children of Israel" (Exo.2:25, Lev.26:9, 2 Kings 13:23), and God has "respect unto the lowly" (Psalms 138:6).

Second of all, the scripture says that if we have respect of persons, we commit sin and transgress God's Law (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19, Proverbs 24:23, Proverbs 28:21, James 2:1-4, 9). But in the same breath, scripture commands us to honour all men (1 Peter 2:17)! So obviously, persons and men cannot be synonymous terms.

Let us look more closely at Leviticus 19:15. Notice it says ,"thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty." It does not say, "thou shalt not respect the poor, nor honour the mighty," but only the person of the poor and mighty. In other words, we are not to respect someone just because they are the president, or a police officer, or a banker, or a priest, or wealthy. These are the 'persons' of men. We are to respect men because of what's in their hearts, and not because of their image. Jesus did not accept the person of any (Luke 20:21), neither should we.

Another example is in James 2:1-4. Notice these religious people were sinning because they would give the best seats in their assembly to the persons of the rich, and not to the poor. This is discrimination. They were being partial and were giving judgment to the outward circumstances of man and not to their intrinsic merits. They preferred, as the more worthy, one whose "image" or "person" is one that is rich, high born, or powerful, over another who does not have these qualities.

Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
Person: "...not every human being is a person." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.

And man's maxims of law state:

"A slave is not a person" and "A slave, and everything a slave has, belongs to his master."

So, if you are a slave, or a bondservant of Jesus the Christ, you don't fit that description of being the person described in the natural man's statutes. A servant belongs to his master, and our Master is the king of Kings, "For ye are bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20).

Some may object to being called a "slave" because they claim "slavery" was abolished in the US Constitution. This is not true. Only "involuntary servitude" was outlawed (see article XIII), not "voluntary servitude." Forced slavery was outlawed, not the freedom to choose to be an obedient bondman, or slave of and to the Prince of Peace.

After the Civil War, many slaves stayed with and continued to serve their masters...voluntarily. Today, citizens, persons, residents and others of like spirit are "voluntarily serving" Caesar and his "civil" world to their destruction if they do not repent--and the bondmen of Jesus the Christ to eternal life.

In addition, it can be seen that "person" and "man" are not synonymous by the phrase "artificial person." In man's law, this phrase is used to describe corporations and such. But, if we replace the word "person" with "man," look at what we get! "Artificial man." What's an artificial man? Is it a cyborg, a half man half machine, or what? Again, therefore, it becomes obvious that person and man are not synonymous with one another.

Now, the term man is found in scripture, but it has to be qualified. You are a bondman of Christ, but not a natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). Also, you can find the term mankind in scripture, but it refers only to the flesh and has nothing to do with God or His Spirit. Mankind is defined as "all human beings." And all human beings are monsters (as verified in man's law as well).

Home vs. House

Now, let's look at the difference between a home and a house. You will find the word home in Scripture, but it is not a noun, it is an adjective, to wit:

"Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house" Deuteronomy 21:12
"Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house." Luke 9:61

And let's also take a look at 2 Samuel 17:23, "...and gat him home to his house, to his city." Notice this verse is describing something general (home), and then gets more specific (which is in a house, which is in a city). A house and a city are not synonymous, a house is in a city. Likewise, a home is not a house, it is something general inside the house. Also, in scripture, the word "house" is always preceded by a pronoun, which is possessive (i.e. his house, my house, the house, thine house, father's house, brother's house, etc.), whereas the word 'home' is never preceded by these terms.

The following are all the verses in the entire scripture containing both the words "home" and "house" in the same verse. Notice while the word "home" is used in a general sense, the word "house" is always used in a specific, possessive sense:

Genesis 43:16, "...the ruler of his house, Bring these men home."
Genesis 43:26, "And when Joseph came home, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house."
Deuteronomy 21:12, "Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house."
1 Samuel 18:2, "...let him go no more home to his father's house."
2 Samuel 13:7, "Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house."
2 Samuel 17:23, "...and gat him home to his house, to his city,"
1 Chronicles 13:13, "So David brought not the ark home...but carried it aside into the house."
Haggai 1:9, "...and when ye brought it home, I did blow upon it. Why? saith the LORD of hosts. Because of mine house."
Luke 9:61, "...but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house."

All the above verses show that "home" and "house" are not synonymous parts of speech. The substitution of one for the other is incorrect. The natural man has made "home" into a noun for his deceitful purposes. (For further confirmation of this, Cruden's or Strong's Concordance may be used).

When you think about it, do you not say the same thing? We say, "let's go home" but we don't say "Let's go house." Sounds funny, doesn't it? Likewise, we say "it's in his car," or "it's in the car," but we do not say, "it's in car," because a car and a house are physical, specific things which belong to someone. Whereas a "home" is something in general, and does not belong to anyone specifically, which is why "home" is never preceded with a word which designates it as someone's personal property or possession. Therefore, "home" and "house" are not synonymous terms. Man re-defined the word "home" to designate it as a specific, physical thing (a meaning which God never gave to it) so he may acquire jurisdiction over "the home" and its "residents."

It is imperative for the followers of Christ to learn and understand the words, such as 'home,' that the 'heathen/natural men' and 'human beings' have 'incorporated' into their 'created' codes, rules, and regulations. The term home within the Internal Revenue Code, 162(a)(2), is defined as "a taxpayers principle place of business." Ellwein v. US, C.A.N.D., 778 F.2d. 506, 509. And:

"A personmay have his home in one town for the purpose of taxationdomicile for taxation and home are treated synonymously. Thayer v. City of Boston, 124 Mass. 147, 26 Am.Rep. 650.

Anyone who says, "Yes, I have a home" becomes known as a 'person with a home for taxable purposes', a 'resident with a permanent place of business', a 'corporate citizen', a 'consumer', etc. But the bondmen of Christ are actually "home"-less (Matthew 8:20, 1 Corinthians 4:11)! This is scriptural, because we are called to be sojourners (Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Psalms 39:12). The term homeless means "without a permanent place of residence." Bondmen of Christ are here temporarily, we are not here permanently, indefinitely, and without change. We are all here temporarily on God's earth. We are transients and visitors, not residents.

Titles

1 Corinthians 12:28-30 speaks of the gifts of the spirit, such as 'apostles', 'prophets', and 'teachers.' This is not an invitation to call yourself something or give yourself a title, but God gives you the gift to do something. The scripture never uses the title, "the Apostle Paul," it says "Paul, an apostle." (Galatians 1:1, Timothy 1:1). We never read of "Apostle Peter," but "Peter, an apostle." (1 Peter 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:1). Equally, we find the terms 'pastor,' 'shepherd' and 'evangelist,' but we do not find anyone using these terms as a title attached to their name. He's not "Evangelist Phillip," but "Philip, the evangelist" (Acts 21:8). It's not that these are the only gifts you have, because you're only teaching when you are actually teaching. Nobody calls you a sleeper just because you sleep at night, and you probably sleep more than you teach! They don't call you a breather or an eater, and that's what you predominantly do!

When somebody asks, "Are you a carpenter?", or "Are you a painter?", you respond, "No, I am not." You can do the work of one, but you're not that commercial thing. The terms 'carpenter' and 'painter' are verbs, not nouns. It's something you can do, but it's not who you are. You can work as a carpenter, or as a painter. It's all in the words. As means "like or similar to," but it does not mean you are that commercial entity.

Jesus, our example, never answered to those commercial designations. For example, the Jews did ask Jesus, "Is not this the carpenter?" (Mark 6:3), but notice Jesus did not answer to that fictitious title (an artificer), he did not give life to it. The Jews also asked, "Is not this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55), but, again, Jesus ignored their man-made label, he avoided their fiction, and stayed in the Truth. He did not engage in the words of the world, but the word's of God.

The purpose of all these different legal personalities is to humanize you. That's the first thing that king Nebuchadnezzar did with Daniel and the three young men he brought into his kingdom. He re-named them, so that he would be able to have, or acquire, jurisdiction over them (Daniel 1:7). But all he had was jurisdiction over the name that he created. Had the young men not answered to that name, then there would be no substance behind the form that he created. Only when you answer to a name do you give life to it, otherwise it remains a dead thing. It's the same thing with God; if God doesn't bear witness with our spirit, then all we did was create an illusion, there's no truth, and what we said is a lie, and the truth is not in us (1 John 2:4 ), and if the truth is not in us we are not doing His Will.

If you use the words of the world--the words that Caesar created--beware. When you go to one of these human being judges and say, "Well, I'm not a resident, person, human being, natural man; I'm not this and I'm not that," how can you say you're not a human being yet speak like one? You're inconsistent, so therefore, you can't be telling the Truth. This is how the ungodly knows whether you're speaking the Truth or not. They say, "You speak like one of us and yet you say you're not one of us."

You see, in simple terms, this is the test they use: "If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!" In other words, if someone looks like they are of "the world," and acts like they are of "the world," and speaks the words of "the world," then he is of "the world!" (Remember, all are in the world, but are not supposed to be of the world).

Contracts

We are bondmen of Christ--servants to the One Who bought us--we are "bought with a price" by Him (1 Corinthians 6:20). Going to the law of slaves, you cannot make a contract with anybody if you're a servant of someone else, i.e., servants/bondslaves of Jesus the Christ. Entering into contracts with Caesar's world is the downfall of most, for you cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). All contracts are on Caesar's terms, and all contracts are forbidden, because all promises are to be with God only (Deuteronomy 6:13, Matthew 23:22).

Though it rarely happens, the natural man's law is in complete agreement with the Word, pertaining to "No man can serve two masters":

"Each principle is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve two masters.'" Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298.
"A slave and all his earnings belong to his master or owner, and he could not, therefore, make contracts which were obligatory upon himself or the person contracted with." Bedford, Trustee v. Williams' Adm'r, (1837), 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 202.

Bondmen of Christ are slaves, or bondservants of Him, and therefore are bound by the same law. Being the bondservants of Christ, we have no power to contract with those who are strangers of our Covenant with God. Matthew 10:24, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord." Like every other system of slavery, the law making power is in the hands of the master. Who is your master, dear reader? God or man?

Question: But in our society, it's almost impossible to not make contracts!

Answer: The society you talk about is "the world," and that's the last place you want to be found. That's why God said, "Come out of her my people" (Rev.18:4). "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Question: But we live in society.

Answer: Being in society is one thing, being of society is another. That's not saying you don't witness to the world, because that's one of our purposes here, to witness to that world. But that doesn't mean you become part of the world.

Question: But if you buy a house, you have to sign a contract.

Answer: Who said I wanted to buy a house? Is the mortgage company, the surveyor, or the contractor mentioned in the scripture?

Question: No. But you still have to deal with them in our society.

Answer: Do you want to stay in society? Society is where the problem is.

Question: Wellhow would you deal with it?

Answer: I wouldn't! Did Christ deal with it? No. He avoided it. Matthew 8:20, "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Simple statement. Did the apostles deal with it? No!! 1 Corinthians 4:11, "Even unto this present hour we...wander without a home." The apostle Paul was homeless too! The apostle Paul did not "own" a house, he rented a house from time to time, depending where he happened to be sojourning at the time (Acts 28:30).

"Society" is a creation of man. "Contracts" are a creation of man. A contract is a promise or a set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other. How do you start walking out of society?

Romans 13:8, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another:"

That's how you start walking out of society, by owing no man anything. Contracts bind you to owe man something. Contracts are for the heathen because they don't love one another. They're always at war with each other. We must go back to the old paths and walk in the good way. Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORDask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls."

"Servitude: The subjection of one person to another is a purely personal servitude; if it exists in the right of property which a person exercises over another, it is slavery. When the subjection of one person to another is not slavery, it consists simply in the right of requiring of another what he is bound to do, or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasi contracts." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, Lois des Bat. P. 1, c. 1, art. 1.

The World vs. The Kingdom

Jesus said, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Luke 9:23). If you take up the cross, it means to crucify the old man, the hu-man. And if the human is crucified, then your tie with humanity is crucified. Humanity means "the fact or quality of being human; human nature." Do bondmen of Christ have the nature of the human or 'old man'? No! Do we have the nature of monsters or animals? No! We are not of the world anymore, but we're still in the world. And those things that are of the world, we no longer answer to. You now have the standing that Christ had when he told the Pharisees, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world" (John 8:23).

If you take on the ways of the world, there's no sacrifice at all. Everything is "I want." What are you going to sacrifice? "Nothing, because I want it". What do you need? "I don't know what I need. I just know that I have wants. I want this and I want that." In other words, you want to be the consumer that does nothing but consumes. "I'm here for my pleasures"--that's the attitude. That's what the world is, a world of consumers. A 'consumer' is another legal personality. Consumers are locusts. If you read scripture, that's what locusts are. That was one of the judgments that was put on Egypt (Exodus 10:12-14). Locusts devour the land (2 Chronicles 7:13), and that's what we have today, a bunch of locusts devouring the land. We call them corporations, merchants, customers, welfare recipients, residents, etc., they're all consumers.

Every kingdom has its particular language. In America, it is American English; In England, it is British English; In Japan, it is Japanese. Using the words of the Kingdom/kingdom to which you belong is evidence of who you belong to. For instance, when an American meets a Japanese, both speak their respective languages, and neither understands the other, they know that the other is not from the same kingdom. If you speak the language of the kingdom you belong to, and that separates you from the other guy's kingdom, then God will turn the other man's face away from you (police, judges, lawyers, etc.) because he doesn't understand anything you're saying. If you do not belong to a certain kingdom, you are labeled or named by that kingdom to be of another kingdom.

For example, people in North America call those from the continent of South America, South Americans; from Asia, Asians; from Africa, Africans; from Europe, Europeans. But South Americans do not call themselves (one another) South Americans, Asians do not call themselves Asians. Africans do not call themselves Africans, and Europeans do not call themselves Europeans! Do North Americans call themselves North Americans? No, they don't. If you are a constituent of a Kingdom, you do not name one in the same Kingdom any thing; but you call them according to the relation between the two of you, i.e., brother, sister, father, mother. But who establishes the relation? The Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12).

Servants of Christ know the State is not God and that it must be controlled by Laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. We know that all the laws of the State must conform to God's Law, or, as Sir William Blackstone stated:

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

Here's another quote:

"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity". Judge Henry Clay Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432.

And again man recognizes that:

"The law is from everlasting." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143.

When Christ Jesus goes looking for his lost sheep, He is looking for those who hear or respond to His voice having His Word written on their hearts, and speaking that word to Him from their hearts through their fruits in fullness of faith to Him, thereby bearing witness to the world that they are His. He knows who are His and those who are not of His flock.

The term 'world' and 'earth' have different meanings. Jesus certainly made a distinction between 'world' and 'earth' when he said, "I have overcome the world" in John 16:33. This would not make any sense if he said, "I have overcome the earth." The "world" is the ordered things that man has created. Like the terms "law and order", or "new world order", order is already there. But order doesn't necessarily mean a systematizing; orders are where a man tells you to do something.

Citizenship

Are bondmen of Christ citizens of any place in this world? No, we are not. Our citizenship does not reside in any country, State, or city, because we are "...fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19).

Citizen: "A member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to it. A civilian."

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you, as a member of God's household and kingdom, owe allegiance to God, or do you owe allegiance to a such man-created fictions as a state or country? Can you picture Christ Jesus pledging allegiance to Israel in the first century? No. To any country or state today? No. Then why should we pledge allegiance to those fictions? Since the above definition of "citizen" is synonymous with "civilian," let us look at this definition:

Civilian: "A private citizen, as distinguished from such as belongs to the army and navy or to the church." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968, page 313.

Did you read that legal definition? A citizen or civilian does not include soldiers or those who belong to the church! This is the law! Why not? Because the government recognizes that one cannot serve two masters. You can owe allegiance only to one Lord and Master. For us, that's Almighty God through Jesus the Christ (Hebrews 13:20-21). We are not considered citizens of any country, nor are we considered civilians, because we are both soldiers (2 Timothy 2:3-4, Philippians 2:25, Philemon 1:2) and we belong to God's church, or to put it accurately, His ekklesia. Just as Jesus would not pledge allegiance to Israel or Rome, we, who must walk as He walked, cannot pledge allegiance to any country either. For the laws that all bondmen of Christ follow are contained in the Scripture. We need no other Lord over our lives. Least of all men that sin in Washington D.C. What right do sinners have to tell the bondmen of Christ how to live their lives?

"Citizenship implies political status. It may or may not confer suffrage or any other particular incident, but it does imply incorporation into the body politic." The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, p.358 footnote.
"A person may be a citizen for commercial purposes and not political purposes." 7 Md. 209. [This makes merchandise of us (2 Peter 2:3)]

Citizenship implies incorporation (corporate citizen). Incorporation into what? To the United States, which is defined as a Federal Corporation in 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15). But it always comes down to "benefits" which turn into minimum contacts, to wit:

"Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they cannot divest themselves." William E. Birkheimer, Military Government and Martial Law (1914), page 64.

Some people claim that if you call yourself a freeman, you are free from bondage. The term freeman means "a person not in slavery; a person who has full civil and political rights; citizen". A freeman refers to one who is not a slave, but since the servants of Christ are slaves to God, we cannot be freemen. Civil Rights are created by man, and can be changed or abrogated at will by the creator of those rights (man), they are not given by God. A freeman is also defined as a citizen, and the bondmen of Christ are not a citizen of any worldly place. A freeman and citizen are synonymous. And further:

People: "A group of persons; the citizens or electorate of a state; human beings, as distinct from other animals.
Pagan: "Heathen, rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian, district, country, landmark fixed in the earth. The Christians, calling themselves 'enrolled soldiers of Christ,' members of His militant church, in regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, (1966), pp.640-641.
Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
Person: "It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person." 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
Private Person: "An individual who is not the incumbent of an office." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1957), p.1359. [Note: followers of Christ are ministerial officers vested by Christ's Testament, and hold the office of Christ].

The following court cases are evidence that not every human being is a "person," thus proving that the terms "person" and "man" are not synonymous, and thereby recognizing the truth of scripture. And this will also show that courts have no jurisdiction to bring you into their courts if you are not a citizen, resident, person, etc.:

"Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens [followers of Jesus, the Christ], may be persons. But not every human being is a person [followers of Jesus, the Christ], for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights [legal personality defined by statute, code, rule, or regulation], as was the case with slaves in English law [or with slaves of Christ Jesus]." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.
"[A] court cannot acquire jurisdiction to pronounce a personal judgment against one who has no residence with the state, except by actual notice upon him within the state, or by his voluntary appearance. The modern law does not seek to compel appearance, but if the defendant ["person"] is properly served and neglects to appear and plead, the court will render judgment against him for default of appearance." Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook on Common Law Pleading (1923), page 23.
"[A government is] sovereign within its own territories. Necessarily, its jurisdiction is exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. This is the result of its independence. It may be conceded that its actions should accord with natural justice and equity. If they do not, however, our courts are not competent to review them. They may not bring a foreign sovereign [Jesus, the Christ, or His ministers and ambassadors] before our bar, not because of comity, but because he has not submitted himself to our laws. Without his consent he is not subject to them. Concededly, that is so as to a foreign government that has received recognition." The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287; Porto Rico v Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed. 726; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, 16 Ann.Cas. 1026; Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc.Rep. 511, 61 N.Y.Supp. 939, aff'd 173 N.Y. 645, 66 N.E. 1110; Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass. 349, 83 N.E. 876, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 276, 125 Am.St.Rep. 371, 14 Ann.Cas. 574; Wadsworth v. Queen of Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch.Div. 351; Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 44 L.T. 199.

The first objection people usually have is by pointing out that Paul, an apostle of Christ, called himself a "citizen".

"But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people." Acts 21:39

But what they're not aware of is that the meaning of 'citizen' has changed since the first century. At that time, all it meant was that you were a "townsman" of a particular city, and it required no allegiance to Caesar. As a matter of fact, the word "citizen" comes from the french word "cité," which means "city." Here is further proof:

Citizen: "[See City, and cf. Cit.] One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Of or pertaining to the inhabitants of a city." Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
City: "The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city. What is the city but the people?" Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
Cit: "A citizen; an inhabitant of a city; a pert townsman." Webster Dictionary, 1913, page 260.
4177 "polites (pol-ee'-tace); from 4172; a townsman: KJV-- citizen." Strong's Concordance.

And here is further evidence from man's law that "citizen" meant a member of a city during Roman times, and required no allegiance to Caesar, as it does today:

Citizenship: "One who, as a member of a nation or body politic of the sovereign states, owes allegiance to and make claim, reciprocal protection from its government. The term appears to have been used in the Roman Government to designate a person who has a freedom of the city and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. There was also, at Rome, a partial citizenship including civil but not political rights. Complete citizenship embraced both." Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 329.

There was no "allegiance" to government in Roman citizenship, and it only had to do with the city you lived in, within Roman territory, only meaning protection of the city. Also, look at the next verse in Acts. It uses the term "licence" (Acts 21:40). A licence is a permit to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. Obviously, the license given Paul wasn't a picture I.D. which had his name, address, and so forth. This was only a verbal "license" or liberty to speak. We must be careful not to impose 20th century definitions to words that were used in the first century.

"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights [*benefits and privileges]." Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

First of all, who is our "protector"? Christ is our shield and buckler (Psalms 91:4). Why are we looking to the State for protection? No man can serve two masters. The courts have consistently ruled that the police "protection" has to do with "property," and they have no duty to protect people. To look to the state for protection is like looking to a criminal so that he won't hurt you. "Please don't hurt me. I'll do anything." When the cop shows up at your rear view mirror, and his lights are flashing, you don't feel "protected," do you? The next time you get stopped by the police, say, "Thank you for your protection. I'm so glad you stopped me. Wow! What a relief! I felt so unprotected until you came by and protected me."

In Smith's Handbook of Elementary Law, it says that "a citizen is a permanent member of the state...owes it allegiance at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection. The status of his membership as citizen is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth, by the nationality of his parents, by his election [*voluntaring], or by some form of naturalization."

Also, notice that citizenship may be determined by the place of "birth," which is why one of the first questions a cop asks you is about your birth date and birth place. And it also has to do with "naturalization." The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." There are conditional clauses there. Just being "born or naturalized" in a country does not make one a person or a citizen belonging to that country--one must also be "subject to the jurisdiction." This is easily shown by the following example. If an American soldier is stationed in Germany, and has a baby that's born in Germany, that baby is not considered a citizen of Germany but of America, even though that baby was "born" in Germany! Why is this? Because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of Germany, they are subject to the jurisdiction of America. Why? Because that is the law the parents submit themselves to.

How do we, as followers of Christ, determine if we are subject to the jurisdiction thereof? A lot has to do with the words that come out of your mouth, but it also has to do with your walk. Are you truly serving Christ or are you partaking of the benefits and serving the State? Most people are driven to State worship because they love the "protection" the State gives, they love the things of the world. So, if you're not subject to Christ, he puts you under a taskmaster--the heathen--like he did with Israel. And that's the state of the people who live, move, and have their being in the State today; they're in captivity and don't even know it.

To put the implications of citizenship in a much simpler frame, here's a court case from 1865:

"You have heard some discussion as to the meaning of this term 'citizenship of the United States.' It has a plain, simple, everyday meaning, and that meaning you may safely take, without a definition, is that unequivocal relation between every American and his country which binds him to allegiance and pledges to him protection." United States v. Darnod, 25 Federal Case Number 14,915 page 763.

This is completely opposed to what scripture teaches, which is to "Owe no man any thing" (Romans 13:8). If we owe allegiance to Caesar, we not only owe something besides "love," but we are trying to serve two masters, which The Word says is impossible.

The United States

The way a word is spelled determines what Law one is under. The spelling of the term 'state' is distinguished from the terms 'State,' 'State of,' or 'STATE.' The state (lower case spelling) is entirely general and refers to a large group of people, to wit:

"By the word State (capitalized) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p.xxxiv. [Consistent with the rules of English usage].
"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the peopleconstitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.

And here is a United States Supreme Court ruling:

"There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.

And a State Supreme Court Ruling:

"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state". NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

And additional information to consider:

The United States is defined as "A Federal Corporation" in the United States Code, Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Subchapter A - Definitions and general provisions, 3002 - Definitions, at number 15 (a).
"The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

Also, in the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, the United States is defined as "the District of Columbia," which is in Washington D.C. This is confirmed in the US Constitution, in Article I, 8; the jurisdiction of the United States is "over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)," and is also over federal territories purchased by the federal government. Washington D.C. is not a state:

"The District of Columbia is not a `state' within the meaning of the constitution." U.S. v. Virginia, 1805

Also, look at the name of the country in the Declaration of Independence. The name of the country is spelled as follows: "the united States of America." The term "united" was spelled in lower case letters, and was used as an adjective to describe America, it was not the name of the country. It is not a noun. You will see the same thing in the U.S. Constitution, which uses the term "several States" in place of 'united States', it was used as an adjective. And the U.S. Constitution is not the name of this document! It starts with "We the People" and ends with "the united States of America".

The name of this Republic is "America." Notice, in all of these words and definitions of the "United States," the term 'America' is always left out . You never see the "United States of America" defined, you only see "United States" defined by man's codes, rules, and regulations. Ask yourself "why?" The reason is because the "United States" is not the name of a country, but of a federal corporation, located in Washington DC, which has nothing to do with a country. A corporation engaged in profit.

The bondmen of Christ are not 'Americans' either. The term American is defined as, "of or pertaining to the United States." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. The term American means "Belonging to the United States." Oxford's Dictionary, 1933.

Dear reader, do you belong to "America" (or whatever country you're in) or to God? Again, "You cannot serve two masters."

(continued in Part Two next month)

[Editor's Note:] For those who have access to the Internet, Richard Anthony's website is at:

http://devoted.to/truth

The Hundreds

of England and America

by Randy Lee

It is from "the Hundreds" of ancient England that the title of "The Book of the Hundreds" is derived. This article directs its attention to the Hundreds for the purpose of demonstrating the fact that when our Father's "old paths" are abandoned, all of His children (as it was with the children of Israel) fall into captivity under the lordship and despotism of merchandising men.

Long ago in England, while that remote island, at large, was under the rule of the Anglo-Saxon kings of the earth, small groups of Godly men and their families gathered together within their shire (later, the king's county) to deal with that which they knew is upon our Lord's shoulder -- government. Within these shires, groups of families called tithings (ten families) further united into ten tithings under the Lordship of the Christ to form what we know today as "the Hundred." In this, they were aware of our Father's Proverb,

"Many wait on the favor of rulers, but justice comes to a man from the Lord" Proverbs 29:26 (LXX).

Therefore, the members of the various Hundreds, as a whole, took responsibility for the crimes and defaults of each and every one of its members, and were therefore diligent as to who remained within their respective Hundred and who did not belong. With each and every member involved, they formed their own hundred and shire courts, chose their own constable of the hundred and reeve of the shire (later, the king's constable and sheriff), etc., all independent of the pagan creations of the "king's prerogative" and "divine right of kings" so-called, and dispensed justice as The Word directed.

That was the way it was for several centuries, until the subsequent generations composing each Hundred began "to look to the favor of rulers." Though there is little known concerning the specifics of the change that came about, we must recognize that those subsequent generations must have forgotten, as their forefathers never forgot, that their lives were not their own but belonged to the King of Kings, and not to the merchant kings of the earth and their swarms of officers.

Hereafter is a short history of what is known today of the transition from these localized governments that were truly upon the Christ's shoulder (the light yoke), to governments that joined themselves to the kings and merchants of the earth (the heavy yoke), and took on the burdens that men put upon other men's backs. In its transition, we see how and why we are left with still another history of the un-Godly governments of men contained in the first 95 pages of "The Book of the Hundreds." In Truth, we but only need to look to The Word to know these things, and thereby avoid them before they come about:

"If thou sit to sup at the table of a prince, [*Satan is the prince of this world] consider attentively the things set before thee: and apply thine hand, knowing that it behooves thee to prepare such: but if thou art very insatiable, desire not his provisions; for these belong to a false life." Proverbs 23:1-3 (LXX)

The following condensed history of the transition from a Godly government within the Hundreds, to a false life under the rulership of earthly kings, and their merchant churches, governors, presidents, etc., is from a book titled "The Hundred and The Hundred Rolls":

"Superseded by the Poor Law Union and the Urban and Rural District, the Hundred has receded so rapidly into the mists of the past that the first associations to be called up by its name are likely to be those of remote antiquity--of the Germany of Tacitus, the Gaul of Clovis or the England of Edgar the Peaceable.
Both the hundred and the shire courts were held at stated intervals (once a month) during the time of the Anglo-Saxons. Before the Norman conquest of 1066 judicial activities, both secular and spiritual, had been concentrated in these local assemblies, at which the local custom was declared and enforced, titles to property were established, and violence condemned, if not punished. Justice was administered and law declared by those who attended the court. The shire-moot (shire court) and hundred-moot (hundred court) met in the open air.
By declaring custom and determining procedure in doubtful cases these courts were in effect making law, though law of only local application; in the Middle Ages no clear dividing line could be drawn between jurisdiction and legislation. The shire-moots of the tenth and eleventh centuries are sometimes referred to as the witan of such or such a shire; they were indeed as organs of self-government of far more practical importance than the central witan--that indeterminate collection of nobles and clergy whose powers varied inversely with those of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Out of the early hundreds came the office of constable who was responsible for keeping the peace, the maintenance of watches, and, for the mustering of the armed men of the hundred. And, while the shire itself did not escape its share of public duties, the men of the hundred had personal status that was outside the purview of the king's law.
Then after 1066, William the Conqueror called on the shire-moot for co-operation. For a king who had from the first steadily maintained that he was the lawful heir of the Confessor, and who stood for the principles of justice in accordance with the laws of God and of man, the shire-moot was bound to be the tribunal for settling controversies as to the claims of Norman bishops and earls who had been granted all the lands and the rights of English predecessors. Not only the Archbishop of Canterbury but many other men between 1066 and 1087 made good their claims in a shire court by the witness of the good men, or, more particularly, the old men, of the shire, a specially appointed royal delegate presiding to see that justice was done and to record the judgment. By 1086 the shires must have been used to the sight of the king's justice sitting in their court, and to the new procedure of the sworn inquest as a means of getting definite answers to definite questions. William's successors continued to use the hundred-moot and shire-moot for their own purposes.
With the advent of Henry I, it was decided by royal proclamation that it was necessary to forbid sheriffs to summon extraordinary shire-moots and hundred-moots without royal warrant. Under Henry I, as visits of royal justices became more regular, the trans-formation of shire-moot into king's court must have become a stereotyped process. At a special joint assembly of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk before a royal steward in 1148, or thereabouts, the old knight whose testimony settles the matter observes incidentally that for fifty years he has been attending shire courts and hundred courts, since before the days of King Henry, when peace and justice flourished in the land.
But Henry II did more than return to his grandfather's tradition: he took the decisive step which drew the courts of the shire into the main stream of constitutional development. It was not merely to use its old procedure on the king's behalf; it was to be taught a new procedure: the suitors of the court were to become not only judges but jurors. The king's justice's, now sitting in the shire court, were to call upon the knights of the shire and the men of the hundred to give answer, in sworn dozens, to questions put to them--not only to specific questions as to royal dues, but to sweeping questions such as: 'Is there anybody in your hundred whom you suspect to be a thief or a receiver of thieves?' Gradually there opened up by means of these juries of presentment a way for the complaints and wishes of the country-side to reach the king. The demand for information was in effect transformable into an invitation to complain; and complaints came to the king's court of a fullness that would have been embarrassing if they had been seriously taken as a programme for action. The contact was established, not merely a personal but an official contact, between the courts of the shire and the king's court.
By 1258, the king was far off; the earls and barons were usually absentees, represented in the county by their stewards; it was the knights who ran the local government, both as holders in turn of the post of sheriff as coroners, and as suitors and controllers of the county court, where their duties were steadily increasing as the century advanced. Here they were required to discuss taxation, to hear the king's letters and ordinances, to elect the county coroners, to serve on special juries and inquests, and to appoint plenipotentiaries to speak for the whole county in the king's court, both on fiscal and on political matters. Alongside the sheriff and his clerk, concerned with the batch of writs to be dealt with, of legal business to be got through, of criminal inquiries to be made, of debts to be collected, if possible before the court broke up, and of royal proclamations to be published, we can see the body of knights, jealous for the custom of the county and their own rights as suitors, not above bribing the sheriff to favour their individual causes, but ready in a moment to sink their differences in defense of the vested interests of their body, and to draft common petitions or representations to the king if any magnate or official had attacked those interests. Thus we find the gentlemen of Devon drawing up the list of charges still preserved at Oxford against their sheriff, Roga of Pridias, in 1272, accusing him of oppression of both rich and poor and of invasion of the liberties of the shire, winding up with the complaint that he is not a native of the county and a demand for his dismissal. The shire courts, in becoming an agent of the central government, had not ceased to be the articulate embodiment of local esprit de corps.
As for the hundreds, royal proclamations became the recognized law, and it was the sheriff's business to summon twice a year each hundred to the great court, or tourn, where a much larger attendance was exacted; and it was an event of some importance to the central government, for it produced a good deal of revenue. But the outstanding significance of the tourn is that it linked up the hundred to the royal system of police and criminal law, just as the local inquests in land cases linked it to the new royal justice in civil matters." Excerpts from pages 1-19 of The Hundred and Hundred Rolls,(1930), by Helen Cam.

War Power

by E. E. Schattschneider

The following is a selection of excerpts from Schattschneider's book, Two Hundred Million Americans in Search of a Government (1969), from pages 32-34.

While reading his words, keep in mind that when those who ignore our Father's Word, "Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord" (Proverbs 29:26) and "Owe no man anything...", but instead, partake of the benefits of the governments of men, i.e., their "defense, health, education and welfare," they are left with the heavy yoke of bondage described by Birkheimer:

"Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they cannot divest themselves." William E. Birkheimer, Military Government and Martial Law (1914), page 64.

-------------------------

"The uneasiness of people about the growth of the government is related to the inadequacy of public explanations of the phenomenon. Public men have risked their necks in the process. They have been denounced as thieves, enemies of the people, spendthrifts, socialists, communists, and subverters of the Republic, as bit by bit they backed into the future amid warnings of bankruptcy, scandal, and ruin. [The author recalls hearing President Taft say fifty years ago that he anticipated with foreboding a future Congress that might spend a billion dollars.]

"Americans have been surprised and confused about the growth of their government because they have been watching the wrong set of facts. They have been obsessed with the introverted view of government and did not see the exterior factors that stimulate government most powerfully.

"The impact of war on government is evident throughout American history.

"Each war enlarged the capacity of the government to do things. Thereafter the enlarged capacity of the government turned out to be too useful to be given up.

"We say that money talks? What does the budget say? Normally about 75 percent of the federal budget is spent for defense and defense related activities. The ratio of defense to nondefense expenditures holds in Republican as well as Democratic administrations, in wartime as well as peace. Congress passes defense appropriation bills by overwhelming bipartisan votes--not like other appropriations. How can we say that we know what government is, if we do not listen to what the budget says?

"Defense is the biggest industry in the country. Education is second. That is what the oyster is like, hard on the outside and soft on the inside.

"The most potent stimulus to the growth of government comes from the outside, and a hundred governments can generate tensions for which there are no easily imagined physical equivalents. [According to one estimate there have been 14,513 wars in the past five thousand years. (Letter dated December 6, 1967, by Andrew W. Cordier of the Fund of Education in World Order.]

"It is true that the government is very much more than a defense organization. It is extremely multi-functional. Nobody has ever established a government to lay a sidewalk, but once people have a government they find that it can be used to do many things. Governments pick up a multitude of assignments because as guardians of the community they have the prestige, the organization, and the resources to do things that no one else can do.

"Among all of the other advantages they have, governments, unlike business corporations, do not need to make a profit [*because of their inherent taxing power]. So governments are used to do most of the unprofitable work of the community. The great administrative establishment developed for military purposes can be used for civil purposes, as the Army engineers were used to dig the Panama canal [*and they were used for a number of domestic civil projects, the building of the Sepulveda dam project in the San Fernando Valley in California, for example]. The civil functions of government expand with the defense establishment, because the general capacity of the government is enlarged every time the defense organization expands.

"Thus the tensions that make governments also make governments grow.

"It follows from the foregoing discussion that it is impossible to understand politics until we know what government is. The introverted view of government confuses all concepts of politics. If we misunderstand government we are likely to misconceive the whole game. The cause of government does not cease working once a government has been formed, and a cause potent enough to make a government is strong enough to play a role in its politics.

-------------------------

"[*Thus] This growth has taken place in spite of a structure that hobbled and handcuffed it. The fact that the government has survived and has grown powerful is due to factors not to be found in the language of the Constitution nor the political theory behind it.

-------------------------

"The theories of politics growing out of the introverted view of government neglect the role of world tensions in the formation, strength, growth, and behavior of government. Charles Beard, starting with an introverted view of government, saw no difficulty in explaining the work of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a successful effort of the commercial and financial interests in the country to take over the government. Beard neglected the likelihood that the hard-headed revolutionaries who organized the Convention wanted a government able to defend the new country in its infancy. The sleeper in the new constitution was the war power."

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Hero and Hero Worship

"Herod. 2264 Herodes (hay-ro'-dace); compound of heros (a "hero") and 1491; heroic; Herod, the name of four Jewish kings: KJV-- Herod." Strong's Concordance

"Hero, n. [L. heros, Gr. hrwj, a demigod. It coincides in elements with Ir. earr, noble, grand, a champion, and with the Ger. herr, Dut. heer, lord, master.] 4. In pagan mythology, a hero was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death to be placed among the gods." Webster's Dictionary (1828)

"Hero Worship, n. 1. a profound reverence for great people or their memory. 2. extravagant or excessive admiration for a personal hero." Randomhouse Dictionary (1992), page 628.

"Let us look for a little at the Hero as Divinity, the oldest primary form of Heroism.

"Surely it seems a very strange-looking thing this Paganism; almost inconceivable to us in these days [*1840's]. A bewildering, inextricable jungle of delusions, confusions, falsehoods and absurdities, covering the whole field of life! A thing that fills us with astonishment, almost, if it were possible, with incredulity,-for truly it is not easy to understand that sane men could ever calmly, with their eyes open, believe and live by such a set of doctrines. That men should have worshipped their poor fellow-man as a god, and not him only, but stocks and stones, and all manner of animate and inanimate objects; and fashioned for themselves such a distracted chaos of hallucinations by way of Theory of the Universe: all this looks like an incredible fable. Never the less it is a clear fact that they did it. Such hideous inextricable jungle of misworships, misbeliefs, men, made as we are, did actually hold by, and live at home in. This is strange. Yes, we may pause in sorrow and silence over the depths of darkness that are in man; if we rejoice in the heights of purer wisdom he has attained to. Such things were and are in man; in all men; in us too.

"Some speculators have a short way of accounting for the Pagan religion: mere quackery, priestcraft, and dupery, say they; no sane man ever did believe it,-merely contrived to persuade other men, not worthy of the name of sane, to believe it! It will be often our duty, to protest against this sort of hypothesis about men's doings and history; and I here, on the very threshold, protest against it in reference to Paganism, and to all other isms by which man has ever for a length of time striven to walk in this world. They have all had a truth in them, or men would not have taken them up. Quackery and dupery do abound; in religions, above all the more advanced decaying stages of religions, they have fearfully abounded: but quackery was never the originating influence in such things; it was not the health and life of such things, but their disease, the sure precursor of their being about to die! Let us never forget this. It seems to me a most mournful hypothesis, that of quackery giving birth to any faith even in savage men. Quackery gives birth to nothing; gives death to all things. We shall not see into the true heart of any thing, if we look merely at the quackeries of it; if we do not reject the quackeries altogether; as mere diseases, corruptions, with which our and all men's sole duty is to have done with them, to sweep them out of our thoughts as out of our practice. Man everywhere is the born enemy of lies. I find Grand Lamaism to have a kind of truth in it. Read the candid, clear-sighted, rather skeptical Mr. Turner's Account of his Embassy to that country, and see. They have their belief, these poor Thibet people, that Providence sends down always an Incarnation of Himself into every generation. At bottom some belief in a kind of Pope! At bottom still better, belief that there is a Greatest Man; that he is discoverable; that, once discovered, we ought to treat him with an obedience which knows no bounds! This is the truth of Grand Lamaism; the 'discoverability' is the only error here. The Thibet priests have methods of their own of discovering what Man is Greatest, fit to be supreme over them. Bad methods: but are they so much worse than our methods,-of understanding him to be always the eldest-born of a certain genealogy? Alas, it is a difficult thing to find good methods for!-We shall begin to have a chance of understanding Paganism when we first admit that to its followers it was, at one time, earnestly true. Let us consider it very certain that men did believe in Paganism; men with open eyes, sound senses, men made altogether like ourselves; that we, had we been there, should have believed in it. Ask now, what Paganism could have been?

"Another theory, somewhat more respectable, attributes such things to Allegory. It was a play of poetic minds, say these theorists; a shadowing-forth, in allegorical fable, in personification and visual form, of what such poetic minds had known and felt of this Universe. Which agrees, add they, with a primary law of human nature, still every where observably at work, though in less important things, That what a man feels intensely, he struggles to speak-out of him, to see represented before him in visual shape, and as if with a kind of life and historical reality in it. Now doubtless there is such a law, and it is one of the deepest in human nature; neither need we doubt that it did operate fundamentally in this business. The hypothesis which ascribes Paganism wholly or mostly to this agency, I call a little more respectable; but I cannot yet call it the true hypothesis. Think, would we believe, and take with us as our life-guidance, and allegory, a poetic sport? Not sport but earnest is what should require. It is a most earnest thing to be alive in this world; to die is not sport for a man. Man's life never was a sport to him; it was a stern reality, altogether a serious matter to be alive!

"I find, therefore, that though these Allegory theorists are on the way towards truth in this matter, they have not reached it either. Pagan Religion is indeed an Allegory, a Symbol of what men felt and knew about the Universe; and all Religions are symbols of that, altering always as that alters: but it seems to me a radical perversion, and even inversion, of the business, to put forward as the origin and moving cause, when it was rather the result and termination. To get beautiful allegories, a perfect poetic symbol, was not the want of men; but to know what they were to believe about this Universe, what course they were to steer in it; what, in this mysterious Life of theirs, they had to hope and to fear, to do and to forbear doing. The Pilgrim's Progress is an Allegory, and a beautiful, just and serious one: but consider whether Bunyan's Allegory could have preceded the Faith it symbolizes! The Faith had to be already there, standing believed by every body;-of which the Allegory could then become a shadow; and, with all its seriousness, we may say a sportful shadow, a mere play of the Fancy, in comparison with that awful Fact and scientific certainty which it poetically strives to emblem. The Allegory is the product of the certainty, not the producer of it; not in Bunyan's nor in any other case. For Paganism, therefore, we have still to inquire, Whence came that scientific certainty, the parent of a bewildered heap of allegories, errors and confusions? How was it, what was it?" Thomas Carlyle, Heroes and Hero Worship (1842 ), pp. 3-7.

Bits and Pieces

Almighty God, or Nothing

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man-making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

"But then indeed not knowing God, ye were in bondage to those who, by nature, are not gods." Galatians 4:8

The Color of Wisdom

Dear White Fella:

Couple of things you should know. When I born, I black.
When I grow up, I black.
When I go in sun, I black.
When I cold, I black.
When I scared, I black.
When I sick, I black.
And when I die, I still black.

You white fella,
When you born, you pink.
When you grow up, you white.
When you go in sun, you red.
When you cold, you blue.
When you scared, you yellow.
When you sick, you green.
And when you die, you gray.
And you have the guts to call me-- COLORED?

[The fullness of the glad tidings of Jesus the Christ is Love and Grace, not RACE, to wit:]

"...God is not a respecter of persons." Acts 10:34

Remaining Together

Next fall when you see geese heading south for the winter flying along in a "V" formation, you might be interested in knowing what the diligent observers of God's Order have discovered about why they fly that way. It has been learned that as each bird flaps its wings, it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in a "V" formation, the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own.

The Christ's ekklesia, who have all things common in accordance with their Father's purpose, will fulfill that purpose efficiently as they continue to minister and sojourn on the thrust of one another through Him.

When a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the draft and resistance of trying to go it alone, and quickly gets into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird immediately in front. If we refuse to follow the example of God's witness in the goose, then we will stray from formation with those who are walking on God's straight and narrow path.

When the lead goose gets tired, he rotates back in the wing and another goose flies point. It is pleasing to the Lord when His children supporting one another in their time of need.

The geese honk from behind to encourage those up front to keep up their speed. An encouraging word goes a long way.

Finally, when a goose gets sick, or is wounded by a gun shot and falls out, two geese fall out of formation and follow him until he is either able to fly or until he is dead; then they launch out on their own or with another formation to catch up with the group.

Through this Understanding of God's Order, the Wisdom of standing by each other can be received if they apply this Knowledge which God has expressed through the lesson of the goose.

"Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 (KJV)

Big Brother, or Buffoon?

This is the transcript of the actual radio conversation of a US naval ship with the Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that you change your course 15 degrees north. I say again, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

Who do you Trust?

Actual court transcript. A defense attorney was cross-examining a police officer during a felony trial... it went like this:

Question: Officer, did you see my client fleeing the scene?

Answer: No sir, but I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender running several blocks away.

Question: Officer, who provided this description?

Answer: The officer who responded to the scene.

Question: A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?

Answer: Yes sir, with my life.

Question: With your life? Let me ask you this then officer--do you have a locker room in the police station--a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?

Answer: Yes sir, we do.

Question: And do you have a locker in that room?

Answer: Yes sir, I do.

Question: And do you have a lock on your locker?

Answer: Yes sir.

Question: Now, why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, that you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with those same officers?

Answer: You see, sir, we share the building with a court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.

Issue the Sixtieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Preamble to Civil Religion ...

The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part Two ...

The Law of Slaves, Part Two ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum

"The Pledge of Allegiance"

Bits and Pieces...

The Preamble to Civil Religion

by John Nelson: Winter

The current saturation of the airways and print vehicles by the media and other so-called authorities relative to the Constitution for the united States of America has brought forth the point that, since so much is being made of this "holy writ of democracy"--that "cornerstone" of civil religion--maybe there is someone somewhere who is willing to "seek the truth" as to just what this document contains, relative to the Word of God.

In examining the content of the Constitution relative to the Word of God, one need go no further than the Preamble, which states the general principles and intent of the body which follows.

We will first look at what "civil religion" is, and thereafter quoting the Preamble, each of the points contained within it will be examined individually to reveal just what the natural man of America reveres and "worships," and how that relates to the Word of God.

Civil Religion

Although the term "civil religion" was originated by Rousseau in his Social Contract, the root of the concept is visible throughout history and was quite evident in ancient Greece and Rome, even though unnamed as such.

To concretely define the term "civil religion" is quite difficult, as "scholars" may develop five or more typologies, each intertwined and, to some extent, simply nuances of others. If American civil religion were to be defined in one meaningful phrase, acceptable to most, it would be, "the religion of Democracy"; this would exalt nationalism, the Constitution, "free enterprise," egalitarianism, individualism, spirituality (with or without a god)--broadly speaking, exalting "the American Way" (whatever that is). In the symbols and rituals, in the holidays and liturgy, in the saints and sancta--it shows itself to be truly and thoroughly a religion, the common religion of America; as previously noted, it is the worship of American democracy and the American Way.

American civil religion is in its basics, the worship of symbols, icons, myths, etc.--all of those traditions of men upon which a "society" is built (and maintained) wherein God is a secondary deity, at best. Much of the traditions and structures are those of Puritanism, revivalism, etc.--secularized and expropriated--the orientation being shifted from the Creator, to the created. To the majority of the population, the structure is so familiar that very little attention is paid to content--typical when form rules over substance. Since most are either unaware or willingly ignorant that "all are without excuse," many are fooled into the belief that worshiping the created is part and parcel of worshiping the Creator.

"And this is the judgment, that light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for evil were their works. For every one that does evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, that his works may not be exposed. But he that does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be manifested that in God they have been wrought." John 3:19-21

The Preamble

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

We the People

Before looking at the body of the Preamble, a moment should be taken to reflect upon the phrase "We the People"-- a glimpse at who these men were who undertook to cover themselves with the caption of We the People.

While the men who met in convention did represent the geographic whole of the united States, excluding Rhode Island, they certainly did not represent anything remotely depicting any cross-section of the population, except geographically. They where all white men, mostly wealthy, many landed gentry, and a significant number were slave owners; and quite significantly, they were by and large, freemasons and/or deists. One noted writer of Masonic works has commented that, if four members of the Constitutional Convention were missing, the remainder "could hold a lodge meeting." This Masonic presence could account for Patrick Henry (a non-mason) refusing appointment to the Virginia delegation, stating "I smell a rat."

Suffice it to say, mountains of material have been written over the years detailing the Convention and the participants. 55 attended and 39 signed the finished "product" as witnesses. Just be aware that to date, no "mainstream" writer has addressed who or what these men truly worshipped. It should become apparent that their god was autonomous man and his "reason"--certainly not our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ.

Two interesting side points should be noted prior to examining the body of the Preamble.

First, George Washington's chair back contained the depiction of a sunburst, commonly referenced as a "sunrise." This symbol has historically been related to the worship of the sun, regardless of time or area. For the Israelites this was the worship of Baal and is noted in the breaking down of the idols (2 Chronicles 34:4). This form of idolatry is just the same today as then, and is prevalent in everything from Easter (Ishtar) sunrise services to the Shell Oil logo. Expressing this symbol as "a new dawning," or whatever expression is chosen, certainly has to do only with the ancient pagan beliefs, i.e., the mystery religions; those foundations of freemasonry, both ancient and modern.

Second, when the Constitution was finished, it (the work) was described as "Novus ordo seclorum"--translated--"a new secular order" (for the ages). With this incorporated in "The Great Seal," it should be readily apparent that the emphasis was upon establishing a secular society, and the Constitution was to be the glue to hold the civil religion together. The idea that the "nation" created thereby was a "Christian nation" is one of many myths. Part of that political illusion is the image of being "under God"--nothing could be a greater deception.

Now into the body of the Preamble:

"...to form a more perfect Union,". Since only God and Jesus the Christ are perfect, just what is "more perfect"? Is this "creation of man" envisioned to be greater than God? Perfect is without flaw, fault, error, etc. Just how does one achieve a level beyond perfection--just what is it and how does it work? Is it not blasphemy, and treason against God to even suggest that something can be created by man that is greater than Almighty God? A more perfect Union--really?

"...establish Justice,". Our Father has already accomplished this, fully and completely. He gave man a fully functional system of Law, complete with a governmental structure in which one branch teaches the Law, while the other administers the Law, as a representative of God. This is the ministerial function of the magistrate; if he fails to be God's "representative," he would certainly be a false prophet, as his God-given office is prophetic in all regards. This becomes apparent when we are shown at Proverbs 29:26 that "Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord."

Jesus the Christ repeated the mandate of the Law at Matthew 5:18, ", Till heaven and earth should pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass away from the Law, till all be fulfilled."

The "framers" of the Constitution are obviously proposing to "trash" God's Law and replace it with that of men. Is this not Eve all over again partaking of the tree of learning (and teaching) the knowledge of good and evil, presuming to be equal, or greater, than God? Once again the question--is not this blasphemy, and treason against God?

"...insure domestic Tranquility,". This domestic tranquility can only be obtained through the Father; all the efforts and "institutions of men which promote diversity, tolerance, etc., ad nauseum, only in truth promote greed, envy, depravity, rancor, brigandry, etc., as they operate in service to the flesh. Only in serving God and glorifying Him can "tranquility" be obtained. There can be no such thing as "domestic tranquility" when everything is oriented toward the flesh--and without adherence to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one cannot escape from the fleshly orientation.

"...provide for the common defense,". This is a most interesting phrase, as it is not possible to glean from it exactly what "the common defense" is to protect one from. If it were to be assumed that the reference was to both internal and external forces, what would the measure of success and failure be? Certainly the people who are "victims of crime" (25,000 murders per year), "terrorism" (September 11, 2001), and military attack (December 7, 1941) might be wont to judge the efforts, finding that men and their government to "provide for the common defense" being seriously questionable, at best. Perhaps God allows these things to happen the way they do in order to show those who have eyes and ears to witness the utter futility of man and his vain ways.

Scripture contains numerous examples of the only defense that actually "works'--the Lord. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar had Shadrack, Meshack and Abed-nego thrown into the fiery furnace. Was it the words of man on a piece of paper, or for that matter, anything of man that "defended" them from the flames? No, it was the Hand of God!!

God has defended and protected His people, living according to His ways, in righteousness, under incredible circumstances. He delivered them from Egypt by parting the Red Sea--can man do that? And yet when His people turned away from His Word and His Way, He brought His wrath upon them. This has always happened and always will--when, where and how He chooses. No words on paper or things of the hands of man can protect anyone from the wrath of God. To assume "defense" other than from the Lord, is folly!!

History repeatedly shows us the only impregnable defense is the full Armor of God. So why, other than pride, vanity and a lack of faith, would anyone seek defense from any other source? Are not the words "provide for the common defense" just the vain babbling of men seeking to usurp God and become their own god? Is this not , once again blasphemy, and treason against God?

"...promote the general Welfare,". Once again, this phrase references a point that God has, in His Word, already taken care of. Scripture shows us that He will take care of all of our needs. He also mandates the caring for widows and the fatherless--so where is the problem? The problem would seem to be that the "founding fathers" did not believe and/or trust in the Word of God. So they set upon a course to usurp God's authority and set it upon themselves to "rise above God" with their self-will. Where, in the Word of God is there any authority for action such as this?

"...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Since posterity only relates to direct descendants, one might ask the obvious question--what about the millions that are not in this category? Does nothing apply? An interesting use of verbiage by the "founding fathers."

Liberty can only be obtained through Jesus the Christ, the Word--the Perfect Law of Liberty (James 1:25). No man or piece of paper can secure this; it only comes one way--from the Lord. Since no mention of our Lord and Savior is made anywhere in the document, what "liberty" are they talking about? Perhaps the oblique reference would be the license for the pillage, plunder and brigandry of the "state" and its transient "government"--with impunity. Since all "liberty" comes through God, and God alone, whatever is meant is simply another example of vain babblings of fallen men--more idolatry, blasphemy, usurpation, and treason--all against God.

Since the Preamble states the general purpose of the Constitution, and since every item noted has been previously noted to fall within the domain of God, one would have to conclude the obvious anti-Christ nature of the content was nothing more than a treasonous attempt at usurpation.

Glancing at the body of the document one is, or should be, struck by the fact that God's supreme authority as Lawmaker has been usurped by a "legislature"--men who usurp God's lawmaking authority are no different than Eve--they know good and evil and will act according to their "reason." God does not grant lawmaking authority anywhere. His government does not even contain a "legislative branch." So where did the "founding fathers" come up with this concept except through their own vanity and covetousness.

1st Samuel addresses the choosing of a king (president) when it is stated that the people are rejecting God; it was so then, it is so now. The situation of 1st Samuel surely shows what God thinks about that sacred cow of American civil religion, democracy, and men ruling themselves without God. Hosea contains similar situations that always met with disaster.

We must not forget Psalm 94 (LXX):

The Lord is a God of vengeance; the God of vengeance has declared himself.
Be thou exalted, thou that judgest the earth: render a reward to the proud.
How long shall sinners, O Lord, how long shall sinners boast?
They will utter and speak unrighteousness; all the workers of iniquity will speak [so].
They have afflicted thy people, O Lord, and hurt thine heritage.
They have slain the widow and fatherless, and murdered the stranger.
And they said, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob understand.
Understand now, ye simple among the people; and ye fools, at length be wise.
He that planted the ear, does he not hear? or he that formed the eye, does not he perceive?
He that chastises the heathen, shall not he punish, [even] he that teaches man knowledge?
The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are vain.
Blessed is the man whomsoever thou shalt chasten, O Lord, and shalt teach him out of thy law;
to give him rest from evil days, until a pit be digged for the sinful one.
For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance;
until righteousness return to judgment, and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Pause.
Who will rise up for me against the transgressors? or who will stand up with me against the workers of iniquity?
If the Lord had not helped me, my soul had almost sojourned in Hades.
If I said, My foot has been moved;
thy mercy, O Lord, helped me. O Lord, according to the multitude of my griefs within my heart, thy consolation have soothed my soul.
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frames mischief by an ordinance?
They will hunt for the soul of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood.
But the Lord was my refuge; and my God the helper of my hope.
And he will recompense to them their iniquity and their wickedness: the Lord our God shall utterly destroy them.

Postscript

Writing this article was one of the most difficult tasks I could "imagine." I hope the words given have communicated and shown just where the American people have placed their trust.

Looking at the concepts of America through the reference of Scripture shows a level of idolatry, blasphemy, and depravity that I was unprepared for. Many times while writing this article I felt as though the Father was pushing me--it was almost as if He was saying "now is the time for truth." It was truly a comfort.

As I looked over parts of this, I kept thinking that someone, far more qualified than I, should be doing this. I feel so inadequate to this monumental task.

Additionally, see Brother John's article below on "The Pledge of Allegiance" in Etymologicum Anglicanum.

The following is contact information for those who seek further fellowship with John Nelson on these or any other subjects:

John Nelson: Winter
c/o Post Office Box 35
Cannelton, Indiana
(812) 836-4262

The Words of His Kingdom

and

the words of the world

compared

Part Two: What's in a Name?

written by Richard Anthony

(continued from Issue the Fifty-ninth)

Democracy and Voting

Democracy is not a scriptural principle for God's people. Democracy is a deceitful word. Every man believes he has a right in the outcome of the destiny of society. This is a myth. If God directs men to move in a way that's led by God, then no vote can change the Will of God. The "voter registration" is secular man's faulty reasoning that he, in and of himself, can save all, if you just give him enough power, more money, moremoremoreand still more. As soon as you put your "X" on that thing that votes for that politician, you become part of the world; you voted to be ordered around. The politician needs your consent to crack a whip over your head and make you feel like the animal that you have partaken of. You are now part of the zoo of humanity.

Bondmen of Christ cannot vote because that would be violence or force. We are not to use force; you cannot force the Kingdom of God; you cannot force people to love; you cannot force your love on others; you cannot force people to be free, because that requires violence to enforce it. And "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4).

In the Old Testament, the people "voted" to kill Moses and Caleb (Numbers 14:10). Right after they voted, God said, "...How long will this people provoke me? ...I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them," (Numbers 14:11-12), but Moses asked for mercy and God pardoned their evil ways. In the New Testament, during the trial of Christ Jesus, Pontius Pilate let the people "vote" between Barabbas and Jesus as to who they wanted to set free (Matthew 27:17). The Pharisees whispered lies in the people's ears so they would vote the way they wanted them to vote. This "voting privilege" allowed Jesus to be crucified!

"Democracy: That form of government where the people rule. But the multitude cannot actually rule: An unorganic democracynaturally becomes a one-man government. The basis of the democracy is equalitybut equality itself is no guarantee for liberty, nor does equality constitute liberty. Absolute democracy existed in antiquity and the middle ages: they have never endured for any length of time. And absolute democracy is anything rather than a convertible term for liberty." Bouvier's Law Dictionary , 1934.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide!" Samuel Adams.

Rod of Correction

In the plan of God, the humanist has always been God's rod to wake the sleeping disciple and get him back on course. If man is the center of 'the world,' and he created all these legal personalities, then the police power is God's rod of correction to get you out of the world, to make things a hotbed of coals to where it is uncomfortable for you to stay there. So, if you're going to come out of the world, then you shed, what is called, all those legal personalities that the world has placed upon you, and you do not answer to them anymore, because your mind has been renewed in the mind of Christ (Ephesians 4:23, Colossians 3:10).

A "peace" officer does need a warrant in law to do what he is doing. However, if you're in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing, and partaking of the unclean things, then that man (who you may think is ungodly, doing ungodly things against you) is actually God's rod of correction (Proverbs 22:15) to drive you back to where you should be. If you're not chastened by the Father, then you're a bastard, meaning, you're a son of the world (a son of nobody), and you will not share the privileges of God's children. Hebrews 12:8 tells us:

"But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." [See also Job 5:17].

School

In the school shootings across America, the human beings are the ones who have the "weeping and gnashing of teeth," because their sons or daughters were 'cut off' in the 'prime of life.' Well, if you're one who sojourns in Christ, you know for a fact that their life has not been cut off. And there has been a couple of parents that expressed that. Not everyone is meant to live a full life-span. Some people talk about the great 'tragedy' and the 'victims', but the words "tragedy" and "victim" are pagan terms, because with God, there are no victims. God has the rod of correction and the hand of protection. Everything is done for His Glory; how could there be tragedy and victims?

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God." Romans 8:28
"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13
"...Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord" Revelation 14:13

So, we have to be very careful in the words that we use to describe the things that we see around us. We should look to Christ for everything that we do. Tragedy is a heathen invention that means an unhappy fate of chance. Victim means that someone was cheated. God is not a cheat. Everything is done for his purposes. We may not know what they are, but that's not important.

School is mentioned only once in Scripture (Acts 19:9), wherein Paul was "...disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus." In the Greek, Tyrannus is:

"5181 Turannos (too'-ran-nos); a provincial form of the derivative of the base of 2962; a "tyrant"; Tyrannus, an Ephesian: KJV-- Tyrannus." Strong's Concordance

The one who ran the school is called 'Tyrannus,' or, 'one tyrant.' Schools are corrupting the language by adding other terms of art to it. When you go to the law dictionary, the word term means "a word or phrase, particularly one which possesses a fixed and known meaning in science, art, or profession". The term art (or artifice) has its base in deceit, magic, avarice, sly and/or cunning tricks. These terms of art include such things as an equal sign (=) or other symbols, because you wouldn't know what those terms meant unless you were schooled in this art. And the only way to get schooled in the art is when you start joining up with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Mathematics is all designed for commercial purposes. There's no need for mathematics unless you're doing something commercially, because God has given us all of the knowledge in his creation to labour for Him.

Schools teach the children that they're beasts, and have evolved from some primordial ooze, to a sub-human creature, into the animal they now are.

They are just one of the many kinds of animals inhabiting this little globe called earth. So we shouldn't be surprised when they behave like animals; children killing other children for tennis shoes or jackets, or because they believe they have been somehow wronged by their "victims"; stealing and killing for all kinds of selfish motivations; or, when these children turn into adults, using whatever means they can find to advance their careers, not caring who they hurt in the process.

It requires a strong, perhaps tyrannical, government to control that kind of a populace. Governments are always glad to oblige. Maybe that's why they don't like to see prayer and scripture reading in schools. Maybe that's why they insist that schools teach all people are just another type of animal in the long chain of the evolutionary process. Maybe that's why Human Being is defined as a 'monster' and as "resembling a lower animal," and a monster is defined as "a depraved person." The natural man is depraved; not the disciples of Christ. Maybe Caesar is creating these lawless creatures so that Caesar will acquire jurisdiction over them.

The importance Scripture places

on the Words we Speak

The words we use are very important:

"For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God." John 3:34
"if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20
"the tongue of the wise is health." Proverbs 12:18
"Let your speech be alway with gracethat ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Colossians 4:6
"I therefore teach thee truth, and knowledge good to hear; that thou mayest answer words of truth to them that question thee." Proverbs 22:21
"The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious: but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself." Ecclesiastes 10:12
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Our Lord's words have a very definite impact. His words are the words of God, because the words of God do not pass away. The words that we speak must be the words that He has spoken to us (John 14:12, Philippians 2:5, 1 Peter 2:21; 4:1, 1 John 2:6). The words Christ spoke were the same words that David spoke, which were the words of God (Psalm 119:160). They weren't the adjectives used to describe certain things; they were words with substance, words of Truth. His words were not fictions, they were nouns, they had substance. They had, and have, Lawful standing everlasting:

"the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." John 6:63, 68

This distinguishes our Father's Word from man's word. Man's words are always words of death: "If you don't do this, then we're going to do this to you." God doesn't say that. God says, "If you do this, then this will happen to you." Everything is turned backwards! The only way you can "proclaim liberty to the captives", and open "the prison to them that are bound" (Isaiah 61:1) is by speaking the words of God, because philosophy (the love for the wisdom of the world) is what entraps men (Colossians 2:8). Beware, people will try to entrap you and catch you in your words (Mark 12:13). However:

"The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." John 7:46

Even the ungodly recognized the words that Christ spoke. Words have power. God is the power, being the Word. Why not speak that word? Who is "the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14; 19:16)?

"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4

The words that Christ spoke testified who He was, and is (John 14:24). God told Moses He would raise up a Prophet (Jesus, the Christ) and God would put His words in His mouth (Deuteronomy 18:18). Jesus taught that the words He spoke were not from Himself, but from the Father (John 14:10).

We are commanded to withdraw ourselves from those who do not consent to the words of Christ Jesus:

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." 1 Timothy 6:3-5

Notice Christ's answer to the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders in Matthew 21:23-27 and Mark 11:27-33. Only Jesus the Christ knows what life and power really are; we don't, because He is the author of it. We can only partake of it when we are in Him. You don't hear Him ever saying, "I believe", and then go on with an opinion. Or Him saying, "The morality of this situation dictates this" He never spoke like that. At every question that was put to Him, he declared the Law, and wasted no words. Hosea 6:5, "...I have slain them by the words of my mouth:" And Psalms 12:6, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

You can't take man's codes, rules, and regulations and shove them into a furnace and have them purified seven timesthey'll burn up the first time around! They're so inconsistent with themselves.

"Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." 1 Timothy 6:3-5

Using His words in our life is a shield in everything we say (Psalms 119:114, Proverbs 30:5). When you try to define God through philosophy, you're adding to His words. This verse is not only talking about adding physically to the Scripture itself, but it is stressing to use God's words and not our own words--the words of the world.

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world" 1 John 4:5
"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world" 1 Corinthians 2:6

To re-define our Father's words is the same as adding to His words. And words aren't just what comes out of your mouth; words are the things that you do as well. But just how are we to speak to others? What are we to speak, and what are we to avoid speaking?

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Ephesians 4:29
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners." 1 Corinthians 15:33
"The words of ungodly men are crafty; but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them." Proverbs 12:6
"A false witness shall perish; but an obedient man will speak cautiously." Proverbs 21:28
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
"even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God... For neither at any time used we flattering words." 1 Thessalonians 2:4-5
"how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Matthew 12:34
"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom." Psalms 37:30
"He that keepeth his mouth keepeth his life: but he that openeth wide his lips shall have destruction." Proverbs 13:3
"For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a foreigner, and he that speaketh shall be a foreigner unto me." 1 Corinthians 14:8-11

What are the repercussions of using wrong words innocently? When you're dealing with the natural man (police, judges, etc..), you identify yourself as one of the world's when you use their words. You stamp their seal on your heart. They see what's on your heart by the words that come out of your mouth.

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man." Matthew 15:18
"...a fool's voice is known by multitude of words." Ecclesiastes 5:3
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:36-37

This doesn't mean you'll be condemned to hell (although you will have to "give account" of "the idle words" in the day of judgment), but you will condemn yourself in other ways; like when they bring you before the magistrate and throw you in jail. The day of judgment is every day, not just some specific day far distant in the future, for we set a Record of our walk here in the Court of God and it is that Record that will be found in the Lamb's Book of Life. If our Record is not there, then we were not in Him and never can partake of His Blessings. So heed this advice from God:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4
"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth." Proverbs 6:2

So, if you're going to use the words of the world, be aware that you will be chastised for using those words. Therefore, words have a tremendous impact on us in doing the things we do, and in the way that we perceive things around us. If we perceive them in the way that the human being perceives them, then the world will perceive us as being one of them, as being of the world.

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you." John 20:21

This is our delegation of authority. We act in His name and by His authority. So the only words that you can speak are the words that He puts in your mouth. Otherwise you're not acting in His name and by His authority, you're acting in the name of somebody else. The minister speaks as his master. When a bondman goes out and does anything, he does it in the name of his master. A third party, when they see the bondman do a particular act, they don't see the bondman doing that act, they see the master doing that act through the bondman himself. Even the heathen understand this when they go into treaty negotiations through their ambassadors. They only speak the words that their sovereign has put in their mouth to the party sitting opposite the table from them. If they speak any other words, they're not a true ambassador; they're a phony messenger--they're a liar. And the treaty they sign is of no force and effect. All bondmen of Christ are "...ambassadors for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20, Ephesians 6:20 ), so must speak the words and do the will of the sovereign who sent us.

Our Lord makes a close connection between Himself and His words:

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Mark 8:38

What's in a Name?

A name has a life of its own. Today, to know the "personal" name of someone gives insight into the nature of that "person." The name is not only a label, but a description (the person/the mask). The modern tendency to give nicknames is often an attempt to describe someone. Knowing someone's name places him in your power; he is compelled to hear and obey when his name is called. He has to respond when his name is spoken. After all, if you call his name, doesn't he stop and turn around? In short, he whose name is known can be controlled.

The value of a name is easily seen in everyday attempts to communicate. We give things a name in order to avoid the necessity of describing the item every time we refer to it.

The Miracle Worker told of Ann Sullivan's heroic struggle to educate Helen Keller. She determined to bring the child, Helen, out of her soundless, sightless dungeon of isolation. Patiently and persistently Ann brought the little girl into touch-contact with countless articles, slowly tracing out the letters in the name of the item into Helen's open palm. Countless times the routine was repeated without the message coming across. Ann felt that if Helen could only catch the idea that everything has a name, then real communication could begin. The name would be the mental link-up with the physical object. The mind could retain the name, the hands could explore the object, and the corresponding link-up would be the lesson. But the key to understanding was the name. Finally, one day, while water was running across her hand and Ann was patiently tracing w-a-t-e-r across the palm, the realization came to Helen, "It has a name, and its name is water." After that, the floodgates to learning were literally opened and her questing mind eagerly absorbed everything.

In scriptural times, someone's name stood for the whole character of the one involved. To know a name was to know the character of the "object." Character is not communicable. Godly character is not personal; it is from above. But the name represents the character. To tell someone your name was to tell him a great deal about you. Anyone who knew a great deal about you had some power over you. He knew your strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. In short, he knew what made you tick. You were vulnerable. You were in his power. To give someone your name was to take that "person" into your confidence. You would not do that unless you trusted him. In other words, a name was valuable, so it was guarded very closely in ancient times.

Scripturally, a name represents one's character. This is why God changed the name of his servants (Genesis 17:5,15; 32:28; 35:10), and told parents what to name their unborn child (Genesis 16:11; 17:19, 1 Chronicles 22:9, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 1:4,6,9, Matthew 1:21,24, Luke 1:13,31), and why men have chosen one name over another for their child (Genesis 35:18, Luke 1:59-60), and why name's of cities have been changed (Genesis 28:19): to reflect their character!

In today's culture and its teachings, the first thing we do when we meet someone is tell them our name. Today, names are little more than personal marks for social convenience. That's why most have so docilely accepted being assigned numbers in place of their names, such as social security numbers, credit card numbers, drivers license numbers, etc. Names are no longer intended to describe us, but merely to identify us, "personally."

But God calls his servants by name (Isaiah 43:1; 45:3; John 10:3, Revelation 2:17). Everyone's name is sacred, an icon of the follower of Christ. It demands respect as a sign of the dignity of the one who bears it, having received it from the One Who gave it.

Now, here's a question for you. Have you ever, in your entire life, 'signed' your name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? When you write to your family or friends, do you refer to yourself in an all caps signature? Of course not! Haven't you always used both upper and lower case letters to sign your name? Yes. And why is that? Because that is what you have been taught since a child. Because the standard Rule of Law governing the use of English Grammar states that the correct Capitalization of Proper Names must begin with a capital letter, and the rest of the name must be spelled in smaller case letters. In Law, this lets others know you are created by God, and not an "entity" created by man.

Now there are, believe it or not, entities created by man. Corporations, for example, are known as 'persons' created by the government. They are created on a piece of paper and brought into existence by the government. To differentiate between those created by God and those "artificial" persons created by the government, those created by the government have their names spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. This lets others know that this person does not have a soul, but this is a fictitious entity created for the purpose of making a profit. Corporations are engaged in capital, thus, by spelling incorporated names in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, this shows the world that they are involved in capital, in profit.

The following six definitions are taken from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Capital: "Wealth (money or property) owned or used in business by a person, corporation, etc. Any source of benefit or assistance." Page 207.
Capitalize: "To print or write a word or words in capital letters." Page 208.
Capitalization: "Converting something into capital. Using capital letters in writing and printing." Page 208.

Now, compare how a "CORPORATION'S NAME" is spelled with how someone's "Proper," or more precisely, "God-given," name is lawfully spelled:

Capital Letter: "Used to begin a sentence or proper name". Page 208.
Proper: "Designating a noun that names a specific individual. ["Donald," and "Rover," are proper nouns, sometimes called proper names] (opposed to common)." Page 1078.
Common: "Belonging equally to, or shared by, two or more or by all (as opposed to proper)." Page 281.

Notice very careful that a capital letter is used to begin a proper name or proper noun. A corporation is not a proper noun, because it does not exist, except in fiction. You can't touch it, see it, hear it, smell it, or taste it. It is brought into existence by a piece of paper. Corporations, in fact, can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest. Also, the name of a corporation is shared by two or more people, because a business cannot be incorporated unless there are two or more people running this business. So it is a "common" name (see above definition), and is not a "proper" or God-given" name.

Now, if you look at all documents issued by the government, you will notice the names that appear on them are spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! What this means, at law, is that the entity that is named on this piece of paper is engaged in capital! It is a creature of the government now having "legal" personality, and not a created vessel of God. In order to get a license or other documents from the government, one must substitute one's lawfully spelled name for a fictitiously spelled name; you must deny the name given to you by God, and accept a name given to you by Caesar in its place. Your name is not spelled in all capital letters, therefore, this name is not yours! That is not who you are. And you must lie and say that this name is yours to get a license, permit, certificate, document, etc. The name that appears on all pieces of paper issued by the government is called a misnomer, at law:

Misnomer: "The act of applying a wrong name to a person. An error in naming a person or place in a legal document." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 867.
Misnomer: "Mistake in name; giving incorrect name to a person in accusation, indictment, pleading, deed or other instrument. Under rules of practice in some states, such is ground for dismissal by motion. In most states, however, as well as in the federal courts, such misnomer can be corrected by amendment of the pleadings." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 1000.
"Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody. Andif the defendant has been arrested by a wrong name, the court will set aside the proceedingsand discharge him if in custody." 4 Bacon's Abridgment, (D) of Misnomer, and want of Addition (1832), page 7.

For those of you who believe that it does not matter how your name is spelled, and that a court will not dismiss a case in which the name of the accused is spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, read this clipping from the front page of this newspaper, which is read world wide:

"CAPITAL PUNISHMENT? A man said government court filings referred to him in bold, capital letters, instead of upper and lower case letters. Thus, he said, those filings were aimed at someone who is "either a dead person or a corporate fiction," not him. The court disagreed and dismissed his case." The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, page 1.

Occasionally, one's name is spelled in upper and lower case letters, but always with a middle initial! In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 867., an initial is defined as "a capital, or uppercase, letter." In other words, an initial indicates capital, or commercial activity. In this case, the name of the man of God is still denied because the courts have ruled "that an initial cannot be regarded as a Christian name." Reg. V. Bradley, 3E. & E. 634. And "An abbreviation is no part of the description." Reg. V. Tugwell, 3 Q.B., 704.

For example, if you abbreviate your (First Middle Last) name, so that there are only three letters total (i.e., F.M.L.), would you claim that these three initials are your name? Of course not. And neither is a middle initial a name. You were not given an initial at birth, you were given a name. An initial is given by Caesar, your name is given by God. However, if your middle name is indeed a single letter, don't put a period after it, because that would indicate that your single letter is an initial. Therefore, a Godly name with an initial in its place is a misnomer, at law:

"We are of the opinion that the word 'misnomer', which means a naming amiss, is wide enough to cover the faulty indication of a Christian name by means of the initial. That it was not a mere case of misnomer, because the initials were no name at all." The Queen v. Plenty, Court of Queen's Bench, 4 C.Q.B. 46. Vide, Bacon's Abridgment of the Law, Misnomer.
"A person's name consists in law, of a given or Christian name, and a family surname. It has been said that a description or abbreviation [initial] is not the equivalent of a nameThe Christian or first name is, in law, denominated the "proper name," and has been used from early times to distinguish a particular individual from his fellowsOriginally, it was the only name which was recognized in [the common] law, and consequently, it has always been considered an essential part of a person's name. The giving of a wrong Christian or given name to a person, in legal proceedings or in conveyances, generally constitutes an error which may invalidate a judgment or deprive the record of an instrument of its effect as notice. It has been held that the law knows but one Christian name of a single individual." 57 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sections 1 and 4.

One's "Christian name" is one's given name. A servant of Christ does not have a last name. The last name, or family name, belongs to your family. It existed long before you were born. Therefore, it is not you and it does not describe you. It is not a "God-given name', but a name designated by your family relating, usually, to a previous craft or commercial profession. In addition, since a family name is a common name, shared by two or more people, and not a proper name (see definitions above), it is considered an incorporated name under man's law. Thus, a family name is descriptive of a corporation, combining a group of people into a unit through a "name":

Incorporated: "Combined into one body or unit; united." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 684.

In short, a family name is considered a "legal fiction" in man's law for man's purposes. Your family name describes your relationship to a lineage for historical purposes, but your only lineage that is important, in Law, is that relating to our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. That is not to say that your family is not, or should not be, important to you. But it is man's law that makes these distinctions important. They look to earthly connections to attach "legal personality" to you. This is the mark of "the old man" of the world, better known as a "natural man," natural person," or "human being." This is how they acquire jurisdiction over the servants of Christ.

Notice these three definitions taken from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Christian name: "The baptismal or given name, as distinguished from the family name." Page 249.
Family name: "Surname. A name or epithet added to a person's given name." Page 489.
Surname: "The family name, or last name, as distinguished from a given name." Page 1347.

This is why, when marriage occurs, the woman keeps her given name, but leaves her last name with her family, because her last name belongs to the family, and not to her. This is why adopted boys leave their last name with their former family and adopt, or "incorporate," the name of their new family, but they keep their given name. This is why all characters in the Scripture (David, Abraham, Moses, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Simon Peter) use only their given names, and not their family names, because last names belong to the earthly family. Even in all the genealogies of family histories listed in the Scripture, the family names are never mentioned in these genealogies! Jesus said one's true family are those who do the will of God (Matthew 12:49-50), and not necessarily those who are blood related. So, by using a last name, surname, or family name, you are stating that your conversation is of the world, and not of heaven (Philippians 3:20).

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in CourtEverything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names are thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to "The Law of Names," by Anthony Linell (1938).

Avoid giving a Name

"Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?" James 2:7

A bondman in and of Christ Jesus has a name given to him by God (Isaiah 62:2, Revelation 2:17). He does not have a name given to him by Caesar. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction asks to see your "identification," or asks for your name, let them know that you are a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, you have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore you do not have a name that can be rendered to him (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25).

The implications of giving your so-called "name" to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of Washington D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating.

When you are confronted by "a person" asking if your name is "so and so," you should not deny or confirm it, because that would cause "joinder," joining you to the controversy (which may give them jurisdiction over you). You must answer as our Lord answered many questions. For example, "I also will ask you one thing" (Matthew 21:24). In this way, you transfer the burden from yourself to the intruder. What that question is that you ask will be put in your mouth by the Holy Spirit; it is not for anyone to put words in your mouth.

The rebuttal by many to this mode of the "name game" is always the same: "it's okay to give your name to Caesar, because Jesus did when the Roman soldiers sought Him at John 18:4-8." This is incorrect, because when we compare the King James Version with the original Greek text, he did not answer to the name, to wit:

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:" John 18:4-8

Note that in the King James Version text, the "he" in "I am [he]" is interpolated (added by the translators; does not exist in the Greek text) in every verse. And we see that the first time he said "I am" to the Roman soldiers who had come to arrest Him, at verse 6, "they went backward, and fell to the ground." This occurred because they were speaking to the same "I am" as Moses spoke to at Exodus 3:14:

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

And note that our Lord asked them a second time, at verse 7, who they were seeking. If He was answering to the name of "Jesus of Nazareth" the first time, why would He ask them a second time who they were seeking?

When one asks your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community and the Law you minister to. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from being "conformed to His image and likeness" to being conformed to Caesar's, and thereby give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings, and others of like "species." As they put it, you become one of their "right and duty bearing units."

Legal Definition of Names

"Names are the symbols of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', page 2149.
"Names are the marks of things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', Page 2148.
"A name is as it were a note of a thing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, (1914), 'Maxim', Page 2148.

Are you a thing? When you are asked, "What is your name?" by Caesar, and you give him a name, you are identifying yourself as a thing. The name that Caesar gives is a mark, note, and symbol of things. Things don't have a soul. And because a name refers to a thing, it does not refer to the bondman of Christ, for we are not things. Nor are we "individuals."

An individual is defined as:

"Any thing regarded as something single, as a unit. Especially a person, a human being." Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (1996), page 272.

When you say you're a resident, you are calling yourself a thing.

In A Dictionary Of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 886, Res is defined as "a thing, or things", and identifying the thing is something that's of the world. Res-ident. The bondmen of Christ are not residents; we are transients, visitors, and sojourners with Him. When we "identify" only with Him and become one with Him, we cannot be identified by the heathen as a resident, a member of society, etc.

"Residence implies something more than mere transient visitation." The National Law Library, published by Collier, Volume III, page 358 footnote.
"The voice of the legislators is a living voice to impose laws on things and not on words" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim.' P.2142.
"We impose laws, not on words, but upon things themselves." Black's Law dictionary, (4th, edition, 1957 & 1968), p. 1205.

This is how the "police power" attaches to those who do not sojourn in Christ. Those dead to Christ are made after the image that created them. For example "the State" is a corporation, a dead thing, and it is dead to Christ, and it is made in the image of Caesar (self-made), because it they live by all the corporate laws that Caesar creates. Corporations, or the corporate governments, always mark their property, or 'things', with 'legal descriptions.' To settle the question as to whether States are corporations:

"All States whatever are corporations." Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall.(US) 419, 468, 1 L.Ed. 440.

To settle the question as to whether all corporations are dead under the law, and if all corporations have no souls:

"They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls." 10 Rep.32 b.

Corporations are, therefore, dead to Christ. Those who put there trust in the State are just like it - dead to Christ. Those who put there trust in corporations are, likewise, dead to Christ. Human beings, persons, residents, individuals, citizens, civilians, and corporations are all the same under the law, they're all considered things. They are all considered "dead"-- spiritually dead.

"They that make them [*false images/idols) are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalms 115:8

There you have it. If you trust in something that man has made, you are made like to his image. Do you trust in the State? Are you made in the image of Caesar? Or are you made in the image of Christ?

"...the workman made it; therefore it is not God." Hosea 8:6
"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made" Isaiah 17:7-8

So, if the workman made it, and it is not God, it must be dead, because there's no life breathed into it by God himself. Corporations are made by man, so corporations are not part of God. The laws regulating corporations are made by man, so those laws are not part of God. If they are not of God, we cannot trust in them.

Why these Fictitious Names?

First of all, let us understand that the courts are required to abide by the standard "rule of law" (which has "evolutionary" in their courts) governing the use of English grammar and the correct capitalization of proper names.

"The parties to a suit must be specifically mentioned (Com. Dig. Pleader, C. 18), and actions to be properly brought must be commenced and prosecuted in the proper Christian and surnames of the parties." Seely vs. Schenck and Denise, Crandall vs. Denny & Co, 1 Penn., Rep. 75. Tomlinson vs. Berke et al (5 Haisl. Rep. 295). Oregon Supreme Court Record, Book No. 1, 1844-1845, page 58.
"The object of the description of persons in all legal proceedings is to identify them, or to designate their office or the character in which they are to be viewed [*perceived] in the proceeding. All persons are presumed to have what is called a Christian or given name, and for the purpose of identifying parties, it is a primary rule in practice and pleading, that the full Christian name and surname should be given at length, unless averred to be unknown. Under our criminal code, as well as the old practice in this State, the Christian name of the defendant, if known, must be set out in full in the indictment or information." Gardner v. The State, 4 Indiana 632; Bricknell Criminal Practice, 84.
"If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly fatal to all legal instrumentsand the reason is, because it is repugnant to the Christian religion, that there should be a Christian without a name of baptism, or that such a person should have two Christian names...and therefore if a person enters into a bond by a wrong Christian name, he cannot be declared against by the name in the obligation, and his true name brought in an alias, for that supposes the possibility of two Christian names; and you cannot declare against the party by his right name, and aver he made the deed by his wrong name." New Abridgment of the Law, by Matthew Bacon (1846) Volume VII, published by Thomas Davis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The government cannot legally communicate with you unless you are identified in all upper case letters. Since the names that appear on all government documents are fictitious names, and since the courts disregard or have "evolutionized" the standard rule of law governing the use of English grammar and the correct capitalization of proper names, let us see what this means:

"Pseudonym: A fictitious name." Webster's New World Dictionary, page 1085.
"Nom De Guerre: War name. A pseudonym." Webster's New World Dictionary, page 920.
"Nom. [French. 'name'.] Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumes name.; esp. a nom de guerre, lit. 'war name', a name assumed by, or assigned to, a person engaged in some action or enterprise." The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1964), page 1333.

A fictitious name is a pseudonym, and a pseudonym is a nom de guerre, and a nom de guerre is a war name! When courts issue a judgment against a defendant, the Order is always typed in all capital letters and a middle initial which, according to the rules of law governing the English language, has no meaning at all! Yet, the courts are required to use the rules of English by their own Rules of Court! Why does the government convert our Godly name into a war name? The reason our name is changed into a war name on all government documents is because all parties to an action during war cannot appear in their own name!

"An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during war, in his own name." See 'alien' in Wharton's Pa. Dig., Sec. 20.94. Cited in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989, published by Clarendon Press.

Today's courts cannot deal with real people because, being bound by International Law and the Law of War, such courts can only deal with fictitious persons. Thus, all parties agree to be named with a fictitious name, spelled in all capital letters and with a middle initial, i.e., a nom de guerre (war name). But it's only because they are, as Oxford's puts it, "engaged in some action or enterprise" (war or commerce).

For example, all IRS forms and letters to taxpayers use a nom de guerre by the initial in the name, and regularly violate the rules of English. They request only a middle initial, not a full name, to be used on all their forms (see the instructions to any IRS form).

Any law dictionary will confirm that the purpose of these fictions is to give the court jurisdiction!

But we must remember that when one is not engaged in carnal warfare (action) and not engaged in carnal commerce (enterprise), the fictions that a court or government may attempt to attach to you will not "stick." When one walks according to the Spirit, in full faith, a line is drawn in the sand; the world and its things cannot and will not attach by the Grace of God.

Fictio: "In Roman law, a fiction; an assumption or supposition of the law. Such was properly a term of pleading, and signified a false averment on the part of the plaintiff which the defendant was not allowed to traverse [*challenge]The object of the fiction was to give the court jurisdiction." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 623.
Fiction: "Founded on a fiction; having the character of a fiction; pretended; counterfeit. Feigned, imaginary, not real, false, not genuine, nonexistent. Arbitrarily invented and set up, to accomplish an ulterior object [*i.e., jurisdiction]." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 624.
"Do not rich men [*merchants] oppress you, and draw you [*with contracts] before the judgment seats [*courts]? Do not they blaspheme [*deny, mis-spell] that worthy name [*Godly name] by the which ye are called?" James 2:6-7
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6

When you give that which is holy (your Godly name) to the dogs (Caesar), and cast your pearls before swine, it will be converted to something dead of the State's creation (a misnomer, a fiction) which will give standing in its courts, because the law that the State declares is the one written in its books. Caesar gives you a name in all capital letters, which marks you like an animal. Caesar is now re-defining you in terms of 'the person' described in its codes, rules, and regulations. The other indicia are a birth date, address, and social security number. This is how the State courts acquire jurisdiction over you. Now it can proceed to tame you.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" Hosea 4:6

Christ is, in deed, seen in you and does not identify with (confirm) that character on the paper offered before the court. The surety for the fictitious person is not found; and a warrant is issued under their "testament" for the pagan, citizen, patriot, infidel, natural person, human being, or other "private" person having that lawless character who will ignorantly stand as surety for that fiction. The fiction has no economic value without the ignorance of the followers of Christ. Please remember that fictions are not the Way, Truth, and the Life for the minister of Christ. You are mandated to confess Christ to avoid the malicious plans of men.

Always remember, Confess Christ to Avoid and Justify so you may be Excused. The technique is to confess the Law of Christ to justify your lawful act(s) and to avoid the consequences of their purported law.

Are We in a State of War?

The first Executive Order was issued by President Abraham Lincoln, and it brought martial law (military law) into America because of the Civil War. It has never been repealed and is still in effect. I will not go into detail, except to quote these sources:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency ruleAnd, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have, from at least the Civil War, in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency". Congressional Report No. 93-549, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, Emergency Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency, page 1, November 19, 1973, pursuant to Senate Res. 9, pub. By the U.S. Gov. Printing Office.
According to the Supreme Court, Congress has made little or no distinction between a 'state of national emergency' and a 'state of war'. Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. pa., 49 F. Supp. 728, 732.
According to the Law of Nations, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself." And according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and in truth and reality, is no law at all."

Since martial law is no law at all, they are lawless. Thus, they cannot bring a bondman of the Christ into its courts. This is why the government cannot bring anyone into their courts using their lawfully spelled, and must convert it into a fictitious name. The United States is at war with its people, and to get jurisdiction over them, the government must convert them into something lawless, like 'corporations' and 'persons', etc. Governments only have jurisdiction over the lawless, and that's why they try to convert the bondmen of Christ into lawless entities by getting them to incorporate themselves, or by getting them to accept the marks of corporations, etc.

In the early 1930's, President Roosevelt extended 'emergency powers' by Executive Order and declared all citizens of the United States, living in the States, enemies of the United States. This was done by the simple act of changing only one word in the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of 1917. He changed the word 'without' the United States, to 'within' the United States. Congress rubber-stamped Executive Order numbers 2039 and 2040 into law without debate.

Military Flags indicate Military Rule

When you walk into any court today, you will see a gold-fringed flag. This flag is placed on a flagstaff, and the flagstaff head (the decorative ornament at the top of the flagstaff) is an image of an Eagle. What does such a flag signify? First, we will examine the yellow fringe. The answer is found in Eisenhower's Executive Order (#10843, August 21, 1959), the Code of Federal Regulations (at 24 C.F.R. 6865), & current law:

" A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and by his capacity as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces." 4 U.S.C., Ch. 1, Sections 1,2, & 3; Exec. order No.10834.
"Placing of fringe on national flagare within the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Attorney General, 483 (1925).

And the continued use of a yellow fringed flag is prescribed in current Army regulations:

"the Flag is trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 inches wide. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor display foreach military installation.each military courtroom." United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, Chapter 2, October 1, 1979.

As far as the flagstaff head finial being an eagle, the answer to what this means is in the United States Army Regulations, AR 840-10, Chapter 8, 2(a)(1), October 1, 1979. When an Eagle is placed at the top of the flagstaff, it indicates, "Eagle - Presidential Flagstaff." Dear reader, the president is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. If the flag of the Commander-in- Chief is flown in all court rooms today, this indicates that the law of that court is under the Commander-in-Chief! Which, again, confirms military law!

So why does this military flag fly in all Federal, State, County, and City courtrooms if they are not military courtrooms? The truth is, all government courts today are military courts. They sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians, and are governed by "The Manual of Courts Martial," U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), page IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Just to clarify the question as to whether or not the people of the United States are considered alien enemies of the United States and subject to military courts, read the definition of Enemy in the above manual.

The Constitution doesn't apply in courts today, and governments can take a citizen's property without permission or due process of law, like they do under the current 'forfeiture laws,' because of the following law:

"When a citizen is arraigned before a military commission on a criminal charge he is no longer under the protection of the law, nor surrounded with those safeguards which are provided in the Constitution. The accused may be sentenced to death, and the sentence may be executed without a judge. A sentence which forfeits all the property of the accused requires no approval." 12 Op. Attorney General 182 (1867).

Does anyone want their day in 'court' now? Even the Scripture says we're not to go to courts of "law before the unjust" nor "before the unbelievers" (1 Corinthians 6:1,6). We are to separate ourselves from the unjust. How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice!

Let's see where military law comes from. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Mars: "God of war." Page 829.
Martial Law: Temporary rule by the military authorities over the civilian population when civil authority has broken down." Page 830.

Now, what is the connection between military courts and contracts?

"In maritime law: it is the law of that nation or country whose flag is flown. On a ship or government office or in a courtroom or wherever it is displayed gives notice by this flag to all who enter into contracts with the master that he intends the law of that flag to regulate such contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him." Black's L.D., 4th Ed., under ..flag, law of.

Police enforce these military contracts, such as drivers licenses and registration contracts. A military flag flies in all drivers license buildings. Police happen to be all military, which is why they use military designations in all of their positions, such as Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, etc. You might ask, "Can someone be part of a police department and still be a servant of Christ?" Well, is the policeman there as a minister of God to thee for good, or is he there for the benefit of the state and to meet a quota? If he's there as a minister of God, and you're doing the Will of God, and he sees that in you, he won't write out the ticket. He won't do anything that will violate the Word of God because he himself recognizes a brother doing the Will of the Father. But if he's an ungodly man he will write out the ticket and will basically say, "I'll let the judge sort all this out." Which means he didn't recognize the Truth when it was brought to him. His faith was in the State, not in the Word of God. His god is the god of war...Mars.

(To be continued next month)

Richard Anthony's website is at: http://devoted.to/truth

The Law of Slaves

Part Two

by Randy Lee

"Who shall bring an accusation against the elect of God? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, but rather also who is raised up; who also is at the right hand of God; Who also intercedes for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? tribulation, or strait, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? According as it has been written, For Thy sake we are put to death the whole day; we were reckoned as sheep of slaughter. But in all these things we more than overcome through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to be, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:33-39

We will thus examine the implications, contrasts and parallels between the Roman law of slaves and our Father's Law:

In our Father's Law, we see the parallel of going from the captivity of the ways of the world and the death and destruction thereof, to life eternal as a bondman of Jesus the Christ:

"What fruit therefore had ye then, in those things [*the captivity of sin] of which now ye are ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now having been set free from sin, and having become bondmen to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life eternal. For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:21-23
"Verily verily I say to you, that he that hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has life eternal, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." John 5:24
"For God so loved the world that He gave His Son, the only begotten, that everyone who believes on Him may not perish, but may have life eternal. For God sent not His Son into the world that He might judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-18

The only "rights" that His bondmen have is the "right" (authority) to the Tree of Life; none other is needed or desired; and all duties are to the Lord, not to the natural man:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do His commandments, that their authority [*right] shall be to the tree of life, and by the gates they should go in to the city." Revelation 22:13-14

Asking for or desiring justice from Caesar and his "magistrates" is folly:

"Many wait on the favour [*rights and privileges] of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Job 29:26
"...he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." 1 Corinthians 2:15 (KJV)

When one becomes, and remains, a true bondman of his lord and master, he is as his lord and master (Matthew 10:25); all debts and other bindings are paid.

"Wast thou called being a bondman [*of men]? Let it not be a care to thee: but and if thou art able to become free, use it rather. For he being called in the Lord, being a bondman, is a freedman of the Lord: likewise also he that is called, being free, is a bondman of Christ. With a price ye were bought; become not bondmen of men." 1 Corinthians 7:21-23

When walking in newness of life and therefore hid in the Christ, man's law cannot, in Law, see or touch His bondmen:

"Are ye ignorant that we as many as were baptized unto Christ Jesus, unto His death we were baptized? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism unto death, that as the Christ was raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we in newness of life should walk." Romans 6:3-4
"Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. But we all with uncovered face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Under the Roman law, the servi/doulos had no character (persona) in which that law could take cognizance of, for the "character" of the bondslave was not considered his own, for his character (spirit) was representative of the master's, due to their "permanent" relationship. Paul understood these precepts:

"Who art thou judging another's servant? to his own master he stands or falls. And he shall be made to stand; for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4

But if that permanent relationship is broken through self-will (no longer bound with the spirit of the master), then the world becomes the master, and the destruction follows:

"Unless anyone abide in Me, he is cast out as the branch, and is dried up, and they gather them, and cast them into a fire, and it is burned. If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, whatever ye will ye shall ask, and it shall come to pass to you." John 15:6-7

From the above, we see that even the heathen recognizes that the master reigns, and that all belongs to him. But with them, the master is themselves and they believe that they, and everything else, belong to themselves. But the children of Almighty God know otherwise:

"The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." Psalm 24:1
"Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the might: for Thou art Lord of all things that are in heaven and upon the earth: before Thy face every king and nation is troubled. From Thee come wealth and glory; Thou, O Lord, rulest over all; the Lord of all dominion, and in Thine hand is strength and rule; and Thou art Almighty with Thy hand to increase and establish all things. And now, Lord, we give thanks to Thee, and praise Thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we have been able to be thus forward in offering to Thee? for all things are Thine, and of Thine own have we given Thee, for we are strangers before Thee, and sojourners, as all our fathers were: our days upon the earth are as a shadow, and there is no remaining." 1 Chronicles 29:11-15

Therefore, the bondman of Jesus the Christ owns nothing and claims nothing, and thereby does not become entangled in the vanities of men.

The faithful bondman of the Lord is faithfully claimed by Him:

"And now glorify Thou Me, Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had before the world was with Thee.
I manifested Thy name to the men who Thou hast given Me out of the world. Thine they were, and to Me them Thou hast given, and Thy word they have kept.
Now they have known that all things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, of Thee are.
For the words which Thou has given Me I have given them, and they received them, and knew truly that from Thee I came out, and they believed that Thou didst send Me.
I make request concerning them: I request not concerning the world, but concerning whom Thou hast given Me, for Thine they are.
And all My things are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I have been glorified in them." John 17:5-10

Therefore, the bondman of Jesus the Christ belongs to Him, and Him along. His bondman does not engage in suretyship (contracts) with others, and does not replace the Lord's light yoke with the heavy yokes of the world:

"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Proverbs 22:26 (KJV)
"My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger,
Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth." Prov 6:1-2 (KJV)

Which kind of bondman does the heathen see you to be. To who or what are you a slave to. The answer will determine who you belong to, and the jurisdiction thereof.

"Because all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the vaunting of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.And the world is passing away, and the lust of it, but he that does the will of God abides for ever." I John 2:16-17

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

The Pledge of Allegiance

Written by John Nelson: Winter

In order to truly understand exactly what one is doing when one executes the "Pledge of Allegiance" there are words and constructs that must be defined, in law (man's), to fully comprehend the verbal contract that is being executed. Firstly:

"Pledge. ...A pledge is a promise or agreement by which one binds himself to do or forbear something." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 1153.
"Allegiance. Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. (US v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F.Supp. 407, 414)." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 74.

For one to announce they are seeking "protection" from an entity "made with man's hands", and not from our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, surely indicates that, for them, God's protection is not sufficient; this raises a multitude of problems.

"Government. , the government is but an agency of the state, The sovereign or supreme power in a state or nation. " Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 695.

From this definition it is plain that Almighty God has been supplanted as Supreme; according to the natural man and his "law" therefore, would it not follow that government is to be considered as a god? ("which are yet no gods") Jeremiah 2:11.

"Flag. A national standard on which are certain emblems; an ensign, a banner." [*common usage--a symbol, an image] Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 638.
"Standard. ...An ensign or flag used in war." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1404.
"(15). "United States" means -- (A) a Federal corporation; " 28 USC 3002
"Corporation. An artificial person [*fiction of law] or legal [*not Lawful] entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 340. [*"State" is also an artificial person--a fiction of law].
"Artificial. ..created by art, existing only by force or in contemplation of law." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, p. 113.

Anything which is artificial is, by common usage, fake, false, simulated, etc., etc., and a lie and certainly void of truth--and therefore dead to the Christ.

As pertaining to those who pledge allegiance (fidelity and obedience) to a flag (symbol, image) of a corporation (fiction of law)--would certainly indicate the following:

1. God the Father--the One True Almighty God--is insufficient for their protection.
2. Man's government, not God, is recognized as the supreme power.
3. God cannot be viewed or seen by them as being in complete control--otherwise how could man's government (an agent of the state, a fiction) provide any protection for them?
4. "Pledging" to a fiction--an object of man's vain imagination, a lie--would certainly indicate just how far the "father of lies" has clouded their ability to discern truth.
5. And for God fearing (reverencing) people who may pledge allegiance to such things--are they not showing with such a pledge that they are involved in serving two masters.

As bondservants of Jesus the Christ, the only "pledge of allegiance" (so-called) is to our Creator, not to any one or any thing else. The constructs of men, the traditions of men, the merchants of the earth and all of their religion of consumerism are strictly "humbug," and will fall. We are told that we are in the world, and not to be of it--Satan tempted Jesus the Christ with all of the things of the commercial world--that world of the flesh--just as each of us are tempted each day. In order to resist those temptations, each of us must strive to obtain, and maintain, the discernment to separate the wheat from the tares.

"Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. (Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash. 2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109)." [*Emphasis added] Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 244.
"Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a retention of control over disposition. (522 F.2d 1299, 1307). See also Ownership; Title." [*Emphasis added] Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 486.

In Paul's time, the word 'citizen" had an opposite meaning:

"4177 politon, polites. A citizen, an inhabitant of a city, one who has the right of citizenship; a townsman; a freemen." (Acts 21:39)

Since the only "right" contained in Scripture is the "right to the Tree of Life," where do these so-called "individual and collective rights" come from, and what relation to our Father's Word do they have? The "national" motto says "IN GOD WE TRUST," but it never states "which" god; since it is found most often on the "money," it would therefore be the Chaldean god Mammon, i.e., the Greek god Hermes, i.e., the Roman god Mercury.

Bits and Pieces

Interrupted Vacation

A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort up north. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn; the wife preferred to read. One morning, the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a short nap, leaving his fishing gear in the boat. The wife decided to take the boat out. She was not familiar with the lake so she rowed out, anchored the boat, and started reading her book. Along came the sheriff in his boat, pulled up alongside and said,

"Morning, Ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading my book," she replied as she thought to herself, "Is this guy blind or what?"

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informed her.

"But, Officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"

"But you have all this equipment, Ma'am. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that I will charge you with rape," snapped the irate woman.

"But I didn't even touch you," groused the sheriff.

"Yes, that's true ... but you have all the equipment"

The Black Door

Recently, a friend handed me a short story by Paul J. Meyer called "The Black Door." As I read it, I saw myself in the story's prisoner: fearful of the unknown behind a door.

In the story a spy is captured during a desert war. The wise old warlord, who sentences him to death, gives him the choice to either face a quick death by the firing squad or take his chances by passing through a mysterious black door. Minutes before the execution, the warlord asks the frightened spy,

"What have you chosen: the firing squad or the black door?"

Imagining terrible torture behind the massive black door, the spy tells the warlord that he chooses the firing squad. Moments later, rifle shots signal his death.

The old warlord turns to his aide and says,

"You see how it is with people? They will always prefer the known to the unknown. That man went quietly to his death though I gave him a choice."

"What lies beyond the black door?" asks the aide.

"Freedom," replies the warlord, "and I've known very few men brave enough to take it."

The "moral" of this story is:

Even the heathen know that there is only one door that will save all from death, if we choose to walk through it.

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheepI am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved" John 10:7-9

A Riddle: Who Am I?

Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made sometime before man,
To answer God's most holy plan.

A living being I became,
And Adam gave to me my name.
I, from his presence, then withdrew,
And more of Adam I never knew.

I did my Maker's Law obey,
Nor never went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear,
But seldom on earth do I appear.

For purpose wise which God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
The soul in me, God had fed,
Until, finally, the soul had fled.

I am the same
As when first made.
Without hands, feet, or face,
I travel on from place to place.

I labor hard by day and night,
To fallen man I give great light.
Thousands of people, young and old,
Will, by my death, great light behold.

No right or wrong can I conceive,
The Scriptures I cannot believe.
Although my name therein is found,
They are, to me, an empty sound.

No fear of death doth trouble me,
Real happiness I'll never see.
To heaven I shall never go,
Nor to hell far below.

Now when, these lines, you slowly read,
Go search your Bible with all speed.
For that my name is written there,
I do, honestly, to you, declare

"The answer is ONE word!"

(The answer will appear in Issue the Sixty-first, in the "Bits and Pieces" section)

The Value of a Smile

It costs nothing, but creates much good. It enriches those who receive it without impoverishing those who give it away. It happens in a flash but the memory of it can last forever. No one is so rich that he can get along without it. No one is too poor to feel rich when receiving it. It creates happiness in the home, fosters good will in the street, and is the countersign of friends. It is rest to the weary, daylight to the discouraged, and sunshine to the sad.

Yet it cannot be bought, begged, borrowed, or stolen, for it is something of no earthly good to anybody until it is given away willingly.

Issue the Sixty-first

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

In the Name of? ...

The Words of His Kingdom & the words of the world compared, Part Three...

The Mark of the Beast...

The Arrest & Trials of Jesus the Christ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

In the Name of...?

Written by and to the several bondmen of Jesus the Christ in His assembly

What is the power of someone's name? It is a word or expression in which someone or something is represented to others.

When we mention or hear a name, it brings to mind the whole man, what we know of him, and also the impression he has made on us. The name of a king includes his honor, his power, and his kingdom. His name is the symbol of his power. And so to, each name of Almighty God embodies and represents some part of His glory and power.

The Name of Jesus the Christ is the expression of everything He has done and everything He is and lives to do as our Mediator.

What does it mean to do a thing in the name of another? It is to come with his power and authority, as his representative and substitute. Using another's name always presupposes a common interest. No one would give another the free use of his name without first being assured his honor and interests were as safe with another as with himself.

What does it mean when our Lord gives us power in His Name--the free use of it--with assurance that whatever we ask "in His Name" will be given to us? (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26). He solemnly gives to all of His own a general and unlimited power to use His Name at all times for everything they "desire." He could not do this if He did not know that He could trust us with His interests and that His honor would be safe in our hands.

The free use of someone else's name is always a token of great confidence and close union. Someone who gives his name to another stands aside to let them act for him. Someone who takes the name of another gives up his own "name," as of no value. When we go in the name of another, we deny our self. We take not only the name of another, but him and what he is, instead of our self and what we are.

When our Lord was received up into heaven, He left His work--the management of His Kingdom on earth--in the hands of His servants. He also gave them His Name to draw all the "supplies" they needed for the due conduct of His affairs. His servants have the spiritual power to use His Name only insofar as they yield themselves to live only for the interests and the work of the Master. The use of the Name always supposes the surrender of our interests to Him Whom we represent.

Oneness of life on earth gives oneness of name. We are one with Him; we have one life and one Spirit with Him. For this Truth alone, we may proceed in His Name. Our power in using that Name, whether with the Father, men, or devils, depends on the measure of our spiritual life/union with Jesus the Christ. Our use of His Name rests on the unity of our lives with Him.

No one really gives himself up to live in His Name without receiving in ever-increasing measure the spiritual capacity to ask for and receive in that Name whatever he "desires." By bearing the name of another shows that we have given up our own name and, with it, our own independent life. But just as surely, it shows we have possession of everything belonging to the name we have taken instead of our own.

We are not acting in the name of someone who is absent. Christ Jesus Himself is with the Father. When we pray to the Father, it must be in the Name of Jesus the Christ. Yes, we use the literal name, but we must also understand that "the Name" represents "the activity"--the spiritual power of His High and Sacred office. The Name and the Spirit are one. To ask in His Name is to ask in full union of interest, life, and love with Himself, as one who lives in and for Him. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do," (John 14:13) means "for the glory and honor of My office." To know and understand the will of the Father is to know what to ask for:

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:9-10

But there are those that ask amiss. Why?:

"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:3

The "desires" prayed for must be His desires. Asking in Christ's Name doesn't mean that at the end of some "personal" request we say, "This I ask in the Name of Jesus Christ." It means we are praying for that which will further His purpose through us; not that which will further our own purpose for our selves. It is love that doesn't seek its own will, but only the will of the Father and the good of all His creatures. Such asking is the cry of the Spirit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ in our hearts.

As we bear the Name before men, we have the power to use it before God. Let us plead for His Holy Spirit to show us what the Name means, and what the right use of it is. It is through the Spirit that the Name, which is above every name in heaven, will take the place of supremacy in our hearts and lives. He has placed the eternal treasures and powers of His High and Sacred office at our disposal to help those around us, for His purposes.

Must we address Jesus by his Name?

The name "Jesus" is the name associated with "the shame" which He endured in order to "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Therefore, His people (those who had a "personal" relationship with Him) never addressed him as "Jesus," but as "Master" or "Lord" (John 13:13-14, Luke 6:46), and so should all His people today.

The only ones who irreverently called Him "Jesus" were demons, His enemies, and those who did not have a "personal" relationship with Him. We should not follow the examples of them, but the examples of those who had a close relationship/union with Him. Those who had that close relationship/union with Him never addressed Him, face to face, as "Jesus."

The following passages are all of the verses in His Glad Tidings in which He was "personally" addressed as "Jesus," face to face. Notice who was addressing Him, face to face, in each case.

A man possessed with devils (Matthew 8:29)
A man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue (Mark 1:23, Luke 4:34)
A man with an unclean spirit in the country of the Gadarenes, (Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28)
Jews in a crowd (Matthew 21:11)
Unbelieving Jews (John 6:42)
The accusers of Peter, who were enemies of the Christ (Matthew 26:69,71, Mark 14:67)
Pilate, the one who delivered Jesus to be crucified (Matthew 27:17,22,37, John 18:33, John 19:19)
Chief priests and elders, who persuaded the multitude to destroy Jesus (Matthew 27:20).

Did anyone else call him Jesus? Yes. Some of the people Jesus healed called him "Jesus," but they had no "personal" relationship with Him at that time.

Lepers called Him "Jesus" (Luke 17:13).
A man who was sick for 38 years told others that "Jesus" healed him (John 5:15).
Bartimaeus, who was blind, called him "Jesus" (Mark 10:47, Luke 18:37-38). But notice the "reason" why he called Him "Jesus." It was because when he asked what the commotion in the crowd was all about, a Jew told Bartimaeus that "Jesus" was passing by.

Notice the following three "parallel" passages. He asked His disciples who they thought He was. Peter did not say, "Thou are Jesus." Instead, Peter called Him according to the relationship between the two of them.

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:13-16
"And Jesus went out, and His disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way He asked His disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto Him, Thou art the Christ." Mark 8:27-29
"And it came to pass, as He was alone praying, His disciples were with Him: and He asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again. He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God." Luke 9:18-20

Therefore, when someone asks you, "Who are you?" do not tell them you're name, but tell them who you are according to the Word and Spirit of God. You are a bondman of the Christ.

Questions and Answers

Q: But Christ told the apostle Paul that His name was "Jesus." Therefore, it must be okay to call him "Jesus."

"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:" Acts 9:5
"And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." Acts 22:8

A: But the apostle Paul was not an apostle at this time. His name was not even "Paul," it was "Saul." He was an enemy of Christ at the time. As you can see from this same passage, Saul was "persecuting" Christ by persecuting His bondmen.

Q: What about the parents of Jesus? Did they not call him Jesus?

A: No, they did not call "Him" Jesus, they called "His name" Jesus. Concerning Joseph:

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21
"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS." Matthew 1:25

Concerning Mary:

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." Luke 1:31

Concerning both Joseph and Mary:

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before He was conceived in the womb." Luke 2:21

Notice in the above passages, it does not say they called "Him" Jesus, but that they called "His name" Jesus. There is a difference. There is not one scriptural passage where they began talking to their son with, "Jesus"

Q: But what about the many times in scripture where the epistles refer to Him as "Jesus?"

A: Obviously, it is okay to refer to the Christ as "Jesus" in the 3rd Person (when speaking about Him), but not in the 2nd person (when speaking to the Christ directly).

For example, when Jesus appeared to His disciples during His resurrection, His disciples did not know it was Him, talking to Him about "Jesus" (Luke 24:19). But once they realized it was Jesus they were talking to, they addressed Him as "Lord" and "Master."

When His followers were talking to one another about Him, they would address the Christ as "Jesus," but these same people would never call the Christ "Jesus" while addressing Him to His face, while in His presence. For example, Philip called the Christ "Jesus" when speaking to Nathanael (John 1:45) about Jesus, but Philip never called the Christ "Jesus" when speaking to Him.

The same with angels. When angels talked to believers, they would refer to the Christ as "Jesus" (Matthew 28:5, Mark 16:6, Acts 1:11), because they were speaking about Jesus to another. And the same goes for all the epistles in scripture. The epistles speak of "Jesus" when talking about Him, not to Him.

Conclusion

When we "ask in His name" and talk to the Christ today, we must remember that "Jesus" is more than "a name." He is our Lord and Master because "the name," whether it be Jesus, Joshua, or Yeshua equally mean "Jehovah is our salvation."

The Words of His Kingdom

and

the words of the world

compared

Part Three: Minimum Contacts

written by Richard Anthony

(continued from Issue the Sixtieth)

Minimum Contacts

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14

This is the minimum contact doctrine. The way is narrow and difficult, but His yoke is light.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:17

Believers cannot join with the wicked and profane. There is a great deal of danger in communicating with unbelievers and idolaters, a danger of being defiled. Therefore, the exhortation is 'to come out from among them' and keep at a due distance, 'to be separate,' as one would avoid those with leprosy or the plague, for fear of taking infection, and 'touch not the unclean things,' lest we be defiled (by minimum contacts).

"...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins." Revelation 18:4

Our Lord went to the synagogues of his day, but He did not join them. The Pharisees sought to kill Him because He didn't preach the same thing they were preaching. The Pharisees and Jews joined Caesar (Luke 23:2, John 19:12,15, Acts 17:7), but the Christ remained separate from Caesar's world and the "glory and powers" thereof (Matthew 4:8-10, Luke 4:5-8).

"Minimum Contacts: A doctrine referring to the minimum due process requirement for subjecting a non-resident civil defendant to a court's personal jurisdiction. The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state." International Show Co. v. State of Washington, 326 US. 310, 66 c.c. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.

Servants of the Christ are 'non-residents' to the 'forum state' (Caesar's world) known as 'The United States.' It is important to avoid these 'minimum contacts' with the 'state,' for it will bring you under the 'court's personal jurisdiction.' If anyone has these 'minimum contacts' with that 'forum state,' he will be looked upon as belonging to that state and be fully regulated thereby.

You see, we are not affected by the words in man's law, unless it can be shown that we are connected to them in some way. If it cannot be shown that we have these "contacts" with them, it cannot be proved that those words are binding upon us.

"No person is to be affected by the acts or words of others unless connected with them, personally or by those whom he represents or by whom he is represented." State v. Beaudet, 54 Conn. 541 (1885).

Some examples of 'minimum contacts' are as follows: any government identification, drivers license, social security card; voter registration card; free delivery of mail to your home, business, or Post Office box; bank accounts and loans; credit cards; government or corporate employment; insurance policies; automobile registration; property registration; or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition (spiritual enemy; the unclean things), will contradict and nullify your Godly witness. Why? Because the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Godly name. You may profess to be a servant of the Christ all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you are not a disciple looking to Him for salvation, but a humanist looking to the State for approval and safety.

All of the minimum contacts mentioned above, and many others, are commercial in nature. That commercial nature is what brings you into their jurisdiction. It is 'presumed' by Caesar that you are within 'his' jurisdiction. But all presumptions are rebuttable, if you can evidence that you are not the 'person' they presume you are. A presumption cannot be rebutted if you have the political ties to the government, such as those listed above. The reason it cannot be rebutted concerns the maxim of law, "No man can serve two masters." In other words, Caesar says "if you look to us for your rights and privileges to do an act, we are your absolute master; you belong to us and you will do as we say." God gives us everything we need, we don't need benefits and privileges from man. If you apply for benefits and privileges from the government, you are a 'natural person' in their eyes, and will be treated as such.

"Those applying for benefits from civil government may be classed as 'natural persons.'" Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Lopez, Fla., 531 So. 2d. 946, 948.

This being the case, why would anyone want to stay in commerce? The answer is, because they do not take God's Word seriously. Even when it is pointed out time and time again that Scripture opposes such "practice," they will first look to find some way around the clear meaning of the Scripture, rather than repent of their error; for the current life of most "Christians" is just far too comfortable, convenient, and makes the "good life" easy. This is the real "reason" why there is a reluctance on their part to repent.

And as long as one accepts "benefits" from the government, one cannot free themselves from the yoke of allegiance (bondage) to the government:

"Allegiance is a duty owing by citizens to their government, of which, so long as they enjoy its benefits, they can not divest themselves." Military Government and Martial Law, William E. Birkhimer, Major, General Staff, U.S. Army, 1914, page 64).

Free Mail Delivery Service

Here's an example of using just one of the many minimum contacts; the benefit of free mail delivery service by the U.S. Postal Service. How does using this service convert you into a lawless person and place you under their jurisdiction? First of all, the term 'service' is commercial in nature. When you are the partaker of a 'service,' you are engaged in commercial activity.

Secondly, free mail delivery:

"...brings benefit to every citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country." United States Postal Policy, by Clyde Kelly, a member of the Post Office and Post Roads Committee in Congress (1931).

The key word here is 'benefit.' Receiving a benefit from the government will jeopardize your standing as a bondman of Jesus the Christ. Thus, a maxim of law comes into play: "He who accepts the benefit must also bear the burden."

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

In short, free mail delivery service is a benefit, the use of which places one into a commercial venue, and thus surrenders a 'legal right' to the government, which it would not otherwise be entitled to, i.e., an 'unalienable right.' Unalienable does not mean you can't lose them, but one can voluntarily opt for something else, i.e., a free benefit from the government, thereby changing ones status from unalienable to alienable, in commerce. If you receive a benefit, the government expects a return from you. Thus, the Income Tax Return is the money they collect from you for the 'services' they are giving you at your request. Again, this is commercial activity. Let's examine the concept of a 'benefit' in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988.

"Benefit: Profit." Page 129.

"Profit: Gain, advantage, benefit." Page 1074.

"Income: Gain or benefit received." Page 683.

"Capital: Any source of benefit." Page 207.

"Merchant: A person whose business is buying and selling goods for profit." Page 843.

"Commercialize: To make use of mainly for profit at a sacrifice of other values." Page 280.

"Mercury: God of commerce. Cleverness. Thievery." Page 848.

By accepting a benefit, one is receiving gain, capital, income, and profit. If you're receiving a profit, you are a merchant, which means you are engaged in commercial activity, which means you are a thief, because you are making a profit at a "sacrifice of other values." And if you are sacrificing Godly values to make a profit, you cannot serve God; Matthew 6:24, "...Ye cannot serve God and mammon." The word 'mammon' means "riches, wealth, or material gain." If you are serving mammon, you are serving the god of commerce, Mercury, and you'll be subject to regulation under the commerce laws (the lex mercatoria), and a partaker of the spirit of Ephraim and Babylon:

"He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress." Hosea 12:7
"...for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." Revelation 18:23

Additionally, once you accept a free benefit from the government, it is considered a 'quasi-contract'. In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 1101, a quasi-contract is:

"...an obligation, equivalent to a contractual obligation, created by law in the absence of a contract, to prevent unfair gain at the expense of another."

Quasi-contracts involve gain! As discussed before, we cannot engage in contracts because this brings you out of your Godly venue and into a commercial venue, as the following cases show:

"But to whom may the quasi-contract attach? In order for a quasi-contract to attach, a benefit must be conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff. The defendant must have displayed an appreciation of the benefit so as to make it inequitable for him to retain that benefit without payment for the value of the benefit." Moll v. Wayne County, (1952), 332 Mich. 274, 50, N.W. 2d 881.
"A person confers a benefit upon another as respects liability in quasi-contracts for restitution if he gives to another possession of or some interest in money, land, chattels, or chooses an action; performs services beneficial to or at the request of another; or in any way adds to the other's security or advantage; and he confers a benefit not only where he adds to the property of another but also where he saves the other from expense or loss." Olwell v. Nye & Nissan Co., 173 P.2d 652; Chandler v. Washington Toll Bride Authority, 137 P.2d 97.

As you can see, there is a quasi-contract involved when you accept free mail delivery, and the government has to prevent unfair gain (from you) at the expense of the Postal Service, which is why they become attached to you under the guise of a quasi-contract. In addition, it does not matter if the statutes enforcing quasi-contracts upon the people are "constitutional" or not, because once one has accepted its benefits, one voluntarily waives all the protections of the Constitution (if indeed you look to it for protection), because rights cannot be taken away by law, they can only be voluntarily waived by consent. This is proven in the following United States Supreme Court Cases:

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 US. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469.

An example to illustrate this is the use of a zip code. Under the U.S. Postal laws, "Zip codes may be omitted from pieces mailed by the general public" Domestic Mail Manual, A010, 1.2(e). As you can see, Zip codes are voluntary. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled that by using a zip code, you have surrendered protections of the Constitution (Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581). So, by using a zip code, one has voluntarily waived rights secured in the Constitution. Since it is not a law to use a zip code, the government is not forcing you to waive your rights. You are waiving your rights of your own free will (self-will), or out of ignorance.

You might ask, "But how is receiving a harmless thing like free mail delivery service contradicting the Law of God? How am I sacrificing Godly values?" Well, in addition to the verses already mentioned in this article, which I won't repeat, I will show one other thing. To receive free mail delivery, one must have an address. An address uses numbers forced by the government, including the house number, street number, and zip code. The Scriptures forbid the use of such numbers for identification. Here are two scriptural examples, one from the Old Testament, and one from the New Testament.

In the Old Testament era, King David gave a command to number the people (1 Chronicles 21:2). Joab warned King David that he would "be a cause of trespass to Israel" if he numbered the people (verse 3). But King David numbered the people anyway, knowing it was a trespass against them (verse 4). God was displeased with King David for numbering the people, so God smote Israel (verse 7). David admitted he sinned greatly (verse 8), and because the people themselves willfully took numbers from their government, God sent a plague upon those people and 70,000 were killed (verse 14) [See also 2 Samuel 24 for a parallel account].

In the New Testament era, we are told that governments will, likewise, try to mark all people with a number. God says those who take this "mark" will be punished by Him (Revelation 14:9-11; 16:2; 19:20). [Note: the term "beast" is defined as the government of a people; specifically as kings (Daniel 7:17, Revelation 17:10-12), and kingdoms (Daniel 7:18,23, Revelation 16:10) that have power to make war and kill (Revelation 11:7; 17:14)].

Basically, by MARKing your house with a number, you are placing a number issued by the government on your house, which marks it as their property. All addresses are defined as commercial in nature under man's law.

In addition, numbers are fictitious creations of the State, just like a fictitious name is. According to the rules of law governing the English language, all numbers must be spelled out. This is why all numbers in the Scripture are always spelled out (with the exception of chapter and verse numbers, which are not part of the original texts, but were added by man later to make it "easier" to read and reference). That's why on dollar bills, you see the amount of the dollar bill spelled out completely (FIVE DOLLARS). If the writer of a check does not spell the amount of the check completely, the bank will not cash that check, because it is not a "lawful document" until all numbers are spelled out according to "the law."

Corporations

"Man has been created by, in, and for, the Word of God, and this makes him the being who is responsible. Masses, collectives, and species have no responsibility; they are not capable of assuming responsibility." 10 Rep. 32 b.
"They [corporations] cannot commit trespass nor be outlawed nor excommunicated, for they have no souls." 10 Rep. 32 b.

Under federal law, the "United States" is defined as a federal corporation [see 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)]. Now, since the United States is a "federal corporation," anyone who is a 'citizen' of that corporation, i.e., a 'citizen of the United States' or a 'U.S. citizen,' becomes incorporated themselves. When you become incorporated, you are considered a 'corporation', a 'person', or a 'natural person', with no soul. You are dead in law. Therefore, you cannot be a minister of God if you're dead and have no soul, both spiritually and physically speaking.

"Human beings are called 'natural persons' to distinguish them from 'artificial persons' or corporations. To acquire the status of artificial or legal personality, the group seeking it must be incorporated, i.e., must obtain a formal state license. In modern civil law, while incorporation is necessary for some purposes, chiefly in commercial law, a group of persons, acting as a unit, may be treated as an artificial or legal person." Warren Co. v. Heister, 219 La. 763, 54 S.2d 12." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 249.

Notice that "a group of persons acting as a unit may be treated as an artificial person." If you use a family name, you are part of a group of people acting as a unit, and, therefore, you are no longer a servant of Christ in the eyes of government, but a member of a corporation with legal personality! Governments only have the power to regulate commercial activity and ungodly persons, because both are condemned in Scripture. Now, for clarification, labouring as a workman and getting paid compensation for your labor is Godly in the eyes of God. It is only when the motive is to make a profit (i.e. "for filthy lucre sake), when you focus on just the gain of money aspect, that God disapproves of.

When you sign a piece of paper to a name in all capital letters, you stand as surety for that fictitious entity created by the state. Similar to how a man stands as surety for his corporation (meaning, if the corporation does something wrong, the man will go to court and answer to the charges against his corporation). This is what you do when you stand as surety for that fictitious name on that license issued by the State. But the Scripture is clear that we are not to stand as surety (Proverbs 6:1-2; 11:15, Romans 13:8). At 2 Kings 18:23,31, the people refused to stand as surety (pledges) for their king (government). Remember, the courts have jurisdiction over the 'person' (fictitious name, corporation, etc.), but not the 'surety', until the two become one flesh by merging together.

Look at any Church on any block and you will see the name of the Church spelled in all capital letters, which designates it as a 501(c)(3) commercial corporation, advertising for business. But "the corporation" may say, "We still haven't accepted the mark of the beast on our hand or forehead!" Can you, as a corporation, buy or sell without the numbers and fictitious names, add or remove anything from your "church" without a permit number, conduct any transaction without an account number, send your children to a public school without a Social Security number, get your plumbing, electrical wires, or TV fixed, or do even the most mundane thing, without it all being numbered and tracked commercially? The answer is obviously, No!!!

Think for a moment. You've already accepted a mark without which you cannot buy or sell anything! Do you really need a mark on your hand or forehead when you have already volunteered to carry one in your pocket??? No one forced you to take it. You volunteered for it, because the same commercial Church leaders you've always listened to told you to "obey all authorities," and both you and they thought that meant obeying even ungodly laws, codes, ordinances, rules, statutes, and regulations.

The Traffic Laws

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words [*in their law books] make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3
"The words of ungodly men are crafty; but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them." Proverbs 12:6

There are only two types of laws in existence; mandatory and voluntary. The way you can tell if a law is mandatory or voluntary is very simple. If it is voluntary, your signature is requested, a contract is required. If it is mandatory, no signature or contract is required. For example, do you sign a piece of paper saying you will not kill anyone? Or steal from anyone? No. These are mandatory laws, and don't require your permission or signature to enforce them. Mandatory laws don't require a contract. They only require the presence of your body for enforceable action against you.

When you are asked to sign a piece of paper, it must always be done voluntarily.

To illustrate, let's use an example of a signed confession. A signed confession must be done voluntary. If a policeman took you in a back room, put a gun to your head, and threatened to kill you if you didn't sign a piece of paper, that paper would not be signed voluntarily by you. Now, the same applies to every piece of paper. If anyone threatens you in the same way to sign any piece of paper, then it is not signed voluntarily by you. Additionally, if anyone says to sign something, and threatens to take your car, or take your house, or fine you, or put you in jail, if you don't sign it, then this paper is not signed voluntarily. It is signed under threat, duress, coercion, etc.

Now, think of every time the government asked you to sign a piece of paper. Does the government threaten you in any way? Do they say, "If you don't sign this paper, then we will do (threat) to you?" For example, does the government say to you, "If you don't sign this drivers license, registration, and insurance paper, then when we pull you over, we will take away your liberty by arresting you, steal your car by impounding it, extort your money by fining you, take away your liberty of movement by throwing you in jail, take your kids from you and put them in a foster home, bring your pets to the humane society and have them terminated, and, oh yea, we'll cancel your library card! "Yes, they do," may be your answer. Why do they have to intimidate you into signing papers? Because there is no law requiring you to sign anything! Are deceit and threats compatible with the character of God? (Lam.3:22-25).

If there was a law requiring you to do something, no signature would be required! If there was a law stating you were required to sign something, then this would mean they can use force, "legally," to get you to sign anything they want. If they can use force legally, then you are not signing a contract voluntarily. So, that police man who took you in the back room and "held a gun to your head" (threatened you), he would be doing his job legally by forcing you to sign a piece of paper. There is no law to force you to sign a confession, but it makes it a lot easier to prosecute you if you do sign something "voluntarily." There is no law requiring a signature from anyone, but it makes it a lot easier for the government to convert you into something that you are not.

When you sign a drivers license, or any license, this signature is not required by law. For they 'ask' you for your signature. If it was the law, your signature would not be required. Only contracts and permits require a signature. Governments only have the right to regulate commerce, and commerce is regulated by contracts, licenses, and permits. These are all voluntary. This is why the government must force you to accept a mark identifying you as being engaged in commercial activity.

For example, are you engaged in traffic? The following definitions are from Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1934.

Traffic Regulation: "Prescribed rules of conduct to promote the orderly and safe flow of traffic." [What does traffic mean?]
Traffic: "Commerce, trade, sale, or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing of goods or commodities. The subjects of transportation See Commerce." [What does transportation mean?]
Transportation: "The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier." [What is a carrier?]
Carrier: "Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire." [To hire someone means to get paid for services.]
Commerce: "The exchange of goodsbuying, sellingIntercourse by way of trade or traffic."
Stop Sign: "A legally erected and maintained traffic signal requiring all traffic to stop before entering into or crossing an intersection."

Traffic lights and stop signs are to regulate those engaged in commercial activity. However, this does not mean you can freely run these signals and signs without stopping first! For obvious reasons.

So, traffic is defined as trade in man's law. In the scripture, "traffick" is also defined as trade! Trade means gain, profit, and riches.

"Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants." 1 Kings 10:15
"Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth?" Isaiah 23:8
"He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants." Ezekiel 17:4
"By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:" Ezekiel 28:5

Notice that traffic (trade) increases riches, which begets pride, which is considered iniquity (Ezekiel 16:49). Here are a few cases which spell out who are, and who are not, required to hold a drivers license and registration:

"The Motor Vehicle Act (Stats. 1913, p.639) is not unconstitutionalin that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license tax, but exempts all other operators of such vehicles from such tax and regulation." In re Stork, (1914), 167 C. 294.
"A chauffeuris one who is paid compensation for his services." Hunton v. California Portland Cement Co. (1942), 50 C.A. 2d 684, 123 P.2d 947. [And, a license is]:
"...a permit granted by an appropriate governmental body generally for consideration to a person, firm, or a corporation to pursue some occupation, or to carry on some business, which is subject to regulation under the police power." Rosenblatt v. California Board of Pharmacy, 69 Cal. App. 2d 69, 158 P.2d 199, 203.

Is exercising God's Law "subject to regulation under the police power"? When God commands you to go from place to place and do Godly works, are these Godly works "subject to regulation under the police power"? Are the way you do these Godly works "subject to regulation under the police power"? No! Only those engaged in a business or occupation are subject to them.

Mercury: "Merchandise. A Roman deitythe god of trading and thieving, the presider over roads." Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Revised and Edited by C.T. Onions, Volume I, page 1235.

Notice traders and thieves are on an equal basis here. And this is why commerce must be fully licensed, regulated, and taxed. Thieves deal in speculation, i.e., inflation, deflation, market trends, etc., to derive benefit in the form of gain or profit to the detriment of the public. To accept a drivers license means you are engaged in commercial activity, which means you are a trader and a thief. You cannot serve God and money (Matthew 6:24). One who takes a license, etc., must serve "another" master, since the ruling law is now that of the Roman god, Mercury, who is the presider over roads, traffic, traders, merchants, and thieves. But:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:3

For example, you can be taken to jail for not worshipping the god of commerce with your sacrifices (money offerings). When you are taken to jail by the 'road patrol', these jails are engaged in commercial activity. They make money for each prisoner they have in their jails. The motive is profit. Without a name, address, birth date, birth place, social security number, signature, etc., the COUNTY is not able to bill the STATE for the cost of keeping you in their facilities. So, they will most likely release you to avoid losing 'profit'. This is their great weakness. If they feel they can't steal anything from you, they may leave you alone:

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" 2 Peter 2:3

The State is trying to make merchandise of you by bringing you out of your Godly venue and into a commercial venue, and their means of doing this is with 'feigned words' and by the deceptive definitions of the words they use. Since, under the Law of War, it is legal to deceive the enemy, we must expect that all government officers will use deceit to get what they want, which is to compel their own (and the followers of Christ) to serve Caesar, and answer to fictitious words which describe them as those 'persons' who are engaged in commercial activity, who are spiritually dead, and who have no souls. Does this describe you, dear reader?

Remember, those who seek "benefits" from rulers are seeking the "favour" of the same, but scripture says:

"Many wait on the favour of rulers; but justice comes to a man from the Lord." Proverbs 29:26

Human Laws

If you read the laws of man, you will notice that all the words used in their laws are consistently outside Scripture. For example, a statute might say, "Persons have rights to lease property." But you won't find the word property, lease, or rights in Scripture. You won't even find the word "persons" in Scripture as the natural man uses that term. All these words are outside Scripture, so it's a new kingdom outside of God's Kingdom. Even the natural man recognizes that there's a clear distinction between man-made laws and God-given laws.

Human Laws: "Laws which have man for their author, as distinguished from divine laws, which have God as their author." Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519, 54 Am. Dec. 217, 220. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, by James A. Ballentine, 1948 Edition. Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company, Rochester, New York.

Since the natural man has made these man-made laws, they are not of God.

"the workman made it; therefore it is not God." Hosea 8:6

Even the common laws of men agree with this Truth:

"Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone
"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity." Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432.
"The law if from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).

Yes, this is in harmony with the Sacred Scriptures, which declare:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men" Acts 5:29
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us" Isaiah 33:22
"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" James 4:12
"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man" Jeremiah 17:5
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in manthan to put confidence in princes" Psalms 118:8-9
"Put not your trust in princes [*governments of men]" Psalms 146:3
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God [*not man], and keep His commandments [*not man's commandments]: for this is the whole duty of man." Ecclesiastes 12:13

Conclusion

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles [*the natural man] walk, in the vanity of their mind [*reason, vain imaginations], Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance [*of not knowing the Power of Words] that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:" Ephesians 4:17-18

This article has, in part, attempted to explain how the people of God have stepped off their original foundation and taken on the words of the world to re-define themselves. When you re-define yourself, Christ no longer defines you, and therefore no longer knows you (Matthew 7:15-23). Many have adopted the ways of the world, and adopted its words to describe themselves. When the humanist interprets reality around him, he has only his own categories of thought to use as a reference for meaning, but the bondmen of Jesus the Christ have His Spirit and His Words.

We know that the governments of men exist to keep the "low and lawless forms of humanity" from doing violence to all, including themselves, and as our Father's rod of correction for His children. God uses Caesar to regulate corporations and the natural man. Corporations and ungodly men do not live by God's Law; thus they are both 'low and lawless' in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of man. And to control them, they must be under some kind of law, or there will be anarchy. Without the law of God in you, a regulateable personality must be created to protect others from you! Therefore, if you use the words of the world, or do the deeds of the world, they will perceive you to be of the world, and Caesar will acquire jurisdiction over you. To avoid being regulated by Caesar, all one must do is to avoid the things of Caesar and to fully partake of the things of God.

To become able to identify the things that are Caesar's, and thereby avoid them, I will reiterate that Caesar has no-thing but an image, and it is that image that gives the power unto him. That image is only established and kept alive by those who live, move and have their being in that distorted image. If you're a 'thing', you're not made in the image and likeness of God, but made in the image and likeness of someone else who put his seal on you, doing his own will instead of the will of Almighty God. Labels are one of those things to bring a bondman of the Christ into the house of bondage to the world (Galatians 2:4; 5:1, Hebrews 2:15, 2 Peter 2:19). In short, that which is outside Christ are the things that belong to Caesar, and are the things of death.

Labels are images, as was the superscription on the silver coin shown to Christ (Mark 12:15-17). In this example, the Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God; "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Since the Scripture says...

"The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, saith the LORD of hosts" Haggai 2:8,

...that means that the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. The substance of the coin itself was part of God's Creation. However, those who look to Caesar for their well-being will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. They don't look at the substance of the coin, they only look to the image of the coin. It is those people who keep that image alive, and it is that image which gives power unto Caesar. We are not to partake of or give credence to the image of Caesar. For those that do not, "death is swallowed up in victory" in the Lord. Look to His image only and all hidden and veiled images disappear:

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2 Corinthians 3:17-18
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Colossians 3:1-3

The Mark of the Beast

By Richard Anthony

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20

The word revelation means 'to reveal, a disclosure'; it does not mean to hide. The meaning of the book of Revelation is interpreted and revealed by Scripture, and was written to those living in the first century (Rev. 1:1,4,11). How could God bless His people all this time for keeping these prophesies if they did not understand them (Rev. 1:3; 22:7,9)? These prophesies are not left to private interpretation, but the meaning is revealed to everyone, even those who were alive in the first century (Rev. 22:10). "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:" (2 Corinthians 4:3).

A Mark (seal, sign, token, frontlet) is placed upon the forehead or hands, either as a sign of a curse or as a sign of redemption.

Genesis 4:15: God places a mark on the covenant breaking Cain, so nobody would kill him.
Exodus 28:36-38: Priests of God wore a gold plate upon their forehead, symbolizing the redeemed man.
Exodus 13:9, 16, Deuteronomy 6:6,8; 11:18: A mark upon the forehead and hand was a symbol of total obedience to God's Law.
Solomon 8:6: A seal upon the heart and arm is symbolic of a love for someone.
Isaiah 49:16: God has graven His people on the palms of His hands as a sign that he would not forget them.
Ezekiel 9:4: A mark upon the forehead was indicative of their allegiance to the Lord in the midst of abomination.
Revelation 13:16-17: The Beast places a mark on the hand or forehead of his followers also. This mark is his name (which represents his character).
Revelation 14:9-11; 16:2; 19:20: Those who receive the mark of the Beast (his character rather than God's) will be tormented. Which means..
Revelation 9:4: Those who do not have the seal of God in their forehead will be tormented. The Beast's mark is contrasted to God's mark!
Revelation 20:4: Those who do not receive the Beasts' mark will be the keepers of God's commandments and have the testimony of Jesus (the truth).
Revelation 15:2: To keep the Word of God is to overcome and be victorious over the mark, or name, or character, of the Beast.
Revelation 3:12: The name of God will be written upon those who overcome.
Revelation 7:3; 14:1; 22:4: Where will the name of God be written? It will be sealed in their foreheads!
Revelation 19:13: What exactly is the name of God that'll be written in their foreheads? It is The Word Of God! (See also John 1:1,14). Scripture!

Biblically, a name represents one's character. This is why God changed the name of his servants (Genesis 17:5,15; 32:28; 35:10), and told parents what to name their unborn child (Genesis 16:11; 17:19, 1 Chronicles 22:9, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 1:4,6,9, Matthew 1:21,24, Luke 1:13,31), and why men have chosen one name over another for their child (Genesis 35:18, Luke 1:59-60), and why name's of cities have been changed (Genesis 28:19): to reflect their character!

God wants to seal His name, His character, His Law in us (Isaiah 8:16). God's character is reflected in His Law, and is described in His Word. God's Law will be written in our hearts and minds (foreheads), Hebrews 10:16, Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26.

The Beast wants to put his character in us as well. The Mark of the Beast, like all scripture, is given so that we may understand God and how to serve Him better. The Mark of the Beast teaches us that the Lord demands uncompromising obedience and unswerving dedication. The Beast represents the archetype of the tyrannical state, which is opposed to God's Word and His Law.

The Beast is defined as kings (Daniel 7:17, Revelation 17:10-12), and kingdoms (Daniel 7:18,23, Revelation 16:10) that have power to make war and kill (Revelation 11:7; 17:14). The Beast is man's government, with rulers and armies, that are against God and his servants (Revelation 19:19). Jesus said, "He that is not with Me is against Me" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23). So rulers that enforce laws contrary to God's Law, represent the spirit and Mark of the Beast.

Followers of the Beast receive his mark of ownership; submission to ungodly, anti-Christ law. The Mark in Revelation is not to be taken literally. It's an allusion to the Old Testament symbol of man's total obedience to God, and stands as a warning that a society's god (whether the true God or the state) demands complete commitment in all areas of life. The followers of Christ cannot compromise (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). The state is not absolute; it's under authority of the Christ (Psalm 2, Matthew 28:18); it's an instrument of God (Romans 13:1-7). It has no license to do whatever it likes. It's ordained purpose is for a rod of correction; to speak the Word of God, to punish evil, and to reward good (Romans 13:4, 1 Peter 2:14, Hebrews 13:7). That is its only authorized purpose.

The Arrest and Trials of Jesus the Christ

Written by several bondmen of Jesus the Christ in His assembly, with grateful acknowledgement to Chuck Swindall

Contrary to popular "belief," there was not one trial of Jesus; there were six!

According to the Gregorian calendar and Scripture, the arrest and trials of Jesus thew Christ took place on April 6th, 32 AD, during a nine hour period. The Jews put together a plan that was unlawful, fallacious, and unwarranted. No man was ever more innocent, and no man ever stood before six more unlawful and unfair trials than our Lord.

The Arrest

In order to bring Jesus to trial, they had to arrest Him. In order for there to be an arrest, two things had to take place. The cooperation of Judas, and the location of Jesus. They tried to grab Him on other occasions, but He always alluded their arrest. So Judas agreed, for 30 pieces of silver, to betray the Christ. It was the cost of a common slave; a very cheap price. But for 30 pieces of silver, Judas actually sold himself, not our Lord.

On the night of His arrest, while He was in the garden (John 18:1), He prayed to the Father that He would not have to go through this suffering and crucifixion, but He wanted to do the Father's Will above all (Matthew 26:39-44). As a lesson for us, once He was assured that it was the Father's Will that He go to the cross, He cooperated willingly with the arrest, even with the abuse that His body would suffer. Up until this point, He had not gone under the blows of Romans or Jews.

First it was night. The crowds at Passover would not be in the street. Jesus would be easy to detect if He ran. They expected a running and expected to capture Him in some way. That's why the band of men came with lanterns, torches, and weapons (John 18:3). As to the amount of soldiers a "band" consisted of, it was anywhere from 600 to 1000 men. In verse 12, the word for captain in the Greek is chiliarchos, which means "leader of a thousand soldiers." So there could have been as many as 1,000 soldiers that came for our Lord that night. They came prepared for a fight. But, He did not run. In accordance with fulfilling prophecy, He went forth to meet them (verse 4)! They didn't expect that. They didn't think it was Him. Verse 8 shows His compassion. Here He is giving Himself up and is filled with compassion towards His disciples by asking the Romans to let them go their way. The carnal nature of man would be mainly concerned with his own flesh, but He was not. At this point, Peter cut off the right ear of a servant of the high priest (verse 10), and Jesus had compassion on this "victim" as well, because He touched his ear and healed him (Luke 22:51).

The Romans decided that this scene had gone far enough. They came forward, arrested and bound the I AM (John 18:12).

"The proper manner, taught by the academy of soldiering in Rome, was to take the accused by the right wrist, twist his arm behind him so that his knuckles touched between his shoulder blades, and at the same time, jam the heel of the boot down on the right instep, and tied the other arm with a loose noose around the neck." Jim Bishop, The Day Christ Died

At this point, the disciples deserted Him (Mark 14:50). So He is now all alone. From this point on He was not free. He was the property of the Roman State, and the State and the Pharisees planned to devour Him. He was not the Son of God to them; He was a rebel rouser. He was a fake. And this is the first experience our Lord had with physical pain. While taking all the blows He took from this point on, His hands were behind His back. The trial starts at John 18:13. But before we look at these passages, let's briefly look at the historical background.

Historical Background

The Jews lived on a piece of land called Palestine, which was ruled by the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was ruled by an earthly god, Caesar. Tiberius was the Caesar at this particular time. He ruled with an Iron fist. He was a sadistic, anti-Jew gentile, as was Pilate. With the Jews under Roman rule, it had been passed down from Rome that the Jews could never carry a prisoner to a capital punishment If they could have, they would have stoned Jesus, because that was the method of killing according to tradition. But since they were under Roman authority, they must crucify Him; that was the Roman method of capital punishment.

So they could try a man and bring him only so far, namely to their council called the Sanhedrin. A body of seventy to seventy-three men; that's the greater Sanhedrin,. The lesser Sanhedrin had twenty-three men, but they could not pass judgment on capital crimes. So, before the full body of men this Man must stand. Once they come to an accusation they must carry that to the Roman authority, who happened to be Pilate. And when he says "thumbs down," then and only then can death occur. And that's why Jesus was crucified for treason rather than stoned for blasphemy.

The Jews did not try Him for treason; they found Him guilty of blasphemy. But they twisted the accusation when they came before the Romans and they turned it into treason because, in Rome, death by crucifixion is mandatory for those guilty of treason.

The trials were not all Jewish; half of them were Jewish and half of them were Roman. First there was Annas. The second was Caiaphas, with a body of men making up the Sanhedrin. And then the third trial was by this official band called the Sanhedrin. All these were Jewish trials. In them. the whole question of treason is not even verbalized. It then went to trial number four--Pilate the governor. This is where the Jews accused Him of treason because they were before a Roman Civil Court. And ultimately, after trial number five, which was nothing more than a "circus act" expected by Antipas (all he wanted to see was some tricks by Jesus), He came finally to Pilate again, his sixth and final trial. Because of pressure from his wife and the crowds, Pilate gave the death sentence to Jesus begrudgingly, but decisively. Pilate was never convinced of His guilt, and the only half-way fair trial that Jesus got was before Pilate.

Laws governing Criminal Trials

Concerning some of the unlawful proceedings of the Jewish trials, consider the following.

If a man was arrested for a capital crime, he could never be arrested at night. It had to be in broad daylight. Jesus' arrest took place between 1 and 2 o'clock at night.

If a man was arrested for a capital crime, no one cooperating in the arrest could be in any way connected to the one who is accused. No arrest for a capital crime could be made based upon information given by a follower or colleague of the accused. Because they felt if the accused was guilty so were his followers. But the entire plot revolved around Judas, one of the followers. This law was blatantly and openly ignored.

No Jewish trial could ever be held at night. The law stated that it must be held in the daytime. Listen to the code, which is taken from their Talmud:

"The members of the court may not alertly and intelligently hear the testimony against the accused during the hours of darkness."

But, if you check the record, both before Annas and before Caiaphas, these trials were held in darkness.

The members of the Jewish court, after hearing the testimony of true witnesses (none of which were ever brought before Jesus) in a capital crime, could not immediately act and judge. They were to go home and remain alone and separate from one another for two days (at the least, one full day), thinking about the testimonies they had heard. During that time, here's what they were to do. Here's the language of their code:

"Eat like food, drink like wines, sleep well. And once again return and hear the testimony of the accused. Then, and only then, shall you render a vote."

They didn't do that. The Jewish court never left the presence of Caiaphas!

In fact, even the method of voting was specified! They never took an "all in favor say I, all opposed say no" kind of vote. Their vote was supposed to be taken from the youngest to the oldest so that the youngest wouldn't be intimidated or influenced by the older votes. This never happened.

No trial could be held before only one judge, and never without a defense attorney. All of that was willfully overlooked, openly ignored and disobeyed. Even though they were people of "the Book," they didn't follow their own extraneous rules, just as the Pharisees of today. In the history of "jurisprudence," there have never been a more fallacious series of trials.

First Trial

The first man before whom Jesus stood was a crook. John 18:13 tells us they led him to Annas. Why Annas? He wasn't even the High Priest! He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the High Priest. What's the father-in-law doing seeing an accused man at 2 o'clock in the morning when he is no longer in the court? That's Caiaphas's job. Well, do you remember when Jesus put together some leather thongs, and he made a whip, and went into the temple and he drove the moneychangers from the temple (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15)? Well, the man in charge of that commercial bazaar at the time was named Annas, who was the High Priest at that time. He had been the High Priest for seventeen years. He was the boss of the Temple Mafia.

His Temple Mafia were in charge of two special things at Passover. First, the changing of money (and the discount rate was atrocious). Second, the purchasing of sacrificial animals (and the cost was incredible). If you were smart enough to bring your own animal, you had to have it pass the Temple Mafia, i.e., Annas' men. And when you brought your animal there, they would take a careful look at it and would surely find some "blemishes" that would keep you from using your animal. So you must buy their animal, and their animals were three times, sometimes four times, more than you would ever pay back home for a good old sheep. And all the profit wound up in Annas' pocket. He was a crook.

He passed off the throne to his son-in-law who was nothing more than a puppet of Rome and a pawn in the hand of his father-in-law. Annas never forgot the time Jesus drove them out of the temple and he lost all that money. And he wrote down in his mind, "One of these days, buddy, I'm going to get back at you." And now he's got his chance.

Here's Jesus, hands tied behind his back, standing in front of Annas. Everything about it is unlawful. He has no business standing before someone who is no longer in council. And there are no witnesses. As a matter of fact, he wasn't even required to answer! No Jew had to make his own statement. There were statements made against the accused and the council would decide on a verdict, but the accused could remain mute from beginning to end. But that's not the way they did it.

There are two things that he probed. Annas wanted to know about His disciples, and then he wanted to know about His teaching (John 18:19). Jesus doesn't answer to his first question, but as to His teaching He answers in a most unusual way:

"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said." John 18:20-21

Jesus was struck by an officer after He said this (verse 22) (they didn't get the answer, and therefore joinder, they wanted). By the way, brutality was never allowed in the court either. Under the rules of trial procedure, Jesus knew that it was against the law to solicit the testimony of any, except witnesses and collaborators. Besides, under the law, no prisoner had to undergo preliminary examination. So, Jesus told him to ask witnesses what He taught. After he was struck,

"Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?" John 18:23

He was in perfect harmony with the Holy Spirit. Additionally, when you are treated unjustly and unfairly, which most often the lot of the true bondmen of Jesus the Christ, etch it into your mind our Lord's perfect choice of words and actions, for "by your words you are justified and by your words you are condemned (in God's eyes)." And:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously: Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." 1 Peter 2:21-25

He bore this without retaliation. Hands behind His back, taking the punches of grown men; and we never read where He fell unconscious. The point is, without sleep for approximately 30 hours, and without a break, Jesus endured everything from the soldier's heel in the garden all the way to the nails in the cross.

When Annas was finished with Him, he had no answer. He was silenced. He himself was judged, not Christ. And so they carted Him off to Caiaphas (verse 24).

Second Trial

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." Mark 14:53

Caiaphas got together a group of men about 3:30 in the morning.

Remember, it's unlawful because it's dark; it's unlawful because it's a preliminary hearing; it's unlawful because they're in the wrong place, Caiaphas' house, not in the council chamber. It's a clandestine meeting; nothing more than a kangaroo court!

"For many bare false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together. And there arose certain, and bare false witness against Him, saying, We heard Him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together." Mark 14:56-59

These witnesses were contradicting each other. Caiaphas had to get this case down to Pilate. He was told by his father-in-law that he wants this man killed! And Caiaphas knows that he has no witnesses! So what does he do? Well, he tries another unlawful route. He talks to the accused (Mark 14:60), but Jesus held His peace and said nothing (verse 61). Then Caiaphas asks him if He's "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed" (verse 61), and Jesus answers him! "I am."

You might be wondering why he answers now and not before? In another gospel, just before Caiaphas asked this question, Caiaphas said, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God" (Matthew 26:3) And when any pious Jew heard that, he was obliged to answer. Under oath, he could not plead any amendment, he had to answer. And look at His answer:

"And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:62

That sounds like He's God! In fact He is. He was simply laying a prophesy on Caiaphas that he couldn't handle. And in good "legal" fashion, Caiaphas grabbed the collar of His robe and he gave it a yank, for the Talmud required that when a moderator heard what he believed to be blasphemous words, he was to publicly disagree by tearing his garments. By the way, Leviticus taught that no official was to tear his garments, and so that is one of many places where the Talmud diverts from Scripture. We see that they were driven by the Talmud--at least the parts that they liked. The other parts they left out.

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?" Mark 14:63

That's a nice out, isn't it? Who needs witnesses when you don't have them? Incidentally, it's not allowed for the moderator to make the decision--the council had to make it. He didn't say let's take a vote in the order prescribed by law. No. Instead he said "What think ye?" (verse 64), and they all condemned Him. Then they added some "extra curricular activities;" they spit on Him, covered His face and beat Him with their fists, and mocked Him.

Third Trial

By the time the first two trials were over, Jesus was bleeding and bruised when, as yet, there was no official verdict cast upon His life. All that transpired during the hours of darkness, and therefore nothing would be recognized as official by the Romans until He had His audience before the Sanhedrin.

Luke 22 records what transpired about 6 o'clock in the morning. Luke 22:66 says "it was day." Mark 15:1 tells us "it was early in the morning." We must not forget that the "Supreme Court" of the Jews was the Sanhedrin. What they discovered and declared became "law." There was no such thing as going to a higher court, because there was no higher court. Therefore, when the Sanhedrin met, and passed final judgment, it was as the law of the Medes and the Persians; Jesus was destined for the cross.

"And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer Me, nor let Me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of His own mouth." Luke 22:66-71

This third trial was the shortest of all the trials. Jesus, in their mind, was guilty. Besides Nicodemus, who acquiesced in silence, they voted unanimously to take Him to Pilate. The charge was blasphemy, but that would not stand up in a Roman court. Therefore, between the time that they dismissed and gained an audience with the governor, Pilate, they made plans to switch the accusation to treason, and they claimed that He was guilty of attempting to overthrow the government.

"And the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him unto Pilate." Luke 23:1

Fourth Trial

The "law" is no longer the Talmud, but is now the Roman Code of Criminal Procedure, so to speak. And there were four steps that they must follow to make this an accurate court of law. Let's look at them one by one.

Firstly, here's a little background on Pilate. He was an anti-Jew, Spanish born, a Gentile. He was appointed by Caesar to govern Judea. He is what we would call in modern terms, the governor of the State, though in those days they had provinces. Pilate was a marked man in the mind of Caesar, and also his court, because of the number of revolutions that had broken out under his rule. He had made some unwise decisions, had murdered some Jews, had tightened the screws of Roman requirements, and clearly lacked diplomacy. Therefore, the State over which he served was in turmoil.

Caesar, with tacit approval, left him there as governor, but he was under investigation at this particular time. After the trial and death of Jesus, Pilate was banished to Gall and, while he was there, he took his own life. Pilate was a very unstable man, and because of a few political maneuverings on his part, he became the governor of a province.

The time was around 6:30 to 7 o'clock in the morning.

"Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover." John 18:28

They were "criminal" in attitude, but they were extremely "legal" in their religion. The Talmud stated that no Jew could enter a Gentile court on Passover, or he would be defiled. So they stayed out of the court itself; and apparently, Pilate came out to them.

"Pilate then went out unto them" John 18:29

We see him coming out and going back repeatedly. The first law of Roman criminal code in its procedure was accusation, that's the first thing that Pilate covered.

"What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee." John 18:29-30

This is a sarcastic answer and did not answer Pilate's question. "If he was not guilty, we wouldn't be here, Pilate!"

"Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law" John 18:31

Pilate doesn't know that it's a capital punishment under way. He simply said if it's a problem in your law, then you take Him, and you judge Him.

"...The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:" John 18:31

This changes the whole thing. In the other gospels, they also declared that He's guilty of treason, and that He claimed to be another Caesar.

"Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again and called Jesus." John 18:33

We see him entering in again.

The second law of Roman criminal code in its procedure, after accusation, was interrogation, to probe and search for evidence against the man. Thus the following questions:

"Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me: what hast Thou done?" John 18:33-35

He wanted to know if Jesus was in the process of overthrowing the government in Palestine.

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence." John 18:36

If Jesus wanted to overthrow the government, His servants would be fighting, carrying on a revolution, taking lives, storming this temple, and disrupting the court proceedings. But you don't even find my servants out there!

The third process in the Roman code was defense. The Roman Law, much like American law, allowed for a defense attorney, but you never find where Jesus was allowed that. And now Pilate, acting as a defense attorney, attempts to understand Jesus' point of view"so you're a king!"

"Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?..." John 18:37-38

This has nothing to do with the case but a lot to do with Pilate's character. He was a very mixed up, miserable man. In a matter of months, he would be taking his own life. In front of him stands The Truth, but he is blind, so he asks, "What is truth?"

"And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in Him no fault at all." John 18:38

The fourth step is the verdict. Accusation, interrogation, defense, and the verdict. And all four are clear for us. Pilate says he finds no guilt! All he finds is some spiritual kingdom, and that's not going to affect or threaten Rome! Jesus is not guilty of treason!

"Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." Luke 23:4-5

Now when Pilate heard the word "Galilee," he had an "bright" idea. Galilee really wasn't his jurisdiction, and since he didn't want this case, he tried to find somebody else to try Jesus!

Fifth Trial

"When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time." Luke 23:6-7

Herod's the had beheaded John the Baptist, and is one who dealt with much cruelty over his subjects. He, being a pagan, has looked upon Jesus as a magician, and has been anxious to see Him "do a trick."

"And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him." Luke 23:8

We find that Jesus doesn't respond to Herod in any way. It was actually no proceeding at all. All Herod wanted was a game; he wanted a jester/clown for his court. When Jesus wouldn't cooperate, we read that they mocked Him as a king.

"And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate." Luke 23:10-11

Sixth Trial

Back at the Palace, Pilate is eating breakfast and thinking, "Whew! I'm glad that's over." He then looks out his window, and there came Jesus back, bound and robed as a king. It was obvious to Pilate that Herod was not in any cooperative mood. After being enemies, the whole event brought Herod and Pilate together as friends.

"And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves." Luke 23:12

Pilate did not want to declare Him guilty, so he tried several avenues to get out of that verdict. The first thing he offered was to chastise and beat Jesus, then release Him, but they said no. The second thing he tried to do was release Jesus through the custom the Jews had of releasing a prisoner on the Passover.

"Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would." Matthew 27:15

Barabbas was a notorious murderer, guilty of sedition, and bound in prison awaiting death by crucifixion. It was a capital crime he had committed. He was the one guilty of treason. So, Pilate thought that if he were to put Barabbas next to Jesus, and offered to release one of them, the crowds would say, "Don't release the murderer! Release Jesus!" But it backfired upon him. They said they wanted Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:19-23)!

So, they then gathered a whole band of soldiers, stripped Him and put on a scarlet robe, placed a crown of thorns on His head, and a reed in His right hand, mocked Him by bowing down and saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" Then they struck Him on the head, spit upon Him, and led Him away to be crucified. (Matthew 27: 26-31).

Conclusion

You and I deserve that spit. We deserve the nails in His feet and hands. It's our sin He bore, not His. It's our place He took, not the Father's. We are the guilty ones; we are like sheep gone astray, turned everyone to our own ways. We are the rebels. Our iniquity has separated us from God, not His. But the message in all of this is His love. He did it for us. He became sin for us.

Here is a true and intriguing story of someone's experience. A minister of God didn't have anyone to work with, so he asked God to make him available to whatever would be His will. He checked the want ads, because he needed some money, and he saw there was a bus driving job made available to him. So he worked as a bus driver in south Chicago. If you know anything about Chicago, it's not south Chicago you want to drive a bus in, but that's where they had the need. He found out later it was because nobody else would stay on the job. So he drove it.

Before a week passed, some thugs got on the bus and didn't pay, they sat in the back., sneered and jeered and mocked him. The next day the same thing happened. The third day it happened again. After it went on for about a week, he decided he didn't have to put up with that. So he decided to call an officer inside the bus and make them pay. He saw one down about a block, and after he got on he told the officer that the fellows back there haven't paid for several days, would you at least make them pay today? And he did, but unfortunately the officer got off the bus. When the door was closed the bus driver drove a little further and turned a corner, and that was the last thing he remembered. They knocked a couple of teeth out of his head, they stole his money, and when he woke up the bus was empty.

He sat there in confusion and disillusionment wondering "What kind of ministry is this, Lord? I told you I was available and this was the job you opened up?" And he went home, turned the bus in, took the rest of the day off. He stared up at the ceiling as he was nursing his wounds, and he thought, "I'm not gonna let them get away with that." So, through an interesting chain of events, they rounded up, with the help of some officers, the very fellows and took them to court. All four of them.

The day of the hearing he stood before the court, and the judge listened carefully, and decided the fellows were guilty. And they didn't have any money to buy their way out, so they had to spend some time in jail. Suddenly the minister realized, "Here's my chance." He said, "Your honor, may I speak for a few moments?" The judge said, "Yes you may." The minister said, "I'd like for you to tally up all of the time these fellows together would be spending in jail, and I'd like to go in their behalf." And the judge responded, "Well, that's highly irregular, it has never been done before." And the minister responded, "Oh yes it has. About 2,000 years ago." And then in about 4 minutes, he gave them the gospel.

Three of the young men came to know Christ on the spot. One of them later, after the minister was incarcerated. That fellow was having a ministry with those four guys who heard the message that somebody else wanted to pay the price for their sin. A living testimony for what our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ did for us.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Jesus, the Christ

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

iesous ^2424^ is a transliteration of the Heb. "Joshua," meaning "Jehovah is salvation," i. e., "is the Savior," a common name among the Jews, e. g., <Ex. 17:9; Luke 3:29> (RV); <Col. 4:11>. It was given to the Son of God in Incarnation as His proper name, in obedience to the command of an angel to Joseph, the husband of His mother, Mary, shortly before He was born, <Matt. 1:21>. By it He is spoken of throughout the Gospel narratives generally, but not without exception, as in , and a dozen other places in that Gospel, and a few in John.

'Jesus Christ' occurs only in <Matt. 1:1,18; 16:21>, marg.; . In Acts the name 'Jesus' is found frequently. 'Lord Jesus' is the normal usage, as in <Acts 8:16; 19:5, 17>; see also the reports of the words of Stephen, <7:59>, of Ananias, <9:17>, and of Paul, <16:31>; though both Peter, <10:36>, and Paul, <16:18>, also used `Jesus Christ.'

In the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude, the name is not once found alone, but in Rev. eight times (RV), 1:9; 12:17; 14:12; 17:6; 19:10 (twice); 20:4; 22:16.

In the Epistles of Paul `Jesus' appears alone just thirteen times, and in the Hebrews eight times; in the latter the title `Lord' is added once only, at <13:20>. In the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude, men who had companied with the Lord in the days of His flesh, `Jesus Christ' is the invariable order (in the RV) of the Name and Title, for this was the order of their experience; as `Jesus' they knew Him first, that He was Messiah they learnt finally in His resurrection. But Paul came to know Him first in the glory of heaven, <Acts 9:1-6>, and his experience being thus the reverse of theirs, the reverse order, `Christ Jesus,' is of frequent occurrence in his letters, but, with the exception of <Acts 24:24>, does not occur elsewhere in the RV.

In Paul's letters the order is always in harmony with the context. Thus `Christ Jesus' describes the Exalted One who emptied Himself, <Phil. 2:5>, and testifies to His pre-existence; `Jesus Christ' describes the despised and rejected One Who was afterwards glorified, <Phil. 2:11>, and testifies to His resurrection. `Christ Jesus' suggests His grace, `Jesus Christ' suggests His glory." From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 16, 29.

The Christ

christos ^5547^, "anointed," translates, in the Septuagint, the word "Messiah," a term applied to the priests who were anointed with the holy oil, particularly the high priest, e. g., <Lev. 4:3,5, 16>. The prophets are called hoi christoi Theou, "the anointed of God," <Ps. 105:15>. A king of Israel was described upon occasion as christos tou Kuriou, "the anointed of the Lord," <1 Sam. 2:10,35; 2 Sam. 1:14; Ps. 2:2; 18:50; Hab. 3:13>; the term is used even of Cyrus, <Isa. 45:1>.

In the NT the word is frequently used with the article, of the Lord Jesus, as an appellative rather than a title, e. g., <Matt. 2:4; Acts 2:31>; without the article, <Luke 2:11; 23:2; John 1:41>. Three times the title was expressly accepted by the Lord Himself, <Matt. 16:17; Mark 14:61-62; John 4:26>.

It is added as an appellative to the proper name "Jesus," e. g., <John 17:3>, the only time when the Lord so spoke of Himself; <Acts 9:34; 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 John 5:6>. It is distinctly a proper name in many passages, whether with the article, e. g., <Matt. 1:17; 11:2; Rom. 7:4, 9:5; 15:19; 1 Cor. 1:6>, or without the article, . The single title Christos is sometimes used without the article to signify the One who by His Holy Spirit and power indwells believers and molds their character in conformity to His likeness, <Rom. 8:10; Gal. 2:20; 4:19; Eph. 3:17>. As to the use or absence of the article, the title with the article specifies the Lord Jesus as "the Christ"; the title without the article stresses His character and His relationship with believers. Again, speaking generally, when the title is the subject of a sentence it has the article; when it forms part of the predicate the article is absent.

Bits and Pieces

Prison and the Commercial World

compared

The choice: laboring for God, or working for Caesar. If you have to choose between going to prison (for doing the Lord's work), or going to work in the commercial world (to please Caesar and the flesh), here are some "benefits" of choosing prison over work:

In prison. You spend the majority of your time in an 8x10 cell.
At work. You spend most of your time in a 6x8 cubicle.

In prison. You get three free meals a day.
At work. You get a break for 1 meal and you have to pay for it.

In prison. You get time off for good behavior.
At work. You get rewarded for good behavior, with more work.

In prison. A guard locks and unlocks all the doors for you.
At work. You must carry around a security card and unlock and open all the doors yourself.

In prison. You get your own toilet.
At work. You have to share one.

In prison. They allow your family and friends to visit.
At work. You cannot even speak to your family and friends.

In prison. All expenses are paid by taxpayers with no work required.
At work. You get to pay all the expenses to go to work and then they deduct taxes from your salary to pay for prisoners.

In prison. There are wardens who are often Sadistic.
At work. They are called supervisors.

In prison. You can read the Bible and study the depths of His Word.
At work. You get fired if you are caught doing that.

In prison. You are able to witness to others concerning the Christ.
At work. You get fired if you are caught doing that.

Joshua 24:15 : " choose you this day whom ye will serve"...the gods of Caesaror the God of All.

Are you a Martyr?

Speaking to His apostles, our Lord said, at Acts 1:8, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

Did you know the word for "witness" in the Greek is "martyr"? It is the Greek word #3144, "martus." What He is really saying is, "I want you to be martyrs."

The word "martyr" means "witness." How did we come to feel that the word martyr means killed? Because a lot of believers, down through history have been killed for their witness about Jesus.

On the replacement of Judas after his suicide (not martyrdom):

"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection." Acts 1:21-22

The word "witness" above is martyr. "We need a martyr to replace Judas' "false witness."

"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 2 Corinthians 13:1

This is not a new command given by Paul; this was quoted from Deuteronomy 19:15. You will notice that the apostles went out two by two in the first century. Why? Because they were giving a witness, a testimony of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And it was necessary that it was established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, so they went out by two! And when you have eleven apostles, somebody wouldn't have a partner.

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Matthew 18:15-16

So, those who are being true witnesses today, are truly martyrs!

Answer to:

A Riddle: Who Am I?

(from Issue the Sixtieth)

Answer = "Whale"

Lines 2-4. Whales were made before man.

Lines 5-6. All creatures were named by Adam.

Line 9. God commanded the whale to preserve Jonah's life.

Line 10. Whales don't sin.

Line 12. There is an occasional beaching of a whale.

Lines 13-15. Jonah in the whale.

Line 16. A reference to the depositing of Jonah back on to dry land, who had fled to the sea in avoidance of God's directive to warn Nineveh.

Lines 17-20. Whales swim, but have no hands, feet, or face.

Lines 22-24. Whales are still killed today for their oil, to fuel lanterns.

Lines 25-28. Whales cannot read and do not know good from bad.

Lines 29-32. These apply only to man.

What Didn't Happened???

This is a story of four commercial critters: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody:

There was an important job to be done, and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought that Somebody would do it. But, Nobody asked Anybody. It ended up, that the job wasn't done, and Everybody blamed Somebody, when actually, Nobody asked Anybody. Now, that's progress!!

Think about it!

"God is dead" - Nietche

"Nietche is dead" - God

---------------

Justice - when you get what you deserve.

Mercy - when you don't get what you deserve.

Grace - when you get what you don't deserve.

---------------

Jesus the Christ first

Others second

Yourself last

Issue the Sixty-second

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Big Charade...

And the Voice of the Lord's Martyrs Cry Out...

The Non-conformists...

Exercising Your Duty of Movement on the Common Ways...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Big Charade

Constitutional Corruption and Cover-up in Salem, New Jersey

By William Raymond:

Editor's Note: From time to time we have presented the trials and tribulations of those Brothers and Sisters who have refused to render unto Caesar that which is not Caesar's. We hope the following article will again present for your edification and knowledge a situation that will witness to your spirit an ageless truth--that the enemies of our Lord never rest.

Additionally, we hope that you will be able to offer your fellowship with the church at Salem during their current times of tribulation. Their contact information is located at the end of this article.

Preface

True to their hostile secular nature, the City of Salem and Today's Sunbeam have done their best to portray me as "a religious imposter" because I refuse to convert the church at Salem into a 501(C)3 religious corporation, thereby giving the State legal jurisdiction. Since they greatly fear for, and will not allow, the voice of truth to be heard in the public forum, we now offer the following facts of record about "The Big Charade."

On 06-04-01, while in the company of fifteen friends and members of the church at Salem, I was illegally taken into custody without a warrant and thrown into jail by the Salem Police for defending the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Even though their part in The Big Charade was being video recorded by two separate cameras, police showed no reluctance to break one law after another. As any rookie officer could tell you, this was a text book example of false arrest where the police did almost everything wrong.

perhaps because they didn't have one

2. They failed to charge me with a crime (perhaps because I didn't commit one??);

3. They failed to positively identify me (even jail officials told me, having no warrant, I should have been listed as a 'John Doe');

4. They failed to read a Miranda statement;

5. They failed to honor a Writ of Habeas Corpus; and;

6. They failed to honor the literal nature of my status as an ambassador for Christ supposing me rather to be a charlatan.

Although the invisible warrant (which they claim they just forgot to bring with them) was said to be issued more than a year earlier on 05/22/00, the arrest was purposely delayed and strategically timed by Mayor Earl Gage and City Council President Robert Johnson, so that I would be behind bars on 06-06-01 while the city seized and sold the church at Salem at their yearly tax sale! After being falsely arrested, I was incarcerated for four days and systematically persecuted and punished for my allegiance to my Sovereign, Christ Jesus.

everything

2. I was denied the right to make a phone call while incarcerated;

3. 1 was denied the right to send a letter to my wife because the warden insisted I did not have her name spelled correctly on the envelope;

4. I was forced against the Will of God to surrender my fingerprints and to be photographed for a mug shot; and,

5. After four days of fasting all food, water and medications under the Direction of the Holy Spirit, I was forced in a wheel chair against the Will of God, to appear before an unjust judge (1 Corinthians 6:1-7) and denied the right to have the Lawful Counsel of my Bible present.

Several times they told me that State law required prisoners to be "properly processed" before they could be released. Nevertheless, on day four, having never signed any papers nor given them permission to poke me with needles for a blood test, I was wheeled to the front door of the jail house and, in violation of State law, dumped in the lobby. Consistent with their pattern of corruption and cover-up, city officials instructed Today's Sunbeam to report the lie that I had been released on my own recognizance.

Although it was clear to all what the city had done here was wrong, only a small handful of believers had enough courage to stand up and openly voice their disapproval. Some wrote letters to the Editor, but they were never printed. One brother called the City Solicitor and was mockingly told by that official "maybe I should declare myself to be a church so I can get out of paying taxes too!" As for everyone else, including some who I thought were my closest friends, they all shrunk into the shadows like Peter when he heard the cock crow.

In the weeks that followed, my heart was heavy as I was confounded by the apathy that seemed to paralyze so many in the body of Christ. And then, in His Grace, the Lord began to show me the depth and extent at which His people were asleep in the dark about the most important part of their life - the literal Lordship of Jesus Christ. It was true, almost everyone I could think of was unequally yoked with the dead. Nearly every believer I knew was a member of a State created religious corporation...and had no clue about what that meant. As I began to study the origin and history of the 501(C)3 religious corporation, I began to see "The Big Charade."

Since then, the Lord has directed me to begin writing our story for a book that will be titled, The Big Charade -- A Story of Constitutional Corruption and Cover-up in Salem, New Jersey. This book will tell the story of the church at Salem while exposing the most devious and idolatrous scheme ever devised by man to usurp the Lordship of Jesus Christ -- the State created 501(C)3 religious corporation. Because of the information it contains and those we unmasked in its pages as trespassers against Christ and perpetrators of this massive fraud, the Lord has Directed us to send out copies of the Introduction to become part of the record of nisi prius in case any harm should occur to anyone within the church at Salem as an act of reprisal.

If after reading the Introduction you decide you would like to have a copy of this book, we will be happy to put your name on a list for you to be notified when they are available. We trust you will be edified by this Introduction to The Big Charade and invite your comments as you may be lead by His Spirit to share them with us.

"For in Him we live, move, and have our being" - Acts 17:28

Introduction

Greetings to you in the Name of our only Sovereign, the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. We count it an honor to present to you, The Big Charade - A Story of Constitutional Corruption and Cover-up in Salem, New Jersey. We offer this work to the Glory of God as our true and faithful testimony in Christ concerning the spiritual conflict and state of war which exists between the City of Salem and the church at Salem as a result of the city's several acts of hostile aggression and attempts to rob, pillage and plunder the church of Jesus Christ.

For your edification and learning we have included in this book various letters, statements, notices, declarations and two non-statutory Lawful processes that have been Issued and Served by the church at Salem in Lawful assembly (Christ's ekklesia) from between 1999 to the present. Although there are many more documents that make up the entire body of correspondence on this matter, those selected here under the Direction of the Holy Spirit tell the story best. To fully understand the issues here and why the church at Salem has been targeted for persecution, it will first be necessary to understand some basic, hard facts about the church and civil law. Together these facts form a revealing picture puzzle the Enemy hopes the church will never take the time to figure out. Otherwise, the Big Charade will be exposed, "and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" - John 8:32. As we have tried our best to condense the information in this lengthy introduction, it is essential that you take the time to read it thoroughly before reading any other part of this book.

If you don't already know, you are about to discover that the constitutional concept of "separation of church and State" is merely an illusion and that religious persecution of the church in America goes on quietly while those in power seek to hide the truth about it. What you are about to read is not opinion, conjecture or patriot movement mythology. The definitions of words and terms you will find throughout this work have a sound basis in law which can easily be confirmed by any one of several good law dictionaries, and are accurate in their applications. Since Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (referred to hereafter as "Black's") is pretty much the standard of today's civil and criminal law industry and is available at most bookstores, that is the one we have chosen to use. We highly recommend you obtain your own copy. Even though we have been careful to document and validate our work, do not expect to understand these matters merely by reading words. If these truths are written on your heart by the Spirit of our Sovereign, Heavenly Father, then you will know them simply because He has given you the understanding. No amount of reading will accomplish that.

This work outlines the Calling and ministry to which God has Appointed me as an ambassador for the Christ and a pastor and steward of the church at Salem; I did not choose it for myself. Unfortunately, it is an unpopular ministry as it tends to make those who serve two masters uncomfortable and angry with the messenger. As any ambassador to any earthly kingdom would do, I accept my Appointment and Calling, not figuratively but literally as a ministerial officer of Christ (Black's, page 996) having a clear biblical Mandate and obligation to "bear true faith and allegiance" to my Sovereign and to shine the Glorious Light of His liberating Word on the opposing fiction(s) of law (Black's, page 623) that have been created by man for no other reason than to enslave His church to another master. Because I have taken my Calling and the Lordship of Christ literally, I have been persecuted and was thrown in jail for four days while the City of Salem seized the church and our family dwelling.

The hard cold facts.

In America there are two very different expressions of the church. In secular law (Black's, page 1353) each of the two is separately defined and can easily be identified by its legal definition. One is called the Church (Black's, page 242) while the other is called a religious corporation or sometimes simply a 50I (C)(3) (Black's, page I292 and 340). Although you cannot find a religious corporation defined in the New Testament, there alone you will find God's definition of the true New Testament church. Just as a department store dummy may appear from a distance to be a living man with the breath of God in his lungs, likewise a religious corporation may appear to be the true church until a closer examination is made. Even though most religious corporations mimic and may therefore look like the church, conversely, you will not be able to find anywhere in the Bible an example of the true New Testament church that looks anything like a religious corporation. While only Christ has the right to define what and who His church is, nevertheless it is interesting to note that even the secular civil law makes a distinction between what it calls the Church and its fiction of law counterpart, the religious corporation (defined legally for commercial purposes as "an artificial person or entity") In fact, even the unyielding IRS makes a distinction between these two in Section 508 of its Code acknowledging that, unlike a commercial religious corporation, the church is naturally tax exempt and does not have to register with or report to the government. The reason why the IRS makes that distinction is because it is obligated under the law and Constitution to do so.

At this point, we want to emphasize the fact that all rights belonging to the church are unalienable (Black's, page 1523), natural Rights (Black's, page 1026-1027) granted, secured and promulgated by God in His Original Law (Black's, page 1099), the Holy Scriptures. Although these Rights are recognized and reinforced by the Constitution, they do not come from it. Rather, they come from the Father ab initio (from the beginning) and therefore cannot be regulated by any man. On the other hand, since the commercial religious corporation is a creation of man, not of God, it is not entitled to the same First Amendment protections as the church. Consequently, a religious corporation has no unalienable, natural Rights. You may be confused at this point wondering, "Then how come religious corporations are not required to pay taxes?" The answer is, they are exempt as a privilege (Black's, page 1197) by license which can easily be revoked if the religious corporation steps out of line and engages in some kind of activity the State does not approve of. In summary, the church has a true, automatic exemption by "natural Right" under its Creator - Jesus the Christ; while a commercial religious corporation has a fiction of law, licensed exemption by "privilege" under its creator - the State. Regardless of your opinion or religious convictions on this matter, the legal reality here is that the State is lord over the commercial religious corporation...not Jesus Christ.

How did the church

ever get into such a mess?

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

Regardless of God's continual warnings such as this one from Hosea 4:6, in most cases the problem occurs when the pastor, through a lack of knowledge, waives the Law and Lordship of Christ to the IRS through the secular process of incorporation, and thereby legally converts the church into a religious corporation. Not knowing that he just sold his spiritual birthright for a mess of corporate pottage, he is now legally obligated to serve the law of his new lord and master. Although the Constitution forbids the State from forcing the church to become a religious corporation, it does not forbid the State from deceiving the church into believing it is required to do so! The position of the courts and government on this matter is that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Since the law and information is out there and totally available, you should have been awake and paying better attention. And so their maxim of law states, Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, Jura subvieunt, meaning, "The laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights."; or as they say on the streets, "you snooze, you loose"; or most importantly, as the Holy Scriptures warn, "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober."

Consequently, countless numbers of well intending, sleeping pastors have applied to the IRS for tax exemption (a constitutionally protected natural Right they already had and didn't know it) and in so doing accomplished nothing more than the enslaving of themselves and their church to Caesar's endless list of codes, rules, regulations, laws, statutes, international treaties and so on, and so on, ad nausæm; while unknowingly perpetuating the Beast's grand deception! The same surrendering of Christ's Law and Lordship occurs when the church applies for a license (a contractual privilege) for property tax exemption, or engages in any other process that places the Lordship of Christ under any form of secular human jurisdiction. Such agreements, in law, are commonly known as adhesion contracts (Black's, page 40) and are lethal in nature as Black's states that, "distinctive feature of an adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice as to its terms". By way of such adhesion contracts the church assumes a "legal personality" and becomes married or "yoked" to the secular State. Truly, the following verses from our Father's Holy Word should leap from the page and burn within our hearts!

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." -- 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
"No servant can serve two masters:" -- Luke 16:13

But isn't the church

supposed to obey those in authority?

Among the religious corporations of men, it is common to find those that believe that Christ and His church should submit to all secular humanist forms of government. In most cases, they do so by relying on a post-Constantine misinterpretation of Romans chapter 13 which fails to recognize the obvious fact that those in authority must also be under the Lordship of Christ themselves! The first verse of that chapter sets forth what is undoubtedly, the most important requirement for every civil leader stating, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers"--meaning Jesus the Christ!! In fact, as Paul continues his discourse on the model government for the church in Romans 13, he twice calls those leaders "the ministers of God". Although politicians love to think and speak of themselves in the highest regards, can you ever remember hearing one of them tell you he was ordained to be "the minister of God" on your behalf? Indeed, it would be contrary to the very nature of God's Righteousness for Him to set up a three-way chain of command for His Authority and then exempt those in the middle!

Verse one goes onto say, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". That means the office of President right on down to the office of City Mayor are ordained of God. It doesn't mean God personally appoints every man individually who holds the office. Otherwise we would have to conclude that Hitler was personally ordained by God to kill six million Jews (and non-whites, gypsies, etc.)! Although, by His Divine Will and Purpose, He can elevate or bring down whomever He chooses, He is not obligated to take responsibility for installing every tyrant who ever seized a government. From the beginning of civilization, men have come into power completely on their own, while God personally has had nothing to do with their humanist self-serving goals and commercial agendas. Hosea 8:1 and 4 makes this abundantly clear telling us, "...they have transgressed My covenant, and trespassed against My Law...They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

After reading our short essay, A Story of Constitutional Corruption and Cover-up in Salem, New Jersey, one woman sent us a rambling e-mail that shows just how far the church has slipped into idolatry and away from the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In part she wrote:

"If you do not want to submit to these authorities and their rules, maybe you should go somewhere where you don't have to file a license to have YOUR CHURCH. What happened to GOD'S CHURCH? Start doing the work God put you to do. Loose your pride and bow down and get the license."

The license to which she refers is the property tax exemption application we refused to partake of. In reality it is nothing more than an adhesion contract in disguise and is the bases on which the City of Salem wages war against the church at Salem. Of her entire e-mail, the suggestion to, "bow down and get the license" was, no doubt, the scariest and most telling thing she wrote. Thank God, Shadrack, Meshach and Abednego would not "bow down and get a license" from Nebuchadnezzer. Thank God, Peter and Paul would not "bow down and get a license" from Caesar. And thank God Almighty, Jesus the Christ our Wonderful, Sovereign Lord and Saviour did not "bow down and get a license" from any man!! Thank God, they all understood what Isaiah meant when he wrote, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King: He will save us." (Isaiah 33:22).

My personal testimony in Christ

I have been asked by some, Why are you doing all this? What are you trying to accomplish? One couple recently asked a friend of mine, "What happened to pastor Bill and Kathy? We've known them for years; they used to be so sound in the Word." To the ears of the sleeping faithful who gather each Sunday under the national banner of their religious corporations, these may sound like spiritually valid questions from a spiritually valid point of view. In fact, not that long ago I would have asked the same questions myself in their situation. The best response I can give to such questions is found in the High and Sacred Law of our Sovereign at Philippians 3:7-8:

"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ."

This is the attitude of commitment to Christ I wish to strive for. For only by the Grace of God, am I now beginning to understand the high privilege of His Calling and how superficial everything else is in comparison.

And so, this is not an issue of property taxes, building codes or refusing to appear before a judge who has no jurisdiction in personam (Black's, page 854) or any other form of authority over the church of Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual battle to determine who is lord over His church, and it is a battle worth any price. People have told me, "Don't you know you're going to lose your house over this thing?", while failing to understand it's not "my house or church" to begin with! In fact, neither the church at Salem, nor the life I live, belongs to me. For as a faithful steward I must acknowledge that all these things are under His sole Ownership, which means they are not within my will or discretion to surrender into the hands of a stranger. Thus, should anyone attempt to take physical possession of the church at Salem, I am prepared in my heart and willing rather to lay down my physical life (I Kings 21:3, 9 & 19; and, II Chronicles 20:11 &12; and, Ezra 8:21; and, Esther 4:16) to defend the Right of His Lordship over those whom, and that which, He has purchased with His Precious Blood. For both are equally under His Sovereign Lordship, and whoever usurps the one should be prepared to usurp the other.

Finally, we wish to say to pastors and all others of the remnant church (Isaiah 10:21 & 22) who have been deceived into joining the Beast's religious corporation:

"There is therefore now no con- demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1

You have a natural Right in Christ to escape through repentance and obedience to Christ. No man has the right to force you to serve another master if you are Called to serve the only True and Living, Sovereign God, Christ Jesus. Although the process is an individual one and may even be a lifelong endeavor, it is possible to do simply because the Lord has told us to do it! As you read this book with the Mind of Christ, it is to that end we pray the Spirit of God will show you the fullness of His Grace and direct (or re-direct) your path as you seek His Sovereign Lordship.

pastor William Raymond:

(Contact Information)

the church at Salem
c/o Post Office Box 208
Alloway, New Jersey

e-mail: thechurchatSalem@netzero.net

(856) 935-7188

fax (856) 935-0602

And the Voice of the Lord's Martyrs

Cry Out

A martyr is simply a witness. All are martyrs. Some witness that they are of the world, and die with the world. And then there is the remnant who witness that they are of the Christ, and die with the Christ. They are as their Master, being in the world but not of it.

It takes only one bad thread, only one, to ruin an entire fabric, to destroy an entire cloth. The natural man weaves his presumed authority into God's, and the result is a corrupted Church.

And today the Church asks: Is that possible?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: That's the truth of baptism. Leaving the kingdom of the world, and joining the Kingdom of God. A baptism of choice signals that you break with the world in matters of faith. When the use of the carnal sword and its worldly power is accepted, corruption is invited within.

And today the Church asks: How can we avoid that?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: By joining the assembled ones, separate from the power of the carnal sword, and partake of the sword of the Spirit only. The apostles had no duke, no prince, no king--save the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus the Christ.

And today the Church asks: What guarantee can you offer a woman who wants safety for her children? What guarantee can you offer a man for his family?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: Faith. Only faith. We fear for those in prison. We weep for those who have died, and will die, for the cause of Christ. But we fear even more the consequences of compromise. For if you allow the power of this world to be threaded into the fabric of the Christ's ekklesia, the results have been, and will be, seen: compassion turns to pride; charity to greed; truth becomes fabrication; salvation citizenship; peace oppression. And faith in Almighty God becomes faith in pastors, popes, princes and kings. You must not imitate the world, but Christ in all things--even if you are called to the gallows or the grave. If you deceive yourselves now, the price will be eternal. We all have one Lord, Christ Jesus. And He is all we have ever needed.

And today the Church asks: Do you deny the authority of the pope?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: God's Word denies his authority. Oaths and vows are made by the natural man, marriage comes from God. You must stand separate from the world in matters of faith.

And today the Church asks: But don't the scriptures say to render unto Caesar?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: And so you shall to that which you accept as being Caesar's! But you must not accept Caesar's protection, and you must take no oaths of loyalty to any government. You must acknowledge no authority over the office of the Christ and His ekklesia, except that which is of the Father.

And today the Church asks: The infidel seeks to destroy the Christ's ekklesia and their delegated authority. What resistance can you offer that would be consistent with your beliefs?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: We ourselves could offer nothing but the Truth, for we know that The Word is our Sword, and He does, and did, save us.

And today the Church asks: Did they not butcher you?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: Jesus Christ Himself was butchered. If our Lord endured persecution and death for the Father's sake, how could we have sought to avoid it for ourselves, and how can you?

And today the Church asks: If we may not slay our enemies ourselves, may we accept protection if it's offered?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: If you accept a prince's force, you accept his authority. Many look to the favor of rulers, but justice comes to a man from the Lord. Our protection and authority is Christ, the Prince of Peace!

And today the Church asks: Did not Christ Himself use force to scourge the temple?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: Yes, but not with a carnal sword. The enemies of Christ wielding the sword do so out of ignorance and have not heard the Truth. But one who has pledged to Christ, when he picks up that same sword--he marks with a stain the very faith he claims to follow.

And today the Church asks: Does one not defend the faith when he wields the sword in the name of Christ?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: No! For it is better to fight along side a genuine enemy than a hypocrite churchgoer who uses that sword in false service to Christ. The strength of the Church is found within the office of the Christ and His called-out ones--His ekklesia--not without.

And today the Church asks: But what about our freedom?

And the Lord's martyrs cry out: You are to understand freedom as an internal state, not an external one. You are to reject the carnal sword as outside the perfection of Christ--to separate yourselves so that good and evil, believing and unbelieving, light and darkness, the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world--none will have part with the other. It is not enough that we say farewell in simple agreement, or disagreement. You must all go forth fully committed to the course that the Lord Himself has set for us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loves us. Carnal warfare is a poor way to represent a Church which claims to have been founded on suffering and love.

"To whom dost thou attach thyself, or whom art thou going to assist? is it not He that has strength, and He who has a strong arm? To whom hast thou given counsel? is it not to Him who has all Wisdom? whom wilt thou follow? is it not the One Who has the greatest power? To Whom hast thou uttered words? and Whose breath is it that has come forth from thee?" Job 26:2-4

You, as we have, must go out as sheep amidst wolves, as lambs to the slaughter.

How say you?

The Non-comformists

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2

How can we be bondservants of the Lord if we are slaves to human approval? Those who conform to the world can never claim to change, improve or transform it, for conformity denotes stagnation and death. One must step out and be separate from it.

Persecution

Jesus went to the cross because of the irreconcilable conflict between His words and way of life and that of his enemies. Wherever blindness, bigotry, fear, self-centeredness, and indifference prevail, the bondmen of Christ will suffer abuse and persecution from defenders of the established world order of the natural man. Society always issues an ultimatum to those who walk according to the Spirit: conform to this world or expect the reward of a criminal, heretic or a traitor. Every generation metes out the same punishment to those who fall far below and those who rise high above its standards. Thieves and prophets rot in the same foul dungeon; adulterers and the faithful fall by the same sword; murderers and the Saviour of the world agonized on adjacent crosses.

Love never flees from the object of its affection. Not by fleeing from the world can anyone be redeemed. Asceticism may offer a way of escape from the temptations that come from contact with those of the world and its things, and may even bring a sense of release and contentment, but the truth can never be brought to those in need of it by hermits. Contact may lead to contamination, but contact is essential to redemption. Where pain is most severe and sorrow most bitter, there love is most solicitous and untiring.

Not by conforming to this world can any man be brought to the Truth. Lying down in the gutter with the derelict or drinking with the drunkard is no way to renew or reform him. Acquiescence is not an effective method of remedying evils. Sharing the gains of exploitation and enjoying privileges arising out of unjust world governments will never lead to the transformation of those in society to the Kingdom of God. Untiring opposition to false standards and ceaseless activity against wrongdoing are demanded by love, for love is the fulfilling of the Law. Mankind can never be lifted to the highest levels if its teachers dwell in the lowlands. To be in the world and yet not of it is the difficult requirement of love.

It is the will of God that man should faithfully follow the way of love. The purpose of life is to build upon the divine community. The way to live and share with others the ideal life is to live today as if it is already a reality. Live this hour as a member of the Family of God. Depend upon love, for God is love. Run the risks. Accept the consequences. Have confidence and faith in Him.

There has never walked this earth One Who gave Himself so completely to the needs of men as Christ Jesus did. He identified Himself with all in distress; He is compassion. He went about helping and healing and doing good. But the harder He tried, the more He was entangled by a hostile generation. But He did not walk out on the task; He persevered to the very end.

Not many times in history have groups suffered as much abuse and persecution, and returned so little resentment and so much genuine good will as is shown by the followers of Christ. The third century "Epistle to Diognetus" says:

"They love all men, and they are persecuted by all. They are reviled, and they bless; they are insulted, and they respect. Doing good they are punished as evil-doers; being punished they rejoice as if they were thereby quickened by life. In a word, what the soul is in the body, this the Christians are in the world" (quoted by Edward Grubb, Christianity as Life, page 206).

It is not that the Father spares them trials through which they grow to conform more and more closely to the image of Christ, but because He gives them the courage to surmount these trials.

The Glad Tidings of the Christ were born and bred in adversity, and the bondmen of Him have risen to their greatest heights when confronted by the most critical tests. Our Father will provide strength if we look only to what He places at our disposal. His Glad Tidings were born in conflict and have little meaning except as they meet men where the battle rages. They were made for the storm and will take care of themselves. The Glad Tidings have suffered many indignities at the hands of irrelevant men. The greatest indignity, however, is for us to try to protect them with our feeble hands. Defending the faith is a useless impertinence. The faith must defend us. Jesus the Christ is our Saviour. We do not protect Him as idolaters protect their helpless idols. The Almighty God of storms is not afraid of the wind! Is not our concern for the safety of His Glad Tidings only a reflection of our own insecurity? Do we rely upon ourselves all too much and upon the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit too little?

The Non-conformists

Those who have done most for the world and have lifted the level of life for people have been the nonconformists. They have been men and women of fixed purpose and staunch principle. They have had standards and kept them, no matter what the cost. They have been ready to face criticism, ridicule, ostracism, and impoverishment. They have not run away from life, and they have not run along with life to get along with life. They have taken hold of it firmly and have labored for the Lord, not for themselves. They are resolved to be, not a creature of circumstance, but a doer of the work. Why are so many people at the mercy of circumstance? Is it because they have neither discovered a faith by which to live nor a cause to serve, other than circumstance.

But we have Christ--the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the King of kings, and for this cause He came into the world, to bear witness unto the truth. And those that are of the truth hear His voice, not the voice of the world.

What is the devil? The devil is not a huge monster with horns and a harpoon tail and a wicked glitter in his eye. No, the devil is: taking the line of least resistance. It is inertia. It is self-service, doing nothing and leaving nothing.

How can we have national security on the scale demanded today and at the same time maintain our freedoms as of old? There are only two ways to keep a lot of people in line: they must either be held together spiritually from the inside, or beaten together physically from the outside. Thus, what is called for to save us from outward tyranny is the inner resource of discipline. This is only achieved by and through Jesus the Christ.

"Do not be afraid of your enemies - in the worst case they can kill you; Do not be afraid of your friends - in the worst case they can betray you; Be afraid of the indifferent ones: it is from their silent blessings that all the evil is happening in the world!" Bruno Yasensky, a Russian writer. As quoted by Bob Djurdjevic, May 25, 1999.
"No man ever achieved any great good to mankind who did not fight for it with courage and perseverance, and who did not, in the conflict, sacrifice either his name or his life. John lost his head. The Savior was crucified. The ancient confessors were slain. The reformers were excommunicated. If I am not slandered and misrepresented, I shall be a most unworthy advocate of the cause which has always provoked the resentment of those who, fattened upon the ignorance and stupidity of the mass, will not try to think and learn." Alexander Campbell.

Exercising Your Duty

of Movement

on the Common Ways

A "way" is a path common to all (Matthew 21:6-8, Acts 8:26). Thus, we use the term "common way." The world uses terms such as "highways and byways, freeways, parkways, and driveways." These are terms to describe different kinds of ways, but by using "common ways," we are using something that is common to all people. We also try to avoid the terms "road, travel, drive, motor vehicle, automobile, car, etc.," as these can be construed to denote commercial activity.

A difficult question for all true followers of Jesus the Christ is, "Should I take a license from the government or not?" The only answer is, "Not". The next question automatically follows, "What do I do when I get stopped for not having a current tag, registration, title, insurance and drivers license?" As always, the answer is found in scripture:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Philippians 4:13

We can do all things through the power of Christ (not man or worldly governments). We should wholly depend upon Him for all our power and authority to do what He will have us do. They do not come from an affection to things of the world or rights (privileges) given by men.

Therefore, when you are out on the "roads," you cannot be doing anything that is contrary to Scripture, in order to exercise your Duty of Movement and Liberty in Christ on the Common Ways. This would include, but is not limited to: speeding, reckless behavior with a six thousand pound machine, engaging in commercial activity for personal financial gain and profit through sales calls, a delivery service, transporting passengers or goods for a price, and other such acts of "disturbing the peace". If you choose to engage in such activity, you will be fully controlled and regulated by those that exercise that job, for you will be looked at by them as a 'low and lawless form of humanity'. You will be under the jurisdiction of, and regulated by, the god of commercial roads, Mercury.

"Where lawful services are blended with such as are forbidden, the whole being a unit and indivisible, the bad destroys the good." Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 452 (1874).

To be blunt about it, every bondman of Christ who owns a so-called motor vehicle is presumed to be acting in the mode and character of a pagan, i.e., in commerce, because he has borne or given no evidence to the contrary. Is this not bearing false witness? In other words, when a man professes to be a follower and ambassador of Christ and yet acts in a manner that tells the whole world that he is a pagan, then he is bearing false witness to the whole world. Can the officer be blamed for writing his traffic ticket in such a case? Obviously not! These Christians honor God with their lips, but their heart is far from Him (Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8, Mark 7:6).

On the other hand, if you act in the mode and character of a true bondman and ambassador of the Christ, there are alternatives to State licensure. Your activity cannot be of a commercial nature, but limited to only one purpose: ministering for the Lord. This does not mean that you must be a minister "ordained" by men. It means that you live, move, and have your being in Christ; it means you are not doing your own will, but the will of the Father. If so, you are a true ambassador for and bondman of Him.

There are no gray areas. It's either, "render unto Caesar" or "render unto God" (Luke 20:25). There are no guarantees or silver bullets available when dealing with Caesar, but there is the Promise of Christ, the Higher Power, for "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37; 18:27). The shield of faith must be carried at all times. It is not a matter of "getting away with it"; it is a matter of honoring the Father first and standing on the Word of God and bringing His truth to them.

There's nothing wrong with being in an automobile, there's nothing evil about that. Even man's law, in their own court cases, admit that there's nothing inherently evil about an automobile; it's the fellow behind the wheel. That's where the evil comes from.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules, and regulations that 'govern' the areas of transportation apply only to natural persons, residents, corporations, and other fictitious entities. They do not apply to the servants of Christ. Notice that the traffic laws of a State only apply to those who are residents or travelers within that State, and not to foreigners, transients, or sojourners:

"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier's Inst. of law (1851), page 38.

Notice that to 'travel' is synonymous with being a 'resident.'

"Within the meaning of 'a right to travel', means migration with intent to settle and abide." Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp. 1356, 1360.
"Nom de guerre - a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969); Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases, page 1202.

'Traveling' and 'driving' are purely commercial terms. Therefore, you should use the term "exercising my duty of movement on the Common Ways". Only in this way can you bring God's Law and your ambassadorship into a potential situation with the military police. Also notice that a Nom de guerre, a fictitious name, is a 'traveling name', meaning you are a 'resident,' and under the jurisdiction of the State.

When you carry a license (which always has a fictitious name spelled in all capital letters on it), you are looked upon by these powers as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status, as a natural person, a resident, and not an ambassador and sojourner in and of the Christ. The primary evidence of who and what you are is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the 'road patrol'.

The police have the ability to use their discretion. If they find that you speak the truth as to who and what you are ("For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Matthew 12:37) and are not a threat to the peace and safety of the public, they may respect those convictions and let you go. Or, they may take you to jail and impound the car, or they may not. It may appear to be a negative experience for one that decides to take this stand, but appearances can be deceptive. The important thing to remember is that it is for the Lords sake; therefore:

"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

Jurisdictions

Some people are not willing to lose "their" car for the Lord's sake, but scripture does tell us that we will be persecuted for standing in the Truth (Matthew 5:10-12; 10:22; 24:9, Mark 13:13, Luke 21:17, John 15:20). Besides, who is the One who has provided you with that car? Yourself or God? If you are living in the Truth, you know that God has. Therefore, what makes you think that He will not provide another one for you?

For those who would rather covet "their" car and keep it, rather than risk losing it for righteousness sake, then you may want to think about this; Caesar and his swarms of officers can take "your" car away from you for any reason they want. Would you rather have protection from Caesar (which means you must forsake the Father), or would you rather have protection from Him (by remaining with Him and His Law)? He is truly a more powerful shield than Caesar and his codes rules, and regulations.

There are steps you can take to make it much harder for Caesar to impound what the Father has given you.

Junk the Title to the car. A variety of terms are used in the several States for this. Some are 'scrapped title', 'destroying the title,' etc. It is best to inquire at the DMV in the State where the car is registered for this procedure. Usually all you need do is write "Junked" on the title, and go to the department and proceed to remove it from their system. They will either remove the title from their computers, or it will be acknowledged as junked. Do not remove the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) from the car. This number does not give the State jurisdiction over the car, once the title has been junked and removed from their records.
Throw away the driver's license and registration.
Cancel Insurance.
Remove all "corporate brand names" from the interior and exterior of the so-called vehicle. This helps remove its commercial character. The idea is to make it distinguishable from the corporate world.
Make identification plates for the front and rear. Choose your own scripture passage, as the Holy Spirit moves you. Be sure to make the plate a different dimension than State plates, i.e., a half inch larger or smaller. The following are two examples of a "brand" ("plate" and "tags" (tags on rear plate only)) to put on your "mule." They are simply examples:
These types of plates convert your conveyance from a commercial status to a diplomatic one. Whether or not "the powers that be" recognize that status will be determined by the words you speak and by the Grace of God.

Confronting Officers

The following "Questions and Answers" section is simply an overview of the perspective from which you must speak and the attitude you must take when dealing with those that wish to pillage and plunder that which the Lord has provided for you to minister for Him. We don't want to put words in your mouth or create a rehearsal for memorizing lines as in a play. We simply hope to display possible responses from a spiritual point of view, and to show how we can use the Sword of the Word to quench the fiery darts of the wicked (Ephesians 6:16). The questions will never be the same, and the answers must always come from the heart through the Holy Spirit, not from the "reasoning mind". Therefore:

"When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12
"Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:14-15

When confronting police and other government employees, you should have the attitude to look upon them as a blessing, as well as an opportunity to witness to them. Answer all "law enforcement service providers" with the words of your Master, always and continually avoiding the general issue in Law. Speak slow, don't be quick to answer. Put on the mind of Christ and reflect His character.

Also, whenever any bondman of Christ goes anywhere, he should not go alone, but have another Brother with him (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, Matthew 11:2; 18:20; 21:1, Mark 6:7; 11:1; 14:13, Luke 7:19; 10:1; 19:29, John 1:35, 37, Acts 9:38). This not only meets the scriptural requirement of establishing every word in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but it follows the examples of our Master sending out the apostles in pairs. Having another with you also gives you strength, because there is strength in numbers.

The Bible verses included in these answers are for your reference only, to show that these are the words that God has given us to use. Do not quote bible chapter and verse numbers to any government authority (such as saying "John 3:16"), but only quote the actual verses word for word, because the chapter and verse numbers were added by man, and aren't part of the Scriptures themselves. Our Lord quoted His Father's word only, because that is sufficient. And you should precede Scripture verses with, "It is written," "The Scripture saith," or you can say, "It has been written from the beginning" to make clear that God's Word is from the beginning, and that anything man invents has no standing, even according to their own maxim of law, which states "first in time, is preferred in law." If asked by an officer, "Where does it say so-and-so in the Bible?" you can respond with their maxim, "Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law."

Warning: Do not ever keep a copy of this article with you while you are on the roads. If you do, and the police see it, it will nullify your witness, because the words you speak are not coming from your heart as guided by the Holy Spirit, but are coming from a piece of paper. The "authorities" will see by your actions that you lack faith, and they will not believe that you mean what you say. More important than the words that come out of your mouth is whether or not you are sincere in what you speak. If you are simply repeating what somebody else told you, you are not being sincere. These should not be words that you're parroting, because even the natural man knows when you're lying because he walks in a lie all the time, so he recognizes his own. Therefore, you have to speak the things that are written on your heart, directed by the Holy Spirit. In addition, you should carry a copy of Scripture with you at all times.

Questions and Answers

Officer: (While approaching)

Bondservant: Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ. Do you greet me in the same name? (if he or she does not answer you, ask in whose name they do greet you. You will then know who and what you are dealing with).

Officer: Let me see your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance.

Bondservant: I have something better.

Officer: What's that?

Bondservant: I have here the Holy Scriptures which describes and defines me as an ambassador and bondman of and for Jesus the Christ, executing His Testament. Are you?

Officer: Yes. (If he says "No, I'm just a cop," ask him who he ministers for).

Bondservant: Well praise God. Perhaps you would like to sit down and discuss the scriptures for a moment?

Officer: Some other time. I need to see some State ID.

Bondservant: Well, I don't belong to the State, but to God our Father, and He knows me. In His Law, there is no requirement for ID, because I'm sealed by His Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), which marks and separates me from the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14). This (holding up the scripture) is the Law I follow; the Law of God.

Officer: What is your name?

Bondservant: It has been written from the beginning that there is only one name under heaven of any importance, the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. (1 Timothy 2:5, Acts 2:38, 4:12, 1 John 3:23).

Officer: But what is your name?

Bondservant: Names are the notes, symbols or marks of things given by those in authority to those in subjection to that authority. It has been written from the beginning that I am made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 9:6, 1 Corinthians 11:7), and therefore, am not a 'thing'.

Officer: Everybody has a name.

Bondservant: Really? Well, I don't know 'everybody.' Do you? You presume everybody has a name.

Officer: I will ask you one more time. What is your name?

Bondservant: I have a name that God has given me (John 10:3, Revelation 2:17) because I am subject to His Authority, as you are. My name is written in the book of life (Philippians 4:3, Revelation 3:5; 21:27), sealed by the Holy Spirit, and known only to my Father. Caesar has not given me a name, nor called me anything at anytime. I am to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's (Matthew 22:21). Who did you say you minister for?

Officer: I am not a minister. Now what is your name?

Bondservant: I'll re-phrase my question. In whose name, and by whose authority, do you do the things you do?

Officer: Have you ever been arrested before?

Bondservant: I need to know in whose name you do the things you do before I answer that question, because you came to me, I did not come to you.

Officer: I am conducting an investigation and I need to know who you are to continue my investigation.

Bondservant: Well, when you answer in whose name you do the things you do, then you may proceed with your investigation.

Officer: I work for the city/state/country of (name). Now what is your name?

Bondservant: Out of your own mouth you have testified that you do not minister for God, through Christ Jesus. I am a bondman of Christ Jesus, and being such, I have not been given a name by Caesar, and therefore I do not have a name that can be rendered to him (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). I have to render the name God gave me to Him alone (Matthew 7:6; 22:21). No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). By your own admission, you serve Caesar and not God.

Officer: Caesar has been dead for two thousand years. Now tell us who you are!

Bondservant: Caesar may be dead, but his spirit is not. And by your words and questions, you yourself have evidenced that his spirit is very much alive. But I am who my Father says I am.

Officer: I can't let you go until I have your name.

Bondservant: If I give you a name, I'd be subjecting myself to you. I can't do that. Besides, it's not the physical name that's important, it's what is written on our heart that's important. That is who I am.

[Note: In some cases they will arrest you and leave you in jail until you do give them a "name." Therefore, you may say to the officer, "I do not have a name, but you may call me (giving your first two names, not your family name)." This way, you are telling them you do not have a name given by Caesar, and at the same time, satisfying their request for something to call you by. If, after you give them your name]...

Officer: Hmmm. Well, your name is not in our computer!

Bondservant: Well, what law says that I have to be in your computer?

Officer: You are interfering with a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duties; you're impeding my investigation. I could bring you in for obstructing justice.

Bondservant: I could not possibly be interfering with whatever your duties may be because I'm speaking the Truth to you. Are you saying that because I speak the truth you hate me? (John 8:45-47).

Officer: I don't hate you.

Bondservant: Do you want me to speak the truth to you, or do you want me to tell you what you want to hear?

Officer: The truth.

Bondservant: Well that is what I'm speaking to you.

Officer: Well, that's your belief.

Bondservant: No, this has nothing to do with belief, this has to do with the truth. It is written in your law that the cause of the church is a public cause, and private interpretation is irrelevant.

Officer: Well, I don't want to hear that stuff.

Bondservant: Excuse me. What I have to say has importance to everyone. I am speaking the truth to you, and the truth has an effect on everything you and I do.

Officer: Do you mind if I search you then?

Bondservant: You will do whatever you deem is necessary to accomplish your intended purpose.

Officer: You are entitled at least to an opinion.

Bondservant: I have no entitlements from Caesar, and opinions are not Law, and have no standing in Law.

Officer: Do you have any weapons?

Bondservant: Only the sword of Truth (holding up the scriptures)...we are after the truth, yes? The weapons of my warfare are not carnal, but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 6:11-20).

Officer: I found this paper (document, certificate, bible, etc.) with a name on it. Are you (name)?

Bondservant: You say I am (Luke 22:70; 23:3).

Officer: No, I am asking you if you are the person on this paper.

Bondservant: You say I am (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2).

Officer: I did not make a statement. I asked an interrogatory. Do you know what an interrogatory is?

Bondservant: You say I do.

Officer: An interrogatory is a question. I am going to ask you again. Are you (name)?

Bondservant: You are accusing me of being the person on that piece of paper. Therefore, you say I am (John 18:37).

Officer: Then, how do you introduce yourself to others?

Bondservant: I don't. Did I run up to you and do that?

Officer: No.

Bondservant: There is your answer.

Officer: I am a Christian just like you are.

Bondservant: Well then, that means we're brothers. And if we're brothers we have the same Father. And therefore, we already know one another. You don't need to ask me for any ID, or where I live, or where I was born, because those things are of the flesh, and they don't mean anything. What need have you of ID after I've shown to you that I am a bondman of Christ?

Officer: Is there anybody here who can verify who you are?

Bondservant: My Father knows me, and if you knew my Father, as you say you do, then you already know me, for He sends me. And the Holy Spirit knows me, and all of the saints of heaven bear witness of who I am. Which, even you must admit, makes it a majority.

Officer: But how do I know if you are who you say you are?

Bondservant: It has been written from the beginning, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in Him." (John 10:37-38).

Officer: Everyone in this country must be identified.

Bondservant: Yes, all "persons" do.

Officer: Oh, I suppose you're not a person. What are you then, an entity?

Bondservant: No, I'm not an entity, and I'm not a right and duty bearing unit. As I have told you, and the Father bears witness, I'm a bondmen of Christ Jesus, and I'm here to speak the truth. Under the law of slaves, slaves are not persons.

Officer: That is all well and good. But you have to understand, you must have a license or some kind of identification when you are out here on the roads.

Bondservant: I have a higher Law that I must answer to. The scripture says, "I can do all things through Christ [not the government] which strengtheneth me" (Philippians 4:13). If I had a license, I'd be forsaking the Father and His Law. I am not out here hurting anybody. I was doing the Will of my Father. And by His Law no identification is required for He has already identified me by the testimony I keep. The Christ's assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts. Because there is no breath of Life from God in such pieces of paper (Genesis 2:7; 7:15), I do not look to them for any authority for doing anything. Christ is my authority for doing the things I do for Him.

Officer: Do you own this vehicle?

Bondservant: Firstly, slaves are incapable of 'ownership'. Being a bondservant of Christ, I am not an owner of anything, for it has been written from the beginning, the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. (Psalm 24:1, 1 Corinthians 10:26).

Officer, are you not a 'public servant'? As a servant, this police car does not belong to you, but to your master, whom you serve. Likewise, I am a servant, and this car belongs to my Master, whom I serve. If you were to go to the DMV and attempt to get a title to that police car by claiming you are the "owner," would you not be bearing false witness? Likewise, I would be bearing false witness by claiming that I was the owner of this car and attempting to get a title. Secondly, you presume this is a vehicle.

Officer: Under the traffic laws of this state, a motor vehicle is defined as 'every vehicle which is self-propelled' (or "any vehicle which is propelled by mechanical power, and not human power").

Bondservant: Then, by your own law, this is not a motor vehicle, because it is not self-propelled (or "not propelled by mechanical power"). It's propelled by fuel, which comes from God. If you believe it is self-propelled, then call it, and see if it comes to you. If it does not come to you, then your reality is different from mine.

Officer: Does this car belong to you?

Bondservant: No, it's not mine, but it is in my care. I can't own anything, everything belongs to God (Psalm 24:1). But I am a joint heir with Christ Jesus (Romans 8:17). And it is written in your maxims of law that no one can be both owner and heir at the same time. I came into this world without a car, and I'll depart from this world without a car.

Officer: Well, since this car is not yours, then give it to me!

Bondservant: It is not mine to give.

Officer: Well, how would you feel if I just took it, since it's not yours?

Bondservant: I would have no hard feelings if you took this car, because you'd be stealing from God, and God will continue to supply me with my needs.

Officer: (Pointing to the diplomatic plates) What is this?

Bondservant: These are diplomatic plates, for it has been written from the beginning, Now then we are ambassadors for Christ that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:20-21). This plate evidences Who I serve and minister for, the jurisdiction I'm under, and the Law I follow.

Officer: So, you think you're above the law, huh?

Bondservant: The word 'Law,' to a minister of Christ, means the Word of God. I am not above the Law of God at any time, but I am always justified in not performing those things which have men for their author and exalt themselves by opposing the righteous authority of God. I can not accept the authority of man above that of God, for it has been written from the beginning, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29).

Officer: You deny the authority of man's law?

Bondservant: God's Word denies his authority. There is only one lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12). God Almighty.

Officer: Where are you going?

Bondservant: Wherever He leads me. He directs my comings and goings during my sojourn here with Him. Our Lord tends me as a shepherd and leads me as He will and I follow Him ( Psalms 23:1).

Officer: Where do you live?

Bondservant: I live, move and have my being in Christ Jesus (Luke 4:4, John 11:25, Galatians 2:20). You are welcome to "come and see" [this was Jesus' answer when asked this very question at John 1:38-39].

Officer: Where do you live, physically?

Bondservant: I live wherever He leads at the time. Right now, I live right here where I am standing. [If you say you live someplace else, then you're admitting you're dead, spiritually dead, because you're not 'living' here but somewhere else. You cannot "live" in two places at once].

Officer: Where is your home, residence, abode, domicile, or dwelling?

Bondservant: I'm homeless, because I'm a sojourner on the land with Him (Leviticus 25:23, Psalm 39:12, 1 Chronicles 29:15, Hebrews 11:13). And it has been written from the beginning, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. (Matthew 8:20, Luke 9:58).

Officer: Where does your family live?

Bondservant: My brother, sister, and mother are whosoever shall do the will of God (Matthew 12:49-50, Luke 8:21), therefore they too live, move and have their being in Christ.

Officer: Where did you sleep last night?

Bondservant: I slept in a tent. [We do indeed sleep in a tent, but not the tent that he might be thinking of. We're not using deceit; we're speaking in a spiritual manner. A tent is synonymous with a tabernacle, and our physical body is a tabernacle (2 Corinthians 5:1-4). A tent reflects the body's transient character; it's a temporary dwelling place. Even though we did not sleep in a literal tent, we are in a tabernacle and, therefore, that is where we slept. Another possible response is: I sleep and sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:6)].

Officer: Well, where did you sleep in this tent? On the mountain or down in the valley?

Bondservant: Neither.

Officer: What do you mean neither? It's either one or the other.

Bondservant: It doesn't really matter.

Officer: Well, what street was it close to?

Bondservant: It doesn't really matter.

Officer: Well, where do you receive your mail?

Bondservant: I do not receive mail. I call for First-Class matter from time to time on behalf of the Christ's assembly posted to us in the general post-office. [Note: if you pick up mail at the general post-office addressed to "the Christ's assembly", you are not receiving mail in your own name, but in the name of Christ. It is addressed to all believers in Christ, not you. You can keep an opened post-marked envelope in the glove box to evidence this fact].

Officer: What's your phone number?

Bondservant: I do not have a phone number. [Technically, all phone numbers belong to the phone company].

Officer: When were you born?

Bondservant: We were all made in his image and likeness on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-27), but God has never told us when that was. I cannot put a particular date on that.

Officer: How old are you?

Bondservant: I don't know. Only my Father knows that and He has never told me.

Officer: Where were you born?

Bondservant: I don't know, I was not exactly conscious at the time. To venture a guess would be telling a lie. It would be a conclusion based upon hearsay only, and in both your law and God's Law, hearsay is not the truth. Besides, this is irrelevant to a Good and Lawful minister of Christ. It's not our first birth from corruptible seed that's important (1 Peter 1:23), but our second birth, when we're "born again" (John 3:3,7). The first birth is of the world, the second birth is of God (John 1:12-13).

Officer: How is it that you don't have a birth date?

Bondservant: Only my Father knows where and when I was born, and he has never revealed it to me.

Officer: Which father are you talking about?

Bondservant: My heavenly Father.

Officer: Well, what about your earthly father? Has he told you when or where you were born?

Bondservant: That's irrelevant, because that's hearsay, and hearsay is not the truth. I can only speak of things which I have seen and heard (Acts 4:20).

Officer: Just what are you trying to conceal, buddy?

Bondservant: I am not concealing anything, but revealing the Truth. It is written in your law that no one is bound to do what is impossible. You're asking me questions that are impossible for me to give you. I cannot give you that which I do not have, and I cannot tell you that which I do not know.

Officer: How much do you weigh? How tall are you?

Bondservant: I don't speculate about such things.

Officer: How do you earn your living?

Bondservant: I don't earn my life. God gives life freely.

Officer: Where do you get money to stay so clean and wear your clothes?

Bondservant: When God guides, God provides.

Officer: Do you work for a living?

Bondservant: How can I work for a living when I'm already alive? I labour for the Lord and He provides for all of my needs.

Officer: And what do you do when you labour for the Lord?

Bondservant: I do whatever the Lord directs me to do.

Officer: Can you be a little more specific?

Bondservant: I work as a _______ from time to time.

[Note: If the initiating officer goes back to his car to call in for advice, and leaves you with an officer to keep an eye on you, you can say something like...]

Bondservant: Well, I'm here to execute Christ's Testament and bear witness to somebody, so perhaps you're here for that purpose. (Their eyes might get real big at this point, so continue). How are you with the Lord?

Officer: Oh, I'm OK.

Bondservant: Well, that doesn't sound too enthusiastic. Do you study the scriptures?

Officer: No. I don't have time. I'm a working single mother with two jobs and a seven year old boy.

Bondservant: (Continue witnessing. When the initiating officer returns, you can close with) Be sure and take some time to study. If not for yourself, then for the boy's sake. (Now the initiating officer returns).

Officer: Are you a resident or a non-resident?

Bondservant: Neither. My Father has never described me as either of those.

Officer: I don't like your answers.

Bondservant: If I were to answer you any other way I'd be lying to you. Are you compelling me to lie to you?

Officer: There is such a thing as separation of Church and State.

Bondservant: Well, anybody that believes that the Law of God and the law of the land are separate, they've deluded themselves. That's not living in the truth, that's living in an image of someone else's idea. Is there any law that man can create which sets the bounds of God's Law?

Officer: Well, you have to understand that I have a job to do out here.

Bondservant: Yes, I understand that you have a job to do, and I don't have a problem with that. But you must understand that I also have a job to do; I can only serve One Master, and He is above you and I, and He is also above whoever you take orders from.

Officer: When I see a violation taking place, I have to act on it.

Bondservant: If I broke the Law, which of you convicts me of sin? (John 8:46). If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil I have done; but if well, why do you hinder me (John 18:23)?

Officer: Well, you're breaking the law if you don't have a license from the government.

Bondservant: So, then you're re-defining what good and evil is. Scripture does not say it's a sin to not get a license. There can be no sin committed against the State, only God. "I am straightened on every side; for if I do this thing, it is death unto me; and if I do it not, I cannot escape your hands. It is better for me to fall into your hands, and not do it, than to sin in the sight of the Lord" (Apocrypha, History of Susan 1:22-23).

Officer: If you don't show me some I.D., I'm going to have to arrest you.

Bondservant: You're asking me to do what is impossible to do. You do what you must. I can only do what our Lord and Master has commanded me to do. You presume evil where there is none. Are you a Peace officer?

Officer: Yes, I am.

Bondservant: Well, there is no greater Peace but that of the Prince of Peace, Jesus the Christ (Isaiah 9:6).

Officer: Do you pledge allegiance to the flag?

Bondservant: No. That's idolatry.

Officer: Please sign this ticket.

Bondservant: I cannot sign that piece of paper, because I am a bondservant of my Sovereign King and Lord Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:22-23). Therefore, I cannot enter into any agreements which either obligates Him or myself. All promises are to be with God only (Deuteronomy 6:13, Matthew 23:22). I have no warrant from Him in His Law to sign those tickets, and I am specifically forbidden to do so in His Law (Romans 13:8, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

[Note: If the police threaten to arrest you for not signing the citation, and if you have a family, especially children, and it would be too much of a burden and strain for them if you go to jail, you can consider signing the citation if the police will agree to not take you to jail. Then you may proceed with a non-statutory abatement to abate those accusations against you].

Officer: I'm afraid that I must arrest you now.

Bondservant: There is no law that compels an officer to violate God's Law, which is the Supreme Law of the land, and the basis of all law in America.

Officer: There are codes, rules, and regulations that you are breaking, so I must bring you to the station.

Bondservant: Jesus did not use your codes, rules, and regulations for the things he did, and neither do I use your codes, rules, and regulations for the same.

Officer: You're under arrest.

Bondservant: You seek to arrest me because God's Word hath no place in you (John 8:37).

Officer: Who are you to preach to me?

Bondservant: That's my Duty. And it your duty to speak the truth as well.

Officer: Let's go to jail, pal.

Bondservant: I am in your hands; do with me as seemeth good and right unto you (Jeremiah 26:14).

At the jail:

Officer: We have to take your fingerprints and photograph.

Bondservant: They are not mine to give. All that I have, and all that I am, belongs to God (Psalm 24:1, 1 Corinthians 6:19), and is a gift from my Father (James 1:17). Therefore, what you steal from me, you steal from Him.

Officer: You do not want to give us your picture?

Bondservant: It is an image.

Officer: Is it a graven image?

Bondservant: It is only an image.

Officer: You need to put on these jail clothes.

Bondservant: What I have on is sufficient. If you need those on me, you'll have to put them on me.

Crossing National Borders:

Officer: I need information from you before you can cross the border.

Bondservant: There is no border here. That's a creation of man. It is written in the scripture that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" (Psalms 24:1, 1 Corinthians 10:26,28). There are no borders! Jesus broke down all borders and commanded us to go into the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Matthew 24:14, Mark 16:15).

Officer: Uh, well, that's your opinion. That doesn't mean anything.

Bondservant: No, it's not my opinion. You're breathing, aren't you? Where does your DNA come from? Were you created randomly by chance, or were you created by God? You are living proof that there is a Creator.

Officer: I was created by random chance, and have evolved from the primordial ooze, to a sub-human creature, into the animal I now am.

Bondservant: If you believe you were randomly created, then it should be O.K. with you that I randomly cross the border. Good-bye!

If crossing the "border" at a location where there are no checkpoints, and an officer approaches:

Officer: What are you doing here?

Bondservant: I'm just going where the Lord leads me.

Officer: I saw you crossing the border.

Bondservant: I don't see a border anywhere.

Officer: That fence you crawled under is the border.

Bondservant: According to scripture, there are no borders.

[Note: man created borders for strictly commercial purposes, to regulate cargo. By possessing a "passport," you are stating that you are cargo. A passport was originally a pass to allow cargo through a port].

If Approached while Walking:

Officer: Let me see your ID.

Bondservant: [So that all know you are talking about the same thing, begin by defining what it is he's looking for). Identification: that which is used to describe the status of the holder as a citizen, resident, driver, operator, pedestrian

Officer: Yeah, yeah. Got any?

Bondservant:...none of which I am; and for me to have such a thing would falsely describe me and disparage my Father, for it is written, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." But I do have something better.

Officer: What's that?

Bondservant: I have here the Holy Scriptures which defines and describes me as a Good and Lawful servant of Christ. Are you?

Officer: You're a vagrant, and it's against the law to loiter.

Bondservant: My Father has never described me as a vagrant. I am a sojourner with Christ Jesus. If you label me as a vagrant, that's your problem.

The Building Inspector:

Inspector: You need a permit to build that (garage, room, barn, etc.).

Bondservant: You say it's a (garage, room, barn, etc.).

Inspector: Then what do you call it?!

Bondservant: It doesn't matter what I call it. What matters is that I do not call it a (garage, room, barn, etc.).

Counsel from Scripture

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16
"See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise," Ephesians 5:15
"Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." Colossians 4:5-6
"How I have loved thy law, O Lord! it is my meditation all the day. Thou hast made me wiser than mine enemies [in] thy commandment; for it is mine for ever. I have more understanding than all my teachers; for thy testimonies are my medication. I understand more that the aged; because I have sought out thy commandments. I have kept back my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy words. I have not declined from thy judgments; for thou hast instructed me. How sweet are thine oracles to my throat! more so than honey to my mouth! I gain understanding by thy commandments: therefore I have hated every way of unrighteousness. Thy law is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my paths." Psalms 119:97-105
"For if wisdom shall come into thine understanding, and discernment shall seem pleasing to thy soul, good counsel shall guard thee, and holy understanding shall keep thee ; to deliver thee from the evil way, and from the man that speaks nothing faithfully. Alas [for those] who forsake right paths, to walk in ways of darkness; who rejoice in evils, and delight in wicked perverseness; whose paths are crooked, and their courses winding; to remove thee far from the straight way, and to estrange thee from a righteous purpose. [My] son, let not evil counsel overtake thee, [of her] who has forsaken the instruction of her youth, and forgotten the covenant of God." Proverbs, 2:10-17
"Wherefore set your affection upon my words; desire them, and ye shall be instructed." Wisdom of Solomon 6:11

Conclusion

When the policy enforcer flashes his little lights behind you and pulls you off the road (because if you don't stop, he might kill you), one of the first questions he'll ask you is, "Where do you live?" And if you answer truthfully with, "I live wherever I happen to be at the time," he'll say, "Oh, you know what I mean." You're then supposed to make an assumption: either he's speaking in ignorance (he does not really mean "where do you live," but "where do you reside"), asking to find out who's jurisdiction you're under. In other words, to re-state his question, "Are you of the world? If you're of the world you'll understand what I'm saying."

He really wants to establish jurisdiction, and that's why he asks for your papers that establish their jurisdiction, their ownership, or their rulership over you. And if they can't establish that, they will either persecute you for not being one of theirs, or they'll let you go because they don't know what to do and they're afraid of all the paperwork they're going to incur. But hopefully, they'll allow you to proceed because they were moved by the words the Holy Spirit had you speak to them.

They often presume we're a mind reader. Are you going to give-in to the world? Or are you going to speak the truth? Even though we understand what they're supposed to be saying, should we give them the answer that we have been conditioned to give, or should we give them an answer that might bring them over to God's Kingdom? If we speak the truth it opens up the door to witnessing. But if we just give-in and tell them what we know they want to hear and give them the wrong answer, then we loose the opportunity to bring them the Truth and fail in our Noble calling as a faithful bondman and ambassador of The King of kings.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Martyr and Witness

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

A. Nouns.-- 1. martus or martur ^3144^ (whence Eng., "martyr," one who bears "witness" by his death) denotes "one who can or does aver what he has seen or heard or knows"; it is used (a) of God, <Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thes. 2:5,10> (2nd part); (b) of Christ, <Rev. 1:5; 3:14>; (c) of those who "witness" for Christ by their death, <Acts 22:20; Rev. 2:13; Rev. 17:6>; (d) of the interpreters of God's counsels, yet to "witness" in Jerusalem in the times of the Antichrist, <Rev. 11:3>; (e) in a forensic sense, <Matt. 18:16; 26:65; Mark 14:63; Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28>; (f) in a historical sense, <Luke 11:48; 24:48; Acts 1:8,22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39,41; 13:31; 22:15; 26:16; 1 Thes. 2:10> (1st part); <1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 12:1>, "(a cloud) of witnesses," here of those mentioned in <ch. 11>, those whose lives and actions testified to the worth and effect of faith, and whose faith received "witness" in Scripture; <1 Pet. 5:1>.

2. marturia ^3141^, "testimony, a bearing witness," is translated "witness" in (RV); <3:11,32> and <33> (RV); <5:31,32,34> (RV), <36>; RV in <8:13,14,17; 19:35; 21:24>; KJV in <Titus 1:13>; KJV and RV in <1 John 5:9> (thrice), <10a>; RV in <10b, 11; 3 John 12>: see TESTIMONY, No. 2.

3. marturion ^3142^, "testimony or witness as borne, a declaration of facts," is translated "witness" in <Matt. 24:14>, KJV; <Acts 4:33; 7:44> (KJV); <Jas. 5:3> (KJV): see TESTIMONY, No. 1.

4. pseudomartus or- tur ^5571^ and ^3144^) denotes "a false witness," <Matt. 26:60; 1 Cor. 15:15>.#

5. pseudomarturia ^5577^, "false witness," occurs in <Matt. 15:19; 26:59>.#

B. Verbs.-- 1. martureo ^3140^ denotes (I) "to be a martus" (see A, No. 1), or "to bear witness to," sometimes rendered "to testify" (see TESTIFY, No. 1); it is used of the witness (a) of God the Father to Christ, <John 5:32,37; 8:18> (2nd part); <1 John 5:9,10>; to others, <Acts 13:22; 15:8; Heb. 11:2,4> (twice), <5,39>; (b) of Christ, <John 3:11,32; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13,14, 18> (1st part); <13:21; 18:37; Acts 14:3; 1 Tim. 6:13; Rev. 22:18,20>; of the Holy Spirit, to Christ, <John 15:26; Heb. 10:15; 1 John 5:7,8>, RV, which rightly omits the latter part of <v. 7> (it was a marginal gloss which crept into the original text: see THREE); it finds no support in Scripture; (c) of the Scriptures, to Christ, <John 5:39; Heb. 7:8,17>; (d) of the works of Christ, to Himself, and of the circumstances connected with His death, <John 5:36; 10:25; 1 John 5:8>; (e) of prophets and apostles, to the righteousness of God, <Rom. 3:21>; to Christ, <John 1:7,8, 15,32,34; 3:26; 5:33>, RV; <15:27; 19:35; 21:24; Acts 10:43; 23:11; 1 Cor. 15:15; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; Rev. 1:2>; to doctrine, <Acts 26:22> (in some texts, so KJV; see No. 2); to the Word of God, <Rev. 1:2>; (f) of others, concerning Christ, <Luke 4:22; John 4:39; 12:17>; (g) of believers to one another, <John 3:28; 2 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:15; Col. 4:13; 1 Thes. 2:11> (in some texts: see No. 2); <3 John 3,6, 12> (2nd part); (h) of the apostle Paul concerning Israel, <Rom. 10:2>; (i) of an angel, to the churches, <Rev. 22:16>; (j) of unbelievers, concerning themselves, <Matt. 23:31>; concerning Christ, <John 18:23>; concerning others, <John 2:25; Acts 22:5; 26:5>; (II), "to give a good report, to approve of," <Acts 6:3; 10:22; 16:2; 22:12; 1 Tim. 5:10; 3 John 12> (1st part); some would put <Luke 4:22> here.#

2. marturomai ^3143^, strictly meaning "to summon as a witness," signifies "to affirm solemnly, adjure," and is used in the middle voice only, rendered "to testify" in <Acts 20:26>, RV (KJV, "I take... to record"); <26:22>, RV, in the best texts [see No. 1 (e)]; <Gal. 5:3; Eph. 4:17; 1 Thes. 2:11>, in the best texts [see No. 1 (g)].#

3. summartureo ^4828^ denotes "to bear witness with" (sun), Rom. 2:15; 8:16; 9:1.

4. sunepimartureo ^4901 denotes "to join in bearing witness with others," Heb. 2:4.

5. katamartureo ^2649^ denotes "to witness against" (kata), <Matt. 26:62; 27:13; Mark 14:60> (in some mss., <15:4>, for kategoreo, "to accuse," RV).#

6. pseudomartureo ^5576^, "to bear false witness" (pseudes, "false"), occurs in <Matt. 19:18; Mark 10:19; 14:56,57; Luke 18:20>; in some texts, <Rom. 13:9>.#

C. Adjective.-- amarturos ^267^ denotes "without witness" (a, negative, and martus), <Acts 14:17>.

Bits and Pieces

The World

"World" is a Germanic word. In the Dutch language it is "Wereld" and this comes from "Vir Alt." Vir meaning, "Life." Alt meaning, "Old." Thus, the meaning of the ancient word World is: "The Old Life."

Which Prince?

"Is Satan such a good prince?

Try whose subject thou art.

His empire is large; there are only a few privileged who are translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Even in Christ's own territories--the visible church I mean--where His name is professed and the sceptre of His gospel held forth, Satan has his subjects. As Christ had His saints in Nero's court, so the devil his servants in the outward court of His visible church.

Thou must therefore have something more to exempt thee from his government, than living within the pale, and giving an outward conformity to the ordinances of Christ; Satan will yield to this and be no loser. As a king lets his merchants trade to, yea, live in a foreign kingdom, and, while they are there, learn the language, and observe the customs of the place. This breaks not their allegiance; nor all that, thy loyalty to Satan.

When a statute was made in Queen Elizabeth's reign, that all should come to church, the Papists sent to Rome to know the pope's pleasure. He returned them this answer, as it is said, 'Bid the Catholics in England give me their heart, and let the Queen take the rest.' His subject thou art whom thou crownest in thy heart, and noy whom thou flatterest with thy lips.

But to bring the trial to an issue, know that thou belongest to one of these, and but one; Christ and Satan divide the whole world. Christ will bear no equal, and Satan no superior; and therefore, hold in with both thou canst not.

Whose law dost thou freely subject thyself unto? The laws of these two princes are as contrary as their natures; the one a law of sin (Revelation 8:2), the other a law of holiness (Revelations 7:12); and therefore if sin has not so far bereaved thee of thy wits, as not to know sin from holiness, thou mayest, except thou resolve to cheat thy own soul, soon be resolved. Confess therefore and give glory to God; to which of these laws doth thy soul set its seal?" William Gurnall, The Christian in Complete Armour (1662), pp. 133-135, published by The Bath Press--Avon, Eng.

Arrowsmith's World

"Time was when Satan shewed our Saviour all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. Oh, Christian! If ever the world appear to thee temptingly glorious, suspect it for one of Satan's discoveries."

"The creatures, like deceitful streams, frustrate the thirsty traveller's expectation. They delude us (like the monument of Semiramis) with many a promising motto, as if they would give us peace and ease of heart: but when we come to look within, instead of contentment, they afford us nothing but conviction of our folly in expecting satisfaction from them or from any thing short of God."

"We must not expect more from any thing than God hath put into it. He never intended to put the virtue of soul-satisfying into any mere creature: but hath reserved to Himself, Son and Spirit, the power of satisfying the souls of men, of contenting and making them happy, as a principal branch of His own Divine prerogative. To such as expect it elsewhere, that person or thing they rely upon, may say to them as Jacob to Rachel, Am I in God's stead."

"As when an army of men come to drink at some mighty river, there is no want, but all go satisfied away; whereas, had they come to a paltry brook, they would not have found water enough to quench the thirst of each: so created things are narrow brooks, or rather broken cisterns; from which immortal souls cannot but return empty, dissatisfied and disappointed. But Christ hath a river of love and joy and peace, whereof He gives His followers to drink; and drinking whereof they are easy, safe and happy."

"Take God into thy counsel. Heaven overlooks hell. Among men, a little science will make a great shew; but he only is wise in God's esteem who is wise unto salvation."

"Oh, that ever so rich an heiress as the soul of man should run away with so servile a thing as money is, or give the least consent to a match so far below her birth and breeding."

Extra Job

In the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek, there is a long subscription at the end of the Book of Job. A similar subscription is found in the Arabic version. It professes to be taken out of "the Syriac book."

The last verse of Job (42:17) reads:

"And Job died, an old man and full of days."

In the Septuagint it reads on as follows:

"And it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book [as] living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over: first, Balac, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba: but after Baac, Jobab, who is called Job, and after him Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman: and after him Adad, the son of Barad, who destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And [his] friends who came to him were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad son of the Sauchaeans, Sophar king of the Kinaeans."

Issue the Sixty-third

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Betrothal and Marriage ...

The Husband's Duty...

The Wife's Duty...

The Duty of Parents and Children...

Divorce and Remarriage...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Betrothal and Marriage

From time to time, we receive calls and letters concerning troubled marriages. We hope and pray that the following writings in this Issue will be a help in the mending process. Because the information contained herein is from so many sources, there is no "personal" authorship attached to them.

Betrothal

The etymology of the word "betroth" is:

Betroth. v. [ME. bitreuðien, f. bi-, BE+treuðe, TRUTH sb. The hist. and analogical pronunc. is as in clothe, loathe.] To affiance (usu. the woman to the man). Fig. Said of God and His people. "I will betroth thee unto Me for ever," Hosea ii. 19. Hence Betrothal, the act of betrothing; the being betrothed; affiance. The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1964), page 173.
Affiance. ME. [see AFFY.] 1. Trust in, on. 2. Confidence, assurance. 3. Plighting of faith; esp. of troth on agreement of marriage. 4. Affinity. The Oxford Universal Dict. (1964), page 31.

We see from the above definitions that when a man and woman become "betrothed," they not only become true to, and trust in, one another, but they are thereafter bound for life to one another as well. But that truth, trust, and binding is nothing more than a vapor without Jesus the Christ as the Center and Mediator within that union; for He is Truth itself:

"Wherefore having girded up the loins of your mind, being sober, perfectly hope in the grace being brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as children of obedience, not fashioning yourselves to the former desires in your ignorance: but according as He who called you is holy, also be ye yourselves holy in all your conduct; because it has been written, Be ye holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:13-16

And we must remember that where two or three are gathered together in His Name, there He is in the midst of them, and all partakers will be blessed.

The Betrothal Period

In Scripture, when a couple were betrothed, they were considered husband and wife. The Word plainly says that Mary was Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:20,24, Luke 2:5), but at the same time she was betrothed to him:

"...Mary was betrothed to Joseph...Joseph...was minded to put her away." Matthew 1:18-19

Lest anyone question whether a betrothed girl is a wife:

"And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her." Deuteronomy 20:7

She was his wife, but he had not taken (lain with) her yet. Their marriage was not yet consummated. This verse also shows how seriously God views betrothal.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is another passage that defines a "betrothed virgin" (verse 23) as a "neighbour's wife" (verse 24):

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her...ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife..." Deuteronomy 22:23-24

When betrothed, the man and wife do not live together. They remain at home with their respective families, because scripture says that the reason a man leaves his father and mother is to cleave to his wife and become one flesh (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:31). To become "one flesh," between a man and woman, requires the consummation of the marriage. When the bridegroom had made proper preparations (i.e. where will the husband and wife keep house, what will they do for work, etc.), then the bride was brought home to his house (Genesis 24:67, Judges 15:1). Then the marriage was consummated, and not before.

The provisions in Deuteronomy 20:7 refer to a case of this kind, because it was deemed an excessive hardship for a man to be obliged to go to battle, where there was a probability of his being slain, who had left a new house unfinished; a newly purchased heritage half tilled; or a wife with whom he had just contracted marriage. This is why soldiers were allowed to go home and consummate the marriage.

Obviously, fornication is possible during the initial betrothal period, and therefore it is necessary to continue to abstain from touching so you will not be led into temptation. That time should come after the wedding and no sooner!

In addition, after the marriage was consummated, there was what could be called a "marriage sabbath." This is where the man was released from any kind of obligations (such as going to war, or having any other thing laid upon him) for one full year! He is to be free within the household for the purpose of giving cheer and gladness to his wife whom he has taken:

"When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken." Deut. 24:5

One of the main purposes of Deuteronomy 24:5 was to prevent the divorce mentioned in the previous four verses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

How long betrothal lasted was between the husband's family and the wife's family. The betrothal period itself would last for different periods of time, depending upon what the families agreed upon. Sometimes it was short, sometimes it was long. Sometimes they would get married immediately, like David did to Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:38-43). Sometimes it would last one month (Deuteronomy 21:11).

For example, the agreement between Laban (the father of Rachel) and Jacob (who wanted to marry Rachel) was that they were to be betrothed for seven years, and Jacob had to work for him during this time. But, after seven years, Laban broke his agreement with him and gave Jacob his firstborn daughter, Leah, instead. However, Laban said he would give him Rachel if he worked for him another seven years. So, Jacob worked another seven years for Rachel, and after another seven years, he married the girl of his dreams. So, in essence, Jacob was betrothed to Rachel for a total of fourteen years (Genesis 29:16-30)! (This is the longest betrothal in scripture).

We see from all of the above that there is an initial betrothal period before the actual wedding and consummation thereof, but when the husband and wife remain true to, and trust in, the Lord and one another at all times as they should, the actual betrothal period is eternal.

The Purpose of Marriage

Marriage is a sacred institution initiated, blessed and protected by God. Increasingly, though, it is regarded as just 'one way' for members of the opposite sex to live together and have babies.

There are usually five main "reasons" why people want to get married:

1. They are lonely and want companionship;
2. They want a sense of financial security;
3. They want love;
4. They want sex; and
5. They think marriage will solve their personal problems.

Some of these reasons are conditionally valid and others are definitely not. Marriage can certainly give companionship, financial security (sometimes but not guaranteed by any means), love, sex, and solve personal problems (sometimes). But the primary purpose of marriage is not any of these things.

God created the first marriage in a world that was innocent, pure and holy -- the Garden of Delight (Genesis 2:21-25). He did not institute it in the fallen world after Adam and Eve had transgressed. This is an important point. He instituted it under the conditions in which it was supposed to thrive, in a world where God was worshipped, loved and honored. Marriage was therefore created so that man could better fulfil the purpose for which he was created.

When does the Bible consider marriage consummated?

In several places, the Bible shows us that marriage was considered a matter between the groom (and his family) and the bride (and her family). In every case, the marriage was considered consummated when the groom took the bride to his (or her family's) home to live with him. After that, she was under his covering, and his alone (Genesis 24:67, Judges 15:1). Sometimes a gift was required, and the groom giving a ring to the bride is the remaining manifestation of this custom when they are joined together to become one flesh (Genesis 24:10, 22, 30, 47, 53); that is, when they have left father and mother in order to join with or cleave to (know--lay with) one another (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31).

Again, a man and woman are considered one flesh when they "first know," or, lay with one another (Genesis 29:23-25,28, Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28), even a man with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:16). The woman at Samaria told Jesus that she had no husband, but Jesus told her she had 5 husbands, because that's how many men she had lain with (John 4:16-19). The biblical phrase "to have a woman" always means "to marry" (Matthew 14:4; 22:28, 1 Corinthians 5:1; 7:2,29).

However, just because a man and woman lay with one another, does not necessarily mean they are married. For example, in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28, if a man were to lay with a virgin, they were commanded to marry each other. They were not considered married, but commanded to marry. But if the father refused to give his daughter to him, then they would not attain to marriage. A man and woman are not lawfully married unless the parents of the woman give their permission. She was under the covering of her father until he gave her away to her husband.

Marriage between a man and woman is holy before God. Satan wants to destroy it and has been doing his utmost to overturn marriage and true male-female relationships. His first two acts of temptation were (a) to get woman to rebel against God, and (b) to tempt her husband to follow her in her rebellion (Genesis 3:1). His "reasons," which are basically the same advocated by the modern feminist movement ["modern" means "born yesterday"), has as his purpose the destruction of marriage and of life (John.10:10).

Estrangement (separation) from God is the main "human" problem. Until that problem has been dealt with, a husband and wife estranged from God are going to be estranged from one another, no matter how clever they are in trying to find a "working harmony" or "equilibrium" without Him. Trying to maintain that balance is full of tribulation and what began as "a passionate love affair" is reduced to anger, hatred, bitterness and resentment. That is not how God intended marriage to be and He has the solution to this kind of alienation.

The break up of any marriage is a mistake. But a breakup with God is an even larger mistake and its effects filter down to every aspect of life. The same problems that cause a marriage to fail will cause a soul in its relationship to God to fail as well, because a marriage between a man and a woman is a reflection of the kind of intimate spiritual relationship that our Father wants us to have with Him.

The moment those in wedlock neglect sound biblical doctrine, two relationships are in jeopardy -- their relationship to each other and their relationship to God.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?" Hebrews 2:1-3.

At Matthew 16:16 Peter learned the joy of knowing the Truth, and at Mark 14:69-72 we are shown that he learned what the result was to deny the Truth. So, what led Peter down the path from revelation to rebellion and defeat?

Strange as it may seem, it started right after his victory! When Jesus said that He was going to die, "No! No! No!" said Peter. "Never!" The Christ rebuked him and told Satan to go away. What had he rebelled against? Wasn't he showing true affection by wanting to defend the Master he knew and loved, by trying to keep Him away from death? As noble as such a sentiment might seem to be in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of God it was of Satan.

Marriage and the Cross

Now if you want to understand why so many marriages fail, you must grasp the following. Peter rebelled against the idea of the Cross. And what is the Cross? The Cross embodies within it the personal surrender of will, and Peter was a very willful man at the time. The moment Peter challenged the Word of God the process of personal estrangement set in. He began to be progressively cut off from God.

This is the lesson that fallen, rebellious man finds so hard to accept -- he trusts his own feelings more than he trusts the Word of God, and therefore he resists God.

And when you challenge God's Word you set yourself above Him; you attempt to make yourself God, just as Satan tempted Eve to do, and as rebellious men and women have been doing ever since. It is, of course, impossible. You fall.

Men, women and their children must learn the lesson of King David who chose the hard way into obedience to God:

"Thy Word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against Thee." Psalms 119:11

He knew, but what a price he had to pay (the punishment of murder, adultery and disobedience). Without God's Word you will sin. You can be sure of it. And without God and His Word no marriage can find its completion [perfection and joy].

In modern times, "Christians" are as liable to fail in their marriage as unbelievers, though really they ought to have the advantage. The problem lies in a true understanding of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus talked about building His ekklesia, Peter was "on fire." But when He started talking about going to the Cross he went into an automatic rebellion mode. Peter was ready to fight for His Lord but was not ready to fight for the Cross. He, like so many, thought he knew more about the Kingdom than Jesus did. And so, when the cock crowed three times, he fell. And he knew what he had done. He repented and became one of the great bearers of the message of the Cross (read his two Epistles). And he went the way of the Cross too, dying daily for His Master and showing what suffering love really is.

The moment a man or woman thinks he or she can run his or her life better than God can, then he or she is drifting away from God and into darkness. The reason why the servants of Christ have hope in apparently hopeless situations is that they are not relying on their own ways or power. The "secret of success" in marriage is, quite simply, obedience to God.

A vast amount of self-styled "Christians" do not "truly" know God because they in fact worship only a false image of Him which they have created in their own minds and hearts. They have taken the Cross out of God's Word and replaced it with the lust for health, wealth and self-empowerment.

The answer to the question about how to succeed in marriage lies in one uncomfortable, though utterly undeniable, truth: death to self:

"That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death;" Philippians 3:10
"I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily." 1 Corinthians 15:31

If you talk about self-esteem, self-empowerment, financial success and the like, people flock around you -- talk about the Cross and they shrink away. They flock into "the Churches" for the "revelations" and "new spiritual truths" but flee when they hear from you that following the Truth will cost them something -- the Way of the Cross. So where do they remain? -- with the fallen Churches who teach "power" (and imitate it with false gifts) and who rarely talk about the spiritual implications of the Cross. They are doing just what Peter did before he finally came to his senses and repented.

Jesus said that His disciples, attracted for the wrong "reasons," would be offended by the fullness of His teaching about suffering and self-death (Mark 14:27-29). The many that still are offended invent their own "Jesus" and preach their own private gospels, "convert" thousands, and lead them into the same ditch and into a common grave!

And marriages built upon exactly the same premises end up dead too. Most heathens enter marriage because they want or expect companionship, money, love, sex, etc., but not because they have come to give these things to their mate. So both husband and wife sit around waiting for their companions to give them companionship, money, love, sex and solve their problems, get angry when they are not fulfilled, quarrel and become estranged.

False believers and unbelievers do the same with God. They sit around waiting for x, y and z, and get resentful when their expectations aren't forthcoming. Ought we to be surprised by such a selfish attitude? Return to God's Word and don't let it slip (Hebrews 2:1-3). Watch out for heady pride and self-will. Be leery of someone always telling you of their accomplishments (Proverbs .16:18) -- it is God who has accomplished all that is praiseworthy.

Failure in marriage and failure in a relationship with God is usually slow and gradual. Repent and mend, lest one day He say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23).

Consider the contrast -- the passion of the revelation of heaven: "Thou art the Christ!!!" Where are you now? Are you sitting at "home" looking after personal interests and perhaps calling these "works for Christ"?

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8

The following are some of the signs of widening estrangement from God:

1. Praying becomes tedious, and frequency is slowly reduced;
2. The Word ceases to be inspiring and is diligently studied less and less;
3. The desire to witness fades; interest in those beyond the inner circle of family and close friends evaporates.

The same symptoms of estrangement appear in marriage too:

1. Communication between husband and wife is greatly reduced;
2. They stop praying together, thereby ceasing to discover each others hopes, joys, tribulations and fears;
3. Their family circle shrinks in size, and no longer is the hand of friendship extended to strangers seeking the truth, because the desire and power to share the same has vanished.

When Peter lost the fire of his original faith he sought for substitutes. When Jesus was arrested, what did Peter do? He took up the carnal sword and cut off Malchus' ear -- he tried to substitute faith with worldly works -- he had temporarily become "a social Christian" instead of a true bondman of his Master. He had not gotten over his original problem of resisting the Cross -- he was now actually about to kill to keep Jesus from the Cross. "His Jesus" wasn't going to die but stay around and spoon feed him!

Too many husbands and wives want the same of their mate. They want to be spoon-fed with companionship, love, sex, money, entertainments, etc. But what does God want? He wants the husband to serve Him, and his wife to be her husband's helper. That is why marriage was created; not for selfish, personal gratification, as the world would have you believe!

Peter is a classical case of zeal without knowledge. And too many "Christian marriages" are similar -- passion without Christ. "No cross for you, Lord! We're just going to call you King and wait for your kingdom to come!" And the worldly marriage: "No godly fellowship for you, dear! This marriage is to get lots of money and have fun, and I'm going to push until you give me all these things I want!"

"And they led Jesus away to the high priest...And Peter followed him afar off...and warmed himself at the fire." Mark 14:53-54

"Isn't it nice and cozy? Here we are around the comfortable fire of our own personal plans, our family and career ambitions, our entertainments, our social gospel...and there is the crucified Christ afar off." Too many follow "afar off" these days -- they're no longer right up by His side. Too many wives are no longer up by their husbands' side because they're too busy with their own program of "truth." And too many husbands fail to exercise the patience and longsuffering required of a good husband.

Too many fellowship with others (when they do)...half-heartedly; giving alms (when they do)...semi-faithfully; praying (when they do)...in a crisis for their temporary wants or attempting to "slip" into heaven. And as long as it doesn't cramp their lifestyle, Jesus is welcome to come...so long as He doesn't spoil their fun and way of doing things, their routine, their thoughts, their feelings.

When you grow cold, you go to the enemy's fire. What's the next step? You deny, and say: "I don't know what you mean!" So what has happened? Denial is a long way from declaring Jesus to be the Christ. How can you do so, when you have deserted His glad tidings and your marriage? How can you say you are a servant and bondman of Christ, let alone a Christian? Impossible!

But thanks to our loving Father, no matter how far you have drifted from Him and your marriage by deserting the Way, the Truth and the Life, it is only one step back to the Father and His elect.

"Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." Matthew 26:74-75

For those that have left, the way back is simple: Remember, Repent, and Weep. It's a death-blow to pride but it is a living, loving salvation. It is the only way back. It's the way of Peter who saw his folly and returned. Please -- husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in Christ --

return and remain!

The Husband's Duty

"So no longer are they two, but one flesh. What therefore God united together, let no man separate." Matthew 19:6

If you are a man, and are married or are in the initial state of betrothal, or hope one day to be so, the following is an examination of the five duties of a husband to his wife. If the husband fails to fulfill these five duties, he has forsaken the Lord and His sacred rules which He has ordained. Now some of the things that the Scripture says may not be what you hear at your workplace, or on television, or from your "friends," and neither should they be; for the commercial world didn't create marriage under God; neither did the "electronic talking heads" nor your "friends." It is our Father's institution and He has set the rules.

In many things God has made the men stronger than the women, not in order to abuse them with rage and stealth or to be tyrants over them, but to help them bear their weaknesses when such is found. Therefore, be courteous to them and win them to the Christ (if they are not yet won) and overcome them with kindness, that of love they may obey the ordinance that God has made between man and wife.

Love Her

"Husbands, love your own wives, even as also the Christ loved the assembly, and gave up Himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them." Colossians 3:19

As we are shown from His Holy Word, the first responsibility of a husband to his wife, is to love (agape) her. He ought to love his wife as his own body, as the Christ does His bride, His ekklesia.

Now, you might say, "Well, that goes without saying! Move on to number two!" But the wife will want us to stay at number one for a closer examination; for often, what goes under the name of love has little to do with love. The word 'love' has become a misunderstood word. For example, people say "I love my job. I love my home. I love chocolate cake." Generally what they are talking about is what those things do for them. "The home makes me comfortable. The cake satisfies my sweet tooth. The work satisfies my desire for a career." As we can see in too many areas of life, the word 'love' has become a word to describe the lusts of the flesh, and nothing more.

Now, when we search the Holy Scripture we find that true love denotes sacrifice that you make for the betterment of someone else, as we see in the first quoted verse above, "...gave up Himself", and, i.e., "If you love Me keep My commandments," and "Love is the fulfilling of the law." These all denote sacrifice, reverence, and humbling oneself. You can only measure love by your sacrifice, not by your enjoyment. If you talk about loving your wife, and you mean by that that she does a lot of good things for you, that's not love. That's her loving you, because of her reverence to you and sacrifice for you, and her humbleness in doing so. To say that a man loves his wife is to talk about those same sacrifices he makes for her.

For a true bondman of Jesus the Christ to talk about love as it relates to marriage (and all things) is to talk about taking up his cross daily, denying (sacrificing and humbling) himself and following (reverencing) The Word. We have a Saviour, Jesus the Christ, and your wife ought to see Him in you, as you walk in His ways.

Now, you may say, "I know. But this cross is more than I can bear!" But note that the measuring rod of "true" love can only be measured by the size of the cross you're carrying. And note that the vice versa command for a man to love his wife is never given to a woman in Scripture. That is, a woman is never commanded to love (agape) her husband. She is only commanded to be an affectionate friend (philandros) to him and their children [Titus 2:4], and to be obedient to her own husband [Titus 2:5]. That is her cross to bear. That is her sacrifice.

Husbands, love your wives like the Christ loved the assembly. He loved it to the death! When the first man was created, God had to split his side open in order to take out his rib to form Eve. Our Lord had to bleed in order to "birth" His Lawful assembly. And in order for your wife to move from where she is, in order to get to where she ought to be, that means you have to, so to speak, "take a trip to Calvary." That means you'll have to decide that you are willing to pay whatever price of inconvenience and are willing to commit yourself to her fulfillment no matter what pain is involved in that. A truly loving husband is willing to go the distance to turn her from where she is into where she ought to be; not where he wants her to be, but where our Lord needs her to be.

The scripture says Jacob loved Rachel so much that he worked fourteen years in order to gain permission from her father to marry her (Genesis 29). That's a high price to pay, but it's the price of true love. There are men that want to run away from their wives because they are not "lovable." If the wife (or the husband) was lovable they wouldn't need a Saviour. Only sinners need a Saviour!:

"But God commends His own love to us, that while we being yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

The Christ looked out and said, "You're messed up. You're going nowhere. You're headed in the wrong direction, but you do have a Saviour." A husband may say to his wife, "Things may not be right. I may not be able to adjust to your personality. I may not like how you come across. But a Saviour is in the house!" And the husband must look to Him for resolutions, not to his own "feelings." He must walk with the Lord and be His minister in troubled times, i.e., "Whatever price has to be paid, you're looking at him!" And at the heart of that commitment is sacrifice. If there is no sacrifice there is no love.

So the question to the husband is, "Do you really love your wife?" And if so, if someone were to ask her what price are you paying, could she tell them? Could you show what price you are paying for her? Or do you say, "Well, I'm discouraged, I'm depressed." Are you still alive? Because if you're alive you've not paid the ultimate price. As long as you are breathing you have not paid the total price. Because a man is to love his wife as the Christ loves His assembly, and that took Him to His grave!

Until a man has paid the ultimate price of death, he is not exonerated from love. That is why the preacher during the marriage ceremony asks you up front, "Are you going to love her in sickness and in health? For better or for worse? For richer or poorer? Are you going to do this for as long as you both shall live?" The preachers know something you may not know. They know you probably haven't seen the whole thing yet. And when you do, they want an up front commitment that you're going to stick it out. So your wife ought to hear from you, "No matter how you treat me I'm not going to leave you. No matter how you abuse me I'm not going to leave you. No matter how you speak to me I'm not going to leave you. So, if this marriage ends you're going to have to leave me, because I'm not going anywhere. If you don't comfort me I'm not going anywhere. If you don't have sex with me I'm still not going anywhere. If you abuse me and mistreat me, I want to let you know, I am not going to return the abuse; because in this house, you have a truly loving husband. And that's me."

If you're not sacrificing like that, you're not loving. Not only must you be a sacrificer, but you must be a sanctifier as well.

Sanctify Her

"That He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water by the Word, That He might present it to Himself the glorious assembly, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it might be holy and blameless." Ephesians 5:26-27

There is a "problem" that a husband faces after marriage. When you married your wife, you did not only marry your wife, you married her history. You see, you didn't just marry her. You thought you were marrying her, but she brought with her her past, good and bad. The good parts you will enjoy, the bad parts you don't see until after the honeymoon! If you married "the modern woman" you may have only seen her with makeup and lipstick on; eyelashes that you thought were real, etc.; and you got tricked is what you got! And after marriage you discover something. You discover that, "I didn't know you were like that! And I didn't know you were a fusser! You didn't fuss when we were dating! I didn't know that you screamed like that! I didn't know you snored like that! I didn't know that you couldn't cook at all! I didn't know all of that!"

Guess what? If you love her, you have to be her sanctifier also. What's a sanctifier? The word "sanctification" means "to set apart for special use." That is, to place this woman in a unique category and take her from where she is to where she needs to be. It is called, in the scriptures, the process of sanctification or spiritual growth. When she shows you her problems, you now become Mister fix-it. That's what it means to love. What many men want to do is marry as though they're at the end of the relationship. When you get married you're only at the beginning of the relationship. And your job is to take it from where it is to where it ought to be because you are the sanctifier. You are the Lord's minister in your house. What the Christ is to His assembly you are to your wife. You are the sanctifier. So that if she's messed up, your job is to fix it up.

Now, what happens in some marriages is this. It's like a backup in a sink. You know when your sink backs up because there's a lot of junk in the line that can go hidden for a while until it builds up. Then when it builds up it backs up. And some husband's get angry because all this junk starts backing up. "I didn't know you had that dirt over there! I didn't know you had this extra baggage over there!" It was there all the time, it just hadn't backed up yet. When it starts backing up and all of a sudden the sink gets full of this dirt and grime, you don't say, "I'm going to leave you kitchen, because you backed up on me! I'm not going to have anything to do with you again, sink!" No, you call a plumber. When you call the plumber he brings the snake! And he takes the snake and he works it around and around until he opens up a little hole. And when he opens up a little hole the water slowly begins to drain, and he opens it up bigger and bigger until all the junk is flushed out!

When junk backs up you don't quit; you bring in a pro. And you are that pro. And when your wife backs up; her history, other pressures and circumstances, you're not to leave. You're to come in with the snake called "Love" and wind it around and turn it around, making a little hole here and there, watching all of that junk begin to filter out of her life until it flushes all away and you can now have free flowing water. Bring in true love and you will cleanse it all out. You are her sanctifier. Cleanse her by the washing of water by the Word.

Heaven knows she's got some things that are not going to be pleasant to live with; things from her past, things from her history. Maybe she was abused by her father or raised around a domineering mother. That didn't disappear just because you came on the scene. You are the sanctifier.

But what some husbands do when they see this junk come up and it backs up, they want to run the other way! You're the plumber, bring the snake "That He might present it to Himself the glorious assembly, not having spot, or wrinkle." Spot means defilement from the external; as something dropped on your shirt and it got a spot. Wrinkles concern internal aging, because wrinkles are evidence of an internal problem; getting old. God's children have spots--the external things of the world; and wrinkles--internal decay from within.

But Jesus came to wash the spots and remove the decay. He said the husband, as His minister, is a sanctifier and the husband's job is to work with the wife in such a way that she begins to see a cleanup take place in her life. As the Lord's minister, when she needs strength, the husband is her strength. When she needs encouragement, he is her encouragement. When she needs joy, he is her joy. When she needs peace, he is her peace. So that no matter how old she gets, she's kept eternally young because she has a sanctifier in the house. When the world crashes in on her, you are there. As the Christ's minister in the household, you are to be her power base. You are to be her strength. When she is not able to hold it together, you are the even standard who maintains his cool even though she lost hers. You say, "Well, if she didn't scream at me, I wouldn't have screamed at her!" This is not tit for tat. You are to show strength. You say you're the leader; you're the strong one, the powerful one; then be that! Be her sanctifier that she might be cleansed, so that Christ might present to Himself a bride not having spot or wrinkle.

So, first of all, if you're going to love her, you must sacrifice and sanctify for the Lord's sake. The third duty is to be her nourishment, for the Lord's sake.

Nourish Her

"So ought husbands to love their own wives as their own bodies: he that loves his own wife loves himself. For no one at any time hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Lord the assembly:" Ephesians 5:28-29

A husband that truly loves his wife knows how to nourish, or feed and satisfy her. Now, the natural man thinks of 'sex' when he hears that. "Bring 'em on! I am the satisfier. Come here baby! Poppa will satisfy you! Yes I will!" Any man who talks that way doesn't know what satisfaction is. He's really trying to convince himself that he is as good as he says he is. It's when he stands steady, and after fifteen, twenty, thirty, fifty years, the wife says, "I'm still satisfied"; now you've got a true man. When that one man is constantly nourishing her.

The scripture says that husbands ought to "love their wives as their own bodies." The spirit here is that the Christ gives Himself to His assembly, and just as many men work out physically to make their bodies "look good," he is to work his wife out spiritually so that she looks good. So that she is fulfilled (fed and nourished). So that she is strong. You are her satisfier. And there are too many dissatisfied wives because there are too many unsatisfied husbands. If you're not satisfying her, if you're not her joy, then you better take a look at how good you really are.

It has nothing to do with what she's doing to you in return, because we're talking about biblical love. "And if you hate me, I'm going to love you. And if you reject me, I'm still going to try to please you. Because I am here to feed and nourish you!"

Dwell with Her

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, with the wife as with a weaker vessel, rendering them honour, as also being joint-heirs of the grace of life, so as your prayers not to be cut off." 1 Peter 3:7

Husbands are commanded to dwell with their wives. This doesn't mean to just live in the same house. The Greek word for "dwell" means "to dwell in close harmony with, closely aligned, to be in proximity with." It means an intimate dwelling. Many men have this idea, "I go out, I'm the provider; you're the wife, you stay home. You do your job, I'll do my job." That's where the problem is. The household is your job! The role of the wife is to help the husband, but she is not to replace your role in the house. You are to work in concert with her to create a spirit of harmony within, through knowledge of the Lord. To do that you must be there.

Your wife didn't marry a paycheck, she married you. She didn't marry a car, she married you. She didn't marry a bankroll, she married you. Whenever the outside things that you do for her replace your presence with her, then you are not living with her anymore. Some men are married to their jobs, to their promotions, but our Father says to live with her! Sometimes it means telling her that she's the fairest maiden in God's Kingdom, or that you couldn't get your mind off of her all day, and mean it. Sometimes it means drying the dishes while she washes them. Sometimes it means making one side of the bed while she makes the other. Why? Because she was not given to you by God to become your slave; she was given to you to be your help, your partner--not your employee.

Men are told to study (for knowledge) two things. The scripture and his wife. Why? Because both are difficult to interpret. Every man will testify that women are complex, and sometimes confusing. You think she wants this but she really wants that. To know her might mean to give up television programs, baseball games and all of the other things of the world that the world would have you involve yourself in. Men should say, "Sweetheart, I want to listen, you talk. Tell me anything about yourself that I need to know, because when I learn it I'm going to use it to love you better. Teach me, because I don't know you, I don't understand you. I'm not going to watch TV and listen. I'm not going to read the paper and listen. I'll put my eyeball to your eyeball, my mind to your mind, because I'm here to listen, I'm here to learn, I'm here to understand if you'll only communicate with me." Women love to be understood. And many women have said, "My husband doesn't understand me," and she's probably right. But it takes time. You've got to be willing to listen, for the Lord's sake.

Honour Her

You are to treat her like a queen. It has to do with treating her as special. Does your wife feel special? Many husbands do for other women what they wouldn't do for their own wives. They used to do it. They used to pull out the chair for her to sit down. When love dies, marriage dies. She is your queen, and you roll out the red carpet, and pull out the chair, and open the door, and help escort her in.

She must feel special. How do you make her feel special? By your words and actions from the heart. "Sweetheart, I'm real busy right now; I'm right in the middle of something, but you crossed my mind and I just wanted to tell you I'm thinking of you." Because you just made her feel special, you will now be on her mind. It only took 30 seconds or so to tell her you can't get her off your mind.

You also make her feel special with your gifts. It doesn't have to be a dozen roses, one rose from the garden will do. Writing little notes to her. When she's making the bed and underneath the pillow is a note that says, "Knowing that every night I get to sleep next to you. Knowing that I wake up in the sunshine, even if the curtains are closed. I just want to let you know I wouldn't have it any other way." She's special. She's unique. Make breakfast and bring it to her. She doesn't care that you can't cook, only that you cared enough to try. This is honoring her.

But what too many husbands do is stop honoring their wives once they get married. Honoring doesn't mean that you agree with her; it doesn't mean that your decision is going to be the decision she wants you to have. We are not talking about control. But to honor her means, "Honey, I gotta make the decision, and I appreciate your feedback. You've given me your thoughts, your ideas, because you're a partner in this relationship and I need to know how you feel about it. And before I make this decision, you give me your feedback because God may be giving you some things that I need to hear. But having heard what you said, I think I gotta go another way. But I want to let you know that even though I'm going a way different than how you would have me go, I'm going to be thinking about you all the way. And if I see down the line that this is not going to be in your best interest, I'm going to reverse back. Because I don't want to do anything in my decision that's going to harm you. So even though I disagree with you, I'll honour you, because you're going to be on my mind all the way."

It's where she's significant even when you disagree. If husbands would treat their wives like thoroughbreds, they wouldn't end up with old nags. Men say, "She's a nag!" But maybe it's because how you're treating her. Men say, "I married the wrong woman!" Well, if you married the wrong woman, treat her like the right woman and she'll become the right woman.

Pray with Her

If there is no spiritual relationship in the household, there won't be any dynamic relationship in the marriage. 1 Peter 3:7 says you are heirs together. That means God is not going to leave anything for you if she is not included. Your prayers are a waste of time if she's not included. You don't have this singular relationship with God anymore when you became "one flesh." God is not going to treat you apart from her, because He doesn't see two people any more, He sees one flesh. Husbands must pray with their wives.

Husbands, you're the thermostat, you control the temperature. Your wife is the thermometer, she'll tell you how it reads. So if you have it on 80, and she's cold, the thermometer's broken. You can usually measure a man by looking into the face of his wife, because she is his mirror, letting it be known what kind of man he really is.

The question is not, "Will marriage work?" The question is, "Will you work for marriage?"

The Wife's Duty

"So no longer are they two, but one flesh. What therefore God united together, let no man separate. " Matthew 19:6

There are two people that can come together to become one flesh; a husband and a wife. Wedlock is an office ordained by God, a Holy union, wherein the husband serves the wife and the wife the husband. As it is with all sinners when they repent and believe the promises of God in Christ, thereby partaking of the treasures of His Kingdom (all His merits are ours with all that He has), a woman before matrimony and children is never so poor, yet when she marries is as rich as her husband.

The worst thing a man can do is marry the wrong woman:

"On a stormy day drops [of rain] drive a man out of his house; so also does a railing woman [drive a man] out of his own house." Proverbs 27:15

Blasphemous verbal abuse (railing) divides, no matter who is using it.

What does it mean to be a godly wife? This is what all wives must strive to be. The duties of the wife can be narrowed down to two. The first duty that a good wife must fulfill is to help her man.

Help the Man

In the beginning, when Almighty God made Adam, He said:

"[It is] not good that the man should be alone, let us make for him a help suitable to him. " Genesis 2:18

He made someone to come alongside of him, co-responding to him, to work with him to accomplish the Divine goal that He has given man. The duty of a good wife who wants to see a strong marriage and family, is to be the counterpart to her husband in such a way that that which God has given the both of them, she must be by his side as his helper. She is not just some extra baggage on the side; she is an indispensable part of His Divine plan.

One of the causes why so many men are miserable and why so many marriages fail is because the woman is not out to help him; she's using the marriage to help herself. She has a faulty view of the relationship. Instead of being his partner and coming alongside to increase their relationship with God, she becomes a part of the opposition, not cooperating with God's agenda for the family, but using it as a launching pad for her own purposes. And when a woman loses site that God's first expectation of her in relationship to her husband is to be his helper, then a negative atmosphere is created in the household that is difficult to overcome.

So the question is, "What does a helper look like?" Now, the assumption is that if God expects you to help your man, the understanding is your man needs help! Admittedly, men are not complete in and of themselves. That's the purpose God created the woman. So, if you are finding fault with your man, he therefore needs help. Guess who the helper is. If you are saying, "My man is messed up!" Guess who the helper is. You cannot complain that he is not what he ought to be if you're not fulfilling your role as the helper! God made you the helper because the husband desperately needs help. He desperately needs someone to come alongside who would be different than him in order to complete him, thereby fulfilling the Divine plan of God.

So, whenever the faults of your husband rear their ugly head, there are opportunities for you to fulfill your scriptural "job description." Not simply to fuss, cuss and nag about how messed up he is, but to analyze the kind of helper God has called you to be. In fact, if you are the complete opposite of your husband, wonderful! That means you can fill in all the blank spots where he needs help. That's not an opportunity for disgust but an opportunity for godly assistance. You are the one to help mold and shape him into the man that God ultimately wants him to be, in order to carry out the agenda of the household.

The description of a prolific helpmate is given in the book of Proverbs:

"Who shall find a virtuous woman? for such a one is more valuable than precious stones. The heart of her husband trusts in her: such a one shall stand in no need of fine spoils. For she employs all her living for her husband's good." Proverbs 31:10-12

Many ladies have a low view of themselves which make them a weak wife. When you look at yourself as a priceless diamond, as you are in God's eyes, then you'll act accordingly. If you only look at yourself as a manufactured gem, you're going to live as one. You could be made to look like the real thing, but you're not. Proverbs 31:10 is speaking of the real woman, not a plastic one. Not a wife that's so made up you don't know what the real thing looks like. But scripture tells us that when a man finds a true and authentic wife, he's got a piece of jewelry that's very valuable.

And what's the hallmark of this woman? Proverbs 31:12 tells us: "For she employes all her living for her husbands good." She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

Now, if your husband was asked what good are you to him, would he have an answer? Can he measure how you are constantly, perpetually, determinately looking out for his good? Can he raise the point, if asked the question, that every time his wife wakes up she is thinking about how to make him a better man? And if that is not your number one agenda item, you are not a godly wife. You may be a bed partner, you may be a cook, you may be this and you may be that, but a good wife seeks the good of her husband all the days of his life. Just as he is loving and honoring and cherishing you, you are to wake up and ask, "What good can I be to him today?"

Helping in and out of the house

There is a warped view among some "Christian" men that they are the ones who "bring home the bacon," and a godly wife is one who should do no more than stay at home, and remain there, confined to making babies, changing diapers, cooking meals, cleaning the house, and keeping her mouth shut. But our Father's Proverbs tell us otherwise:

"Gathering wool and flax, she makes it serviceable with her hands. She is like a ship trading from a distance: so she procures her livelihood." Proverbs 31:13-14
"She views a farm and buys it: and with the fruits of her hands she plants a possession." Proverbs 31:16
"She makes fine linens, and delivers girdles to the merchants. She opens her mouth heedfully and with propriety, and controls her tongue. She puts on strength and honour; and rejoices in the last days." Proverbs 31:24-25

But she's doing this all for the good of her husband and children. This is not like modern women who are building their own "career", having their own money and their own bank account. That's not the godly woman. Because a godly woman, while she uses those skills, always brings it back home for the embellishment of the household and the enhancement of her husband. There is no financial competition.

And if your husband and children are not benefiting from your calling outside of the household, then you're not a godly wife. You bought the lie that you're your own woman, you do your own thing, and that man is your inconvenience. That is a lie! The feminism movement is born from satanic rebellion against the Holy One of Israel. But because many women have established their own bank accounts, and spend their own money for their own agenda, and the good of the family is nowhere to be found, then the blessings of God will not rest on your life or be in your household.

When you begin to live your married life with no thought of the betterment of your husband, you have joined Satan in dissolving your marriage. God did not give you a husband for you to still be an independent single woman. He gave you a husband so that you could partner with him, helping him by using your gifts, your skills, and your abilities that He has blessed you with, for the betterment of the whole household. Whenever your calling outside of the household demands of you that which negates your role as wife and mother, it is not a calling from God. The Proverbs 31 woman uses her abilities for good; she does not throw them away to the world:

"She strongly girds her loins, and strengthens her arms for work." Proverbs 31:17
"She makes for her husband clothes of double texture, and garments for herself of fine linen and scarlet." Proverbs 31:22

This woman looks good and takes care of herself. We're not talking about some haggard wife here. Her husband looks forward to returning to her after a hard days work.

She also helps him parentally:

Help him Parentally

"And she rises by night and gives food to her household" Proverbs 31:15

"Her husband is not anxious about those at home when he tarries anywhere abroad: for all her household are clothed." Proverbs 31:21

In other words, she assists the husband by helping with the children. It is not her job alone. The husband's job is to manage the household, but the wife's job is to help him. She is not to replace him, but she is to help him. And here we have a woman who's so committed, so dedicated, that she wakes up early before everyone else to make sure that all the bases are covered.

Now, why does God ask the woman to prioritize within the household? Because one of her duties is to raise the next generation of godly seed. And if you have to leave the house so much that you cannot assist your husband in a significant way, as a parent and guardian of the children, then you're not fulfilling what God has told you to do. That's why the older women are to:

"teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" Titus 2:4-5.

That's why "...the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house" (1 Timothy 5:14).

Never let the outside pull of the world keep you from being a dynamic wife and mother. Never let the schedule outside dictate the schedule inside.

She also helps him ministerially.

Help him Ministerially

"And she opens her hands to the needy, and reaches out fruit to the poor." Proverbs 31:20
"...she opens her mouth wisely, and according to law." Proverbs 31:26

She's serving the poor and counseling others. So she's come alongside his ministry; she's a partner with him, sharing her wisdom with others. She doesn't have time to gossip; she's spending too much time devoted to her husband. She doesn't have time to spend all day in front of a soap opera, because she has a man that she has to make look good. And how good is this man?

"The heart of her husband trusts in her" Proverbs 31:11
"And her husband becomes a distinguished man in the gates, when he sits in council with the old inhabitants of the land." Proverbs 31:23

Everybody knows who this man is because of this woman. Why? Because his lady made certain it was that way. Other people know him because she makes him look good.

Now, I know what you're saying. "What about me?! I don't always want to be in the background! I don't always want to be hidden! I don't always want to be making some man look good! I want to look good! I want people to talk about me! " Well, if you seek recognition, this is the way it should come about:

"And her kindness to them sets up her children for them, and they grow rich, and her husband praises her." Proverbs 31:28

The husband should praise her, and teach his children to praise her. He should teach the children well, that they may say, "Thank you, Mama, that on cold days I'm warm. Thank you, Mama, that on cold days I have hot food."

Submit to your Man

The second thing a woman must do is reverence her husband.

"Let every one of you so love his own wife even as himself; and the wife that she reverence the husband." Ephesians 5:33

Ephesians 5:22-24 explains the doctrine of submission. The word "submission" is a good word, but because people have defined it wrongly, you look at it and say, "Oh, not that word!" Why is it a good word? Because Jesus submitted himself to the will of the Father.

First of all, submission has nothing to do with inequality. Submission has to do with accomplishing God's purpose. Jesus submitted to the Father in order to accomplish salvation. He did it for His Father's purpose never questioning whether it was "fair" or not.

1 Peter 3:7 says a husband and wife are "joint heirs," and therefore equal and are to be treated as equals. To submit to your husband does not mean that you are a door mat, and it doesn't mean that you are to be pressed on, beaten on, or any such thing. You are equal to any man in the eyes of God. But when it comes to His purpose for you, submission is absolutely necessary.

To submit to your husband does not mean you agree with him on everything. It means you recognize his position as head of the household to accomplish God's purposes as it relates to the family. You may say, "I can't submit to that man. Preposterous!" How is it that women who work in the commercial world don't agree with everything Mr. Jones at their job tells them, but they submit. And if in court they may not like what the judge thinks, but they submit. We see that these examples do not have to do with submitting to a man, but a position.

God has called your husband to a position. His position is head over the household. That's not as a dictator and it's not as "boss man." The job of the head is to give direction to the body. The duty of the wife is to willingly place all of her strengths under the authority of the husband to follow him as he follows Christ. That's why it says (and here's some good news for the ladies) at Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." So you don't have to worry about him abusing you. When he leaves the Lord he is no longer in the position as your head, for he has abandoned it. That is, you are never to disobey the Lord in order to follow your husband, because your greater allegiance is to the Lord.

But if this man is trying to serve the Lord, don't work against him. He may not be doing it right, or perfectly, but if the man is trying to please the Lord don't work against the man. Why? Because he needs a helper, not a hurter. He needs assistance, not a hindrance. He needs somebody to come alongside and smooth all those rough edges. So every woman should say to her husband, beginning today, "You are my leader. God has put you as head of the home. I am going to honor you as head of this household. I am going to follow you as the head. I only ask you for one thing. Don't attempt to lead me away from Christ, because if you do, I'm going to have to leave you and go with my first love. I don't want to leave you and go with my first love, so you follow my first love so I can follow both of you."

That's the idea! That he follow Christ and you follow him. But ladies, he needs to hear that from you. He needs to hear that you are going to honor and reverence his position as head of the household. If one can submit to a boss they don't like, then they can submit to a husband they don't like. Because it's not about liking the husband, it's about obeying the Lord. A lot of women say, "I can't submit!" Well, how do you know? You've never tried! "I can't follow!" How do you know? He told you one thing that was wrong and now you won't listen to anything.

Many women have never told their husband that they are willing to come under his authority as he follows Christ to lead the household and motivate him to follow Christ. Rather they work against him, by fussing at him, griping at him that he never does anything right. It's like after he gets beaten up all day long, and now he's gotta come home to be beaten up some more. He ought to come home to somebody that will love him, hug him, caress him, affirm him, strengthen him, and dignify him! Do not treat him as a stranger!

If your attitude is, "My man is no good," maybe he's no good because nobody's helping him. Maybe God gave you to him to fix up the rough points and you never caught the message.

That's what headship is. Jesus submitted to the Father, the husband submits to Jesus, the wife submits to the husband using all her gifts and strengths for the betterment of the household. A wife who does not submit herself to her husband has not submitted to God, so don't tell anyone how spiritual you are. You can "go to church" every week, but if your husband does not know that you recognize his position as head then you are a carnal woman. You can read your bible every day, have devotions, go to bible study every Wednesday, and do all that and be out of the will of God if you don't honour your husband.

For some wives, their husband may not know how to be a good husband because he was not raised with a good father, and has perhaps never seen a godly husband. Not knowing what a godly husband is, he will therefore have to learn. It may take some time, and these wives may have to humble themselves and say, "Father. I have sinned in this area. I have not been a helper, I've been a hurter. I confess that I've sinned, and today I'm going to tell my husband that he now has a helper. Someone who's going to work with him, not against him. Someone who's going to support him, not crucify him."

So, what are you to do? Following the instruction of 1 Peter 3:1-6.

Ungodly Husbands

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;" 1 Peter 3:1

The Living Word now raises a question about women who's husbands have erred from the Way. The word of the world says, "Woman! You don't need himleave! You don't have to go through that! Walk out!" That's not what the Truth says. Now who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe your "friends," or are you going to believe the Word of God? And that's the problem. There are too many wives listening to too many crafty whisperers. God says if you're husband is not a godly man yet, he can still be won without verbal condemnation, by the behavior of the wife!

Now God didn't call you to be your husband's "Pastor." He didn't call you to preach to him. He didn't call you to be his nag. The way a wayward husband is won is not by the preaching skill of his wife. If you've noticed, the more you try to change him with your voice, the worse he gets. And you know why? Because you're dealing with the one thing that no man will compromise on, and that's his ego. Men have fought and killed since the beginning of time, because of their ego!

What would the Lord have you to do when it comes to dealing with the husbands ego? He wants you to get out of the way so He can chastise him. God says to be like Jesus in the same way. Now what was Jesus like?

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not;" 1 Peter 2:22-23

Jesus didn't threaten. He didn't say, "Oh, so you're going to be like that?! Well, I'll get even with you! Two can play at this game!" Jesus didn't manipulate with His voice; He didn't manipulate with tears. He did His Father's will, and no guile was found in His mouth.

Have you tried God's way to change your husband, or have you been fussing for 15 years? Because if you've been fussing for 15 years, you've been asking God not to change him: that you'll take care of it yourself.

You should make your husband stare at you and wonder, "What's gotten into you?" when you ask him, "What can I do for you today?" When he comes home and he sees this haggard, burned-out, no-makeup looking wife, who looked good for the neighbors or Mr. Jones all day, but now hears, "I'm tired. What do you want to eat?! I bought some milk, there's some cereal, get it yourself." No, it should be more like, "Honey, what can I cook for you today? What would you like to eat? How can I take care of you? How can I look good for you?" And he's supposed to stare and say, "Huh?"

Shock him with your help and your submission. Make him stare. Make him wonder what went wrong. Make him say, "Wow, I like this." Now, you're probably saying, "You don't know my husband. He's going to take advantage of that." God says, "You leave that to Me." He's asking you to trust in Him. As they, the husbands, observe your chaste, holy and respectful behavior, they may be won.

"Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." 1 Peter 3:3-4

Women spend a lot of time making themselves look good on the outside, but God says, that more importantly, make yourself good on the inside. There's no point in looking beautiful on the outside if you're ugly on the inside. So be beautiful on the inside!

Language is Important

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:" 1 Peter 3:6

Sara reverenced her husband. How do you know? Because of how she talked to him. She said, "lord." Now, look at your husband and say, "lord." Practice it and say, "lord." Take it one step further and say, "My lord." In other words, her submission was not private, but universal. At Genesis 18:12, she calls Abraham, "lord." God told her that one year from now, she's going to get pregnant, "...Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?"

What's the point? Sara was in an "impossible" situation, being 90 years old, her husbands 100, no pregnancy in sight; but she called him lord. And when God saw her reverence Abraham, Abraham could do things he couldn't do before, and Sara got pregnant! When she called him lord, God did something to him. If you reverence your husband, God can make him do things he can't do otherwise. God can turn his attitude around and his life around, if you do your part; if you get out of the way so He can dispense His loving chastisement and Grace.

So reverence your husband; lift him up, embellish him, and serve him, while he does the same for you. You are both to be as His disciples:

"Then no longer are ye strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God, being built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in Whom all the building fitted together increases to a holy temple in the Lord; in Whom also ye are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-22

The Duty

of Parents and Children

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with a promise; that well with thee it may be, and thou mayest be long-lived on the earth. And fathers, do not provoke your children, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord" Ephesians 6:1-4
"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs. 22:6 (KJV)

The root Hebrew word for "train up" in this verse is chanak, meaning, properly, to narrow; figuratively, to initiate or discipline.

Train up, nurture, and admonish all, in one way or the other, relate to discipline. The way he will go, will depend on whether the parents walk with the Lord, or walk with the world.

Love is the basis of child nurturing, admonishing and discipline. Can you selfishly spare the rod with your child and send him out into the world unprepared for the "natural" suffering the world will give him. An unselfish love realizes that an obedient child is produced at the cost of pain; for God loves us and corrects us:

"For whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and scourges every son whom He receives. If ye endure discipline, God is dealing with you as with sons; for who is the son whom the Father disciplines not? But if ye are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then bastards ye are and not sons." Hebrews 12:6-8

Because the rod is not used in anger, you can take them in your arms right after correction, kiss them, and tell them you love them, but they have to obey. This is what our loving Father demonstrates:

"In their affliction they will seek Me early, saying, Let us go, and return to the LORD our God; for He has torn, and will heal us; He will smite, and bind us up." Hosea 6:1

The use of the rod is a type of forgiveness. After it is used we can completely forget the incident. Fellowship is restored between the parents and the child. But if, instead of using the rod of correction, you nag, scold, scream at or yell at your child, hostility is maintained towards him because he has not been corrected in a godly manner.

William Tyndale, in 1528, said it best:

"Fathers move not your children unto wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and information of the Lord (Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3). Fathers rate (reprove angrily) not your children, lest they be of desperate mind, that is, lest you discourage them. For where the fathers and mothers are wayward hasty and churlish, ever brawling and chiding: there are the children anon discouraged and heartless and apt for nothing, neither can they do anything aright. Bring them up in the nurture and information of the Lord. Teach them to know Christ and set God's ordinance before them saying: son or daughter, God hath created thee and made they through us thy father and mother, and at His commandment have we so long thus kindly brought thee up and kept thee from all perils: He hath commanded thee also to obey us saying: child obey thy father and mother. If thou meekly obey, so shalt thou grow both in the favour of God and man and knowledge of our Lord Christ. If thou wilt not obey us at His commandment: then we are charged to correct thee, yea and if thou repent not and amend thyself, God shall slay thee by His officers or punish thee everlastingly. Nurture them not worldly and with worldly wisdom saying: thou shalt come to honour, dignity, promotion and riches, thou shalt be better than such and such, thou shalt have three or four benefices and be a great doctor or a bishop and have so many men waiting on thee and do nothing but hawk and hunt and live at pleasure, thou shalt not need to sweat, to labour or to take any pain for thy living and so forth, filling them full of pride, disdain and ambition and corrupting their minds with worldly persuasions. Let the fathers and mothers mark how they themselves were disposed at all ages, and by experience of their own infirmities help their children and keep them from occasions. Let them teach their children to ask for marriages of their fathers and mothers. And let their elders provide marriages for them in season: teaching them also to know, that she is not his wife which the son taketh nor he her husband which the daughter taketh without the consent and good will of their elders or them that have authority over them. If their friends will not marry them, then they are not to blame if they marry themselves. Let not the fathers and mothers always take the utmost of their authority of their children, but at a time suffer with them and bear their weaknesses as Christ doth ours. Seek Christ in your children, in your wives, servants and subjects. Father, mother, son, daughter, master, servant, king and subject, be names in the worldly regiment. In Christ we are all one thing (we are all servants and he that hath knowledge is bound), none better than the other, all brethren and must all seek Christ and our brothers' profit in Christ. And he that hath the knowledge whether he be lord or king, is bound to submit himself and serve his brethren and to give himself for them, to win them to Christ." The Obedience of a Christen Man and how Christ's Rulers ought to Govern, The office of a father and how he ought to rule.

Anger and hostility is the price paid for disobeying God by not using the rod consistently as God commands. When the rod is used consistently for the slightest disobedience, it is never associated with anger, because the parent disciplines the child with a patient, loving spirit in obedience to God.

No matter what the offense is, the correction should never be done in anger. Children are, then, able to understand that this kind of correction is done in love. The rod then becomes a rod of correction and comfort, not abuse. Many children witness that they are glad their parents corrected them with the paddle. The pain the rod inflicts on the body now, delivers one from the much greater pain suffered later in life because of a frightened or selfish parent. Our Father's Word confirms this truth:

"Before I was afflicted I transgressed; therefore have I kept Thy word." Psalm 119:67
"It is good for me that Thou hast afflicted me; that I might learn Thine ordinances." Psalm 119:71
"I know, O LORD, that Thy judgments are righteousness, and that Thou in truthfulness hast afflicted me." Psalm 119:75

Disciplining the child early on teaches him that which will be needed later in life; that is, a true disciple of Christ is one who is disciplined by Him. If not disciplined by his elders when he is young, he'll require more severe discipline when he is older. In this way, he learns he has a choice, and he chooses the right one if he is disciplined correctly:

"The LORD is good to them that wait for Him; the soul which shall seek Him is good, and shall wait for, and quietly expect salvation of the LORD. It is good for a man when he bears a yoke in his youth. He will sit alone, and be silent, because he has born it upon him. He will give his cheek to him that smites him: he will be filled full with reproaches." Lamentations 3:25-30

There is no tyranny in godly correction. God gave us His example. Your relationship to your children should conform with our Heavenly Father's relationship to us. His example teaches us the training up of your children should be for their good. When our Father chastens us, it is not an angry reaction; it is an action towards us for our good:

"O that there were such a heart in them, that they should fear Me and keep My commands always, that it might be well with them and with their sons for ever." Deuteronomy 5:29
"For they [*earthly fathers] indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness." Hebrews 12:10

Often times, discipline towards younger children is for arguing between themselves. When you discipline them for this behavior, it shouldn't be because they are bothering you. They are usually pretty quiet about it anyway. But it's for their own good - to learn how to discuss a problem without fighting. It is a long process of learning.

Inconsistent use of the rod is tyrannical. That is, at your whim. To be consistent is extremely important. What could be more frustrating to a child than to never know what is really expected? It is the inconsistency which provokes and discourages the child. One day you feel stern and punish a certain disobedience. The next day, you're more mellow, or lazy, and don't punish for the same thing. They become provoked to anger, become discouraged, and rebel. God says not to do that:

"Fathers, do not provoke your children, that they be not disheartened." Colossians 3:21
"And fathers, do not provoke your children, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4

Discipline with love is obedience to God. Some say, "I tried it but it didn't work." But, it's not debatable. It's God's command. You can rest in the following verses:

"Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." Proverbs 19:18
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." Proverbs 13:24
"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." Proverbs 23:13-14
"But every discipline for the present seems not to be a matter of joy, but of grief; but afterwards renders peaceable fruit of righteousness to those having been exercised by it." Hebrews 12:11
"As for the Mighty One, his way is blameless; The word of the LORD is strong and tried in the fire: He is a protector to all that put their trust in Him." 2 Samuel 22:31

Nurture and Admonition

"...The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deuteronomy 6:4-7
"I will instruct thee and guide thee in this way wherein thou shalt go: I will fix Mine eyes upon thee." Psalm 32:8

Verses for Study

1. Training up is different than teaching (Proverbs 22:6; 1 Samuel 2:23-25,29; 3:13).
a. Admonition and the rod (Proverbs 22:15).
b. I love him too much to hurt him (Proverbs 13:24.)
c. There are other ways of correction (Proverbs 23:13-14)
d. But he shouldn't be stifled (Proverbs 29:15).
e. He's too young (Proverbs 19:18).
f. It might cause more rebellion (Proverbs 29:17).
g. But every child is different.

2. Love is the basis of nurturing.
a. God loves and chastens (Hebrews 12:6-8; Hosea 6:1).
b. Spanking releases guilt (Proverbs 20:30; Psalm 119:67,71,75).
c. Discipline teaches discipline (Lamentations 3:25-30).

3. There is no tyranny in godly training.
a. God gave us His example (Deuteronomy 5:29; Hebrews 12:10).
b. Inconsistent use of the rod is tyrannical (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21).

4. Discipline with love is obedience to God (2 Samuel 22:31; Hebrews 12:11).

Divorce and Remarriage

During approximately the first 2500 years from the Garden to the time of Moses, divorce was not allowed. Many people feel justified in divorce today. The main passage they cite to justify this action is the following:

Matthew 19:7, "They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"
Matthew 19:8, "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so."
Matthew 19:9, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Let's examine each one of these three verses:

Matthew 19:7

The question about divorce that the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Why did Moses then command" reveals the misuse of Deuteronomy 24. Moses did not command divorce, he permitted it, commanding only that it be done with a "writing of divorcement," an official written contract to protect the Hebrew women from being taken advantage of by a verbal divorce, and also permitting remarriage. God had instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. He is not the author of divorce; man is its originator.

Matthew 19:8

Some think they see a loophole in Jesus' statement when "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." The divorce that Moses permitted is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This "putting away" was not from the beginning.

Matthew 19:9

A similar passage to Matthew 19:9 is recorded at Matthew 5:32:

"And I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:"

Jesus said only in the case of "fornication" is divorce allowed. Most people assume Jesus meant "adultery," but this is not so. To understand this statement, we need to see exactly what the Old Covenant legislation was regarding illicit intercourse.

If a man was convicted of adultery, both he and the married woman that lay with him were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).

If a married woman was convicted of adultery, both she and the man that lay with her were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22).

If the wife was suspected, but not convicted, of adultery, the husband had to take her to the priest with a "jealousy" offering (Numbers 5:11-31).

If a betrothed virgin was convicted of adultery, both she and the man that lay with her were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), unless a man forced her to have sex with him, the man was executed, but the woman was blameless (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

If a man had sex with an unbetrothed virgin, they were both commanded to marry each other, and they could not divorce for the rest of their lives (Deuteronomy 22:28), unless the father refuses to give her to him, in which case the man was to pay the father money for humbling her (Exodus 22:16-17).

Note: there is no provision for divorce in any of the above situations. The only remaining possibility is that of a betrothed girl who is the innocent victim of fornication. She was not to be executed (Deut. 22:25-27). But her fiancé might not want to go through with the marriage, even though what had happened was not her fault. He was allowed to divorce her and break off the espousal agreement.

Now, let's look at this verse again: "And I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:" Matt. 5:32.

This exception clause is recorded by Matthew only. Why then an exception clause in Matthew but not in Mark or Luke (or any other book of the New Testament for that matter)? Did the Greeks, whom Luke addressed, and the Romans, whom Mark addressed, not need to know of the exception clause? Were only the Jews, whom Matthew addressed, permitted this liberty? The answer lies in the peculiar way in which the Jews contracted marriage.

When our Lord is recorded in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as saying, "porneia" which is the Greek word for 'fornication', He is referring to fornication within the Jewish betrothal period. This passage is too often misinterpreted to mean "adultery" within the consummated marriage state. To try and make "fornication" (Greek "porneia") and "adultery" (Greek "moicheia") have the same meaning is untenable, especially when both words are used in the same verses (Matthew 5:32; 15:19; 19:19; Mark 7:21, 1 Cor.6:9, Gal.5:19, Heb.13:4). These two different words with two different meanings clearly describe two different sins. For a full understand of what fornication entails, see Leviticus 18, 1 Corinthians 5:1, 6:16-18, 10:8, and Jude 1:7.

In the environment in which Jesus ministered and in which the Gospels were written, a very careful distinction was drawn between what constituted fornication and what constituted adultery. Furthermore, to interpret Jesus, in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, as giving grounds for divorce in the case of "adultery" contradicts His teaching in Mark 10:1-12 & Luke 16:18, where divorce is never an option. It would also contradict the teaching of Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and 39 giving Christ's own command for "no divorce", and does not mention any exceptions, let alone "adultery"!

The exegete should not expect that Mark and Luke would be so careless as to forget or neglect such important information (i.e. whether or not Jesus taught that "adultery" is grounds for divorce) in their gospels knowing that the audience of their day didn't have the convenience of reading Matthew's gospel along with theirs as we do today. They clearly understood Christ to be teaching that divorce is not God's will, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6), and that remarriage after an unfounded divorce results in adultery, "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).

The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately Gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one where fornication during the betrothal period was treated just as seriously as adultery in marriage (Deuteronomy 20:7; 22:20-21, 23-24).

In addition, if Christ was teaching, in Matthew, that adultery is now grounds for divorce, that would have contradicted his statement in Matthew 5:18, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus clearly taught that no part of the Old Testament laws would pass, until all be fulfilled. All was not fulfilled while Jesus was alive in the flesh.

Now, picture this. Jesus tells the Jews, "No part of the Old Testament laws will pass away." Then, just a short time later, he says, "On second thought, the Old Testament laws have passed away! From this moment on, I command you to ignore God's Law. God says no divorce is allowed for adultery, but I say unto you that divorce is allowed!" Do you see a contradiction here? And the Jews would not have needed to hire false witnesses against Jesus at his trial; they would have simply executed him on the spot for teaching contrary to God's written law!

And one last point. If Jesus was saying that a couple cannot divorce for any reason, except adultery, this would mean the following. If a married woman followed God with all her heart, and did nothing to provoke a divorce, but was divorced and abandoned by her husband, then she cannot marry another. If she does she will sin. However, since Jesus has a loophole now, all she has to do is sleep with another man while she is married, and now she can get a legal divorce, and legally marry another man! And if she doesn't like that man, she could commit adultery, get another divorce, and marry another man! In other words, Jesus would be promoting sin.

Divorce And Remarriage

"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Romans 7:2-3
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 7:39

You may notice in the Old Testament that a man could marry more than one woman (polygamy) and not be charged with "adultery" and hence stoned. But according to the Scriptures, a woman could not marry more than one man (a practice called polyandry), and that if she were involved with another man, she was charged with adultery and stoned. The reason the man is not mentioned by Paul in Romans 7:2-3 & 1 Corinthians 7:39 is because a man, according to the law, could marry another woman while his first wife was still alive and not be guilty of adultery (Ex. 21:10; Lev. 18:17; 20:14; Deut. 21:15-17; 22:28-29; 25:7-10).

In the matters of divorce and remarriage, it is Paul's pattern of writing in 1 Corinthians 7 to apply something to both the wife and the husband if it applies to both. Both the wife and the husband are admonished not to divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Both the husband and the wife are commanded not to divorce in the case that they are married to an unbeliever (verse 12-16). But only the wife is told that she cannot be joined to another as long as her husband is alive (verse 39). Therefore, the Biblical position on remarriage would be the following: If a woman gets divorced by her husband, she may not remarry another because she is bound to her first husband as long as he lives. If a man is divorced by his wife, he may remarry another, but he must pray for his first wife's return and accept her back as a wife if she returns (verse 7:11). If a man divorces his wife unjustly, he may not remarry another, for it would then be considered "adultery" (Mark 10:11).

A Study of 1 Corinthians 7

Willful Desertion

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15

Some have tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:15 as a proof-text to teach that remarriage is acceptable for the believer if "willful desertion" has occurred on the part of the unbelieving spouse. Out of poor exegesis, they oddly try and somehow tie 1 Corinthians 7:39 & Romans 7:2-3 to 1 Corinthians 7:15 with the conclusion that the believer is now "free" to remarry and not "under bondage" to a life of singleness as they imagine the text must mean. The problem with this misinterpretation is that "bondage" to a life of singleness and "freedom" to remarry isn't even Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

When Paul is speaking about the biblical-legal aspect of being under "bondage" to one's partner in marriage (or by a promise of marriage to one's betrothed as in 1 Corinthians 7:27), he uses the verb deo (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39). But he uses a different verb, douloo, when he refers to the kind of duty or subjection the believer is freed from in 1 Corinthians 7:15. So, then, what is the "bondage" that the believer is "freed" from in 1 Corinthians 7:15?

If facing separation or divorce, the believer in his or her seeking to be reconciled to the unbeliever, is not "under bondage" to change the unbeliever's mind about the divorce. This freedom from bonds is related to the preceding chorizo ("depart") and means that the believer is not under bondage to preserve the union through legal maneuvers or by pursuing the unwilling partner all over the Roman Empire. The word "bondage" has to do with how the partners relate. Is the believer to function like a slave in relationship to the partner who is unwilling to maintain the marriage? Paul answers, 'No!' The word "bondage" is set in contrast with the word "peace." Peace in the midst of a difficult situation is God's portion for a rejected believing partner, not a new marriage. Paul is simply saying in verse 15 that Christ's prohibition against divorce does not "enslave" the believer to maintain the union against the wishes of an unbelieving partner who insists on ending the marriage. The overly sensitive believer here (as opposed to some in Corinth at that time who possibly thought that they could divorce unbelievers, see vs. 12) should not feel fearful of our Lord's prohibition of divorce, but lay hold of His peace knowing that he or she did all that they could possibly do. They are not to blame if they cannot reconcile the unbeliever back to them. Perhaps during this trying time the believer acted out of bitterness and strife by contesting the divorce or separation. He or she must avoid this and "live in peace".

See Albert Barnes' and/or Adam Clarke's Commentaries to shed further light on 1 Corinthians 7:15.

What if a Faithful Woman

has been Deserted by her Husband?

Paul's instruction in the case of an unbelieving husband having divorced his faithful believing wife is consistent with what he had earlier stated, "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:11), and "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 7:39).

What if a Faithful Man

has been Deserted by his Wife?

There is not one verse in the entire Bible that teaches that a man in this situation could not remarry another woman while his first wife was still alive. However, it would be wise to inform his potential second wife that should his first wife seek to be reconciled to him he is beholden to accept her back (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Marriage

(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

Marriage. The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, which becomes the foundation for a home and family.

Origin of Marriage. Marriage was instituted by God when He declared, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him" <Gen. 2:18>. So God fashioned woman and brought her to man. On seeing the woman, Adam exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" <Gen. 2:23>. This passage also emphasizes the truth that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" <Gen. 2:24>. This suggests that God's ideal is for a man to be the husband of one wife and for the marriage to be permanent.

Legislation. God's desire for His people was that they marry within the body of believers. The Mosaic Law clearly stated that an Israelite was never to marry a Canaanite. The Israelite would be constantly tempted to embrace the spouse's god as well <Ex. 34:10-17>. Likewise, the apostle Paul commanded the members of the church at Corinth, "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers" <2 Cor. 6:14>.

Marriages between Israelites were directed by law, and all incestuous relationships were outlawed <Lev. 18:6-8>. In addition, priests were forbidden to marry prostitutes and divorced women <Lev. 21:7,13-14>. Daughters who inherited their father's possessions had to marry within their tribe or lose their inheritance <Num. 27:8; 36:2-4>.

Choosing the Bride. In Old Testament times, the parents chose the mate for their son. The primary reason for this was that the bride became part of the clan. Although they were married and became "one flesh," the couple remained under the authority of the bridegroom's father. The parents chose someone who would best fit into their clan and work harmoniously with her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law.

Sometimes the parents consulted with their children to see if they approved of the choice of mates being made for them. For example, Rebekah was asked if she wanted to marry Isaac <Gen. 24:58>.

Frequently people married at a young age, a fact which made the parents' choice a practical matter. By New Testament times, the Jewish leaders had decided to establish minimum ages for which a marriage contract could be drawn up. The age was set at 13 for boys and 12 for girls.

Even if the young wife lost her husband in war or accident, she remained within the clan and was wed to her brother-in-law or next of kin. This arrangement is known as LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. It is the basis for the story of Ruth and Boaz <Deut. 25:5-10; Ruth 3:13; 4:1-12>.

Concept of Love. Although romance before marriage was not unknown in Old Testament times, it played a minor role in the life of teenagers of that era. They did not marry the person they loved; they loved the mate they married. Love began at marriage. When Isaac married Rebekah, the Bible records that "she became his wife, and he loved her" <Gen. 24:67>.

Marriage Customs. On the day of the wedding, the groom and his friends dressed in their finest clothes and went to the home of the bride. Together the couple went back to the groom's house. Their friends sang and danced their way back to his house.

Once at the groom's house, the couple was ushered into a bridal chamber. The marriage was consummated through sexual union as the guests waited outside. Once that fact was announced, the wedding festivities continued, with guests dropping by for the wedding feast. Usually the wedding party lasted for a week.

New Testament Teaching about Marriage. The church at Corinth struggled over a number of issues, including the proper view of marriage. In response to their questions, Paul gave an answer about marriage. From His answer, it seems that three faulty ideas about marriage were prominent among some believers in the church. The first was that marriage was absolutely necessary in order to be a Christian; another was that celibacy was superior to marriage; the third was that when a person became a Christian, all existing relationships such as marriage were dissolved. When <chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians> is read with that as background, the following teaching emerges.

First, Paul stated that celibacy is an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian, not all people need to marry. In fact, Paul declared that he himself preferred not to marry. However, the single life can be lived for God's glory only if God has given the gift of singlehood. If one does not have that gift, he should marry. And Paul expected most people to marry.

Next, Paul spoke to the problem faced by a Christian believer whose spouse does not believe. He reasoned that if the unbelieving partner is willing to live with the Christian, then the Christian should not dissolve the marriage. Remaining with the unbelieving partner could result in his or her salvation <1 Cor. 7:14>.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul showed how a marriage relationship can best function. First, he said, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord" <Eph. 5:22>. The model for the wife's submission is the church, which is subject to Christ <Eph. 5:24>. Second, husbands are to love their wives. The role that the husband plays is outlined by Jesus Christ, who loved His bride, the church, so much that He died for her <Eph. 5:25>.

Issue the Sixty-fourth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Teach Your Children Well ...

Standing Upon the Land...

Invoking God's Truth in court...

The 2nd Coming of Christ???, Part One...

Dating, Courtship, and Scriptural Betrothal compared...

Teach Your Children Well

There was once a father that wanted to "teach his children well" by bringing them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." His whole family went to Church every Sunday, learning there to "make sure" that their children were "well educated" by enrolling them in public school, and then college, etc.

He realized that his oldest son by the age of nine began to be drawn to the ways of the world and distanced from the ways of God. As a "lightweight" rod of correction, the father decided to teach the simple card game WAR to this son. After a while, when the son thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, his father created a new game called GOVERNMENT. In this game, the father was "Government," and he won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. His son soon lost interest in his fathers new game, but he "thought" that it taught his son a valuable lesson concerning the ways and powers of the world, in hopes that his son would reject them.

He was wrong!! For he found that his son, who had now reached his early teen years, had been taught in public school that loving and obeying government came first before anything else. He had not only learned this, but had taken it to heart. God was now secondary in his life. He had become rebellious to God, and also to his dad's pleadings. But the son was still under his father's roof.

Because he truly loved this son, he knew that God's rod of correction must be brought to him a little less gently this time. Since the son was taught to love the government, but was not taught what the government "is," he decided to give his son a one week "civics course" during his "summer vacation." It was "Hell Week"--a week his son never forgot.

Day One.

The Tax System

To teach his son about the tax system of his molten idol in a way that was easy to grasp and which allowed him to understand the "benefits" that the "faithful citizens" of that "democratic" government receive, he offered his son $10 to mow the lawn. When he had mowed it and asked to be paid, the father withheld $5 and explained that this is "income tax." He directed his son to give $1 of this to his younger brother, who had done nothing to deserve it, explaining from "the governments point of view" that this was "fair" because the younger brother "needs money too." He also explained that he needed the other $4 himself to cover the government "administrative costs" of dividing the money and for other miscellaneous "things" he needed.

He then directed his son to place his $5 in a "household" savings account over which his son would have no authority. He also explained to him that if he was ever rebellious, he would remove the money from the account without asking him. And he explained how he would be taking most of the interest he earns on that money, without his permission, and that if he tried to hide any money, this, in itself, would be evidence of wrongdoing and would result in the "household government" automatically taking the money from him.

Day Two.

Searches and Seizures

He conducted a random search of his room in the early hours of the morning, bursting in unannounced and went through all of his drawers and pockets. When the son questioned why he was doing this, he told him that he was acting on a tip-off from a school buddy of his who casually mentioned that they had both earned a bit of spare cash the previous week.

To further demonstrate the "ins and outs" of the tax system, he confiscated all of that money and also took his stereo and television. And to further "enlighten" his son, he told him he was selling these and keeping the money to compensate "the government household" for having to make the raid. He also told him that he was fortunate that this was only a one week course, otherwise he would have locked him in his room for a month as further punishment.

The father brought the point home to the son when he stated, "I'm only demonstrating to you how the government you love so much "treats" its "faithful citizens."

When the son began to whine at the injustice of this, he was told by his father, "Son, as your new god will tell you, you're being "selfish" and "greedy" and only interested in looking after your own happiness. You will need to learn to sacrifice your own happiness for your "fellow-citizens" and that since you can not be relied upon or trusted to do this voluntarily, "your government" will henceforth use force to ensure you comply.

Day Three.

Codes, rules and regulations

To further illustrate the "inner-workings" of the molten idol, he made as many rules and regulations as possible for his son to follow, leaving the purposes for them very obscure and enforcing them arbitrarily. He accused his son of breaking rules he had never told him about and carefully explained that ignorance of the rules and regulations is not an excuse for breaking them. He also made sure that his son would be anxious about violating commands he hadn't yet been told about. He instilled in him the true nature of government rules and regulations. This would prepare him for living under the democratic government he was so attracted to.

Day Four.

The Voter Franchise and The Judicial System

To further illustrate the "benefits" of democracy, he demonstrated the following to his son:

He, his wife and his younger children got together that morning and voted that the older son should have all privileges removed, be fined, and sent to his room for the rest of the day. When he protested that his "rights" were being violated, the father patiently explained his son's "error" and told him, firstly, that "rights" are nothing more than "privileges" given by government which can be taken away by "it" at any time, and secondly, that the majority had voted for this punishment and that in a democracy nothing matters except the will of the majority. But since his new god is so benevolent, it's not going to make him stay in his room--we'll call it "time off for good behavior."

To make him "feel" better and further "ease the pain," the father offered to take him to the movie matinee, and then, at the appointed hour, reclined in an easy chair with a newspaper and told him that he had changed his plans. When the son screamed, "but you promised!", the father explained to him that it was a campaign promise and hence meaningless.

To give his son a demonstration of the judicial system, he told him that if he wrote a ten page letter of protest by 5 P.M. that day, he would read his appeal on any grievances he had. The son wrote the letter, the father read it and "handed down" his "opinion" on the matter, telling his son that he had "failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." When the son asked him to explain what he meant, he explained that in a democracy, he who is empowered to make decisions can decide in any way that "seems" appropriate, i.e., "out of necessity" or according to "changing conditions."

For example, words mean nothing - or rather that the meanings of words are continually "evolving," and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

His father also explained to him that his "opinion" also had to be based on factors that required "political correctness," such as his son's ethnic background, i.e., was he part of a minority group, for if he were, "perhaps" long ago his minority group was abused, so it would only be "fair" to take that into consideration when rendering his opinion; and if he ruled in his favor, it would only be "fair" to compensate him for all of the abuse that his ancestral group had suffered.

Also a "benevolent" government must consider whether you were abused when you were a child, your gender, your religion and a multitude of other "related" factors. But though I didn't really consider all of these factors in your case, they are still there for me to "draw" from to "justify" any "opinion" I might render.

And he then added, "I hope the chains of your new god are not getting too heavy."

Day Five.

National Security

Without warning, he slapped his son and explained that this is "democratic" self-defense. For in a "democracy" you must be vigilant at all times to stop any "potential" enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. A "potential terrorist" as yourself must be stopped at all cost.

To further "edify" his son about his new god, he had arranged a "special" demonstration with a likeminded fellow-worker. He and his son drove across town to this man's house. The father walked in and started dictating to his friend about his domestic problems, threatened to take his children if he didn't do as he said, and further threatened to use overwhelming force to crush his family into submission in the name of "swift justice." He explained to his son that, according to government "morality," only a coward stands idly by whilst injustice is happening across town. "Its morality" says that all citizens are your brothers, and that problems left to fester will eventually spill over into your neighborhood. Therefore, all of this "must" be done "to insure domestic tranquility," "to promote the general welfare," and "to secure the blessings of liberty" for "the sake of humanity."

Day Six.

Regulating "Morality"

The father used some of the $5 "tax" he took from his son and bought a small bottle of whisky and then lectured his son on the evils of buying drugs. His son pointed out his hypocrisy, but the father reminded him that the majority of people drink and that, as previously demonstrated, according to his "civil master" the needs of the majority is the "moral" standard.

His son and three of his sons friends had a meeting that morning to discuss what they were going to do during their summer vacations, and his father broke up the meeting just after it got started by announcing that "the will of the household" had determined that what they were engaged in was an "unlawful gathering."

He also pointed out to his son that he had installed a CCTV system in his son's bedroom and a system to record all of his telephone conversations. When he protested, the father accused him of having something to hide. He explained that, according to "civil morality," only "criminals" seek privacy and that "good, dutiful "civil" children" exchange their privacy for the advantages which protective parenthood offers. He reminded him of the boy across town who was caught smoking dope in his bedroom by just such a CCTV system, and told his son that he should agree that this case justifies installing CCTV in all teenagers' bedrooms.

He then told his son that he could no longer use cutlery from the kitchen; the son would have to eat dinner with his fingers. When he asked why, the father reminded him of the youth "down the street" who had stabbed a cat to death with a fork last week, and that if just one cat is saved by the banning of cutlery, this prohibition will be worthwhile. When the son disagreed, the "head of the household" questioned him closely about why he was intending to kill innocent cats, and accused him of being a cat hater.

He also informed his son that a "household pass card" would be issued to him which he must show before he could enter the house, and that the "head of the household" would from henceforth stand guard at the front door. "Every time you come home, I'll politely but firmly take you into the spare room and question you about your movements. I'll be checking you to find out what you have on you, and if you have in excess of $5, I'll confiscate it because it exceeds the house rule for maximum cash allowed. If I was the god of government you love so much, and not your loving father, I would also strip search you if you "looked" guilty of something and detain you in a locked room until you confessed.

Day Seven.

The Civil Sabbath

Because his son had been so obedient to his "new" household government, the father gave his son a day of rest. He told him he could do anything he wanted to, as long it conformed to "the sabbath morality" and didn't violate "civil religion" and "government morality." The son asked him to explain exactly what that was. His father said, "whatever makes you feel good and adds to your self-esteem."

Though his father's tactics seemed harsh at the time, his son these many years later reminisces about "Hell Week." Having observed in daily life the truths that his father revealed to him during "The Week that Was," he now gratefully acknowledges the love of his father, and gleefully adds, "it was better to be in hell for one week than for eternity."

Pedis possessio--

Standing upon the Land

For those that have never been able to possess a piece of land due to the restraints of the natural man's commercial world order, and have been led thereby to believe that the Lord does not provide for His children at all times, we offer the following revelations to those children who are in the world but not of it, and therefore will not be seeking to make merchandise of our loving Father's Creation and Providence.

"Pedis possessio: Possession of the foot: an actual foothold; actual possession of land.
Since standing upon land is a natural symbol of possessing it, the phrase has come to mean actual possession of any particular piece of land, as evidenced by occupation, enclosure, etc. Pedis positio: Placing of the foot; a foothold." A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 789.

The alternative to purchasing a "title" or "deed" to land and paying a yearly rent to Caesar (taxes) because of the commercial status thereof, is to "stand upon the land." The more specific phrase to use is "standing upon land that's sitting in waste," and your purpose is to be a caretaker of it and to cultivate it, as mandated in Holy Scripture. If you are moved by the Holy Spirit to proceed in this manner, it is extremely important that you make it clear to others that you are not standing upon the land to acquire title, deed, or ownership to it--for the land belongs to God, and He commanded that it not be sold:

"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me." Leviticus 25:23
"The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." Psalms 24:1
"For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." 1 Corinthians 10:26, 28

In order to find a piece of land upon which you can stand, the first step is to go to the County Tax Assessor's Office or Recorder of Deeds, i.e., where land records are kept within each county (sometimes located at the courthouse). Therein, locate the alphabetical list of land owners. Do a search for "Unknown owner," "Unclaimed land," or other similar words. This will list pieces of land that have never been registered with the county, i.e., they have never entered commerce. Each piece of land will have a corresponding ten digit "Assessor's ID Number." Use this Assessor ID Number to get the section number of the Plat Map that this land is located on. The section number will look similar to the following-- "POR. SEC.14 T.4.N. R.17W." Once you look at this Plat Map (also called a "Licensed Surveyor's Map," or a "Parcel Map"), then you will know the location of this land within the county. There will be names of roads and possibly an address, etc.

Once you find the location of the parcels of unclaimed land, the next step is to physically go to each location and see if it is being used. If there are any signs of it being currently possessed (enclosures, structures, or cultivation), you cannot stand on that land. If, however, this land appears to have never been used, or it appears that it was once used (by having old enclosures and structures on it) but is now abandoned, you may proceed to Stand upon the Land.

Maxims of Law

dealing with Dominion and Possession

Potior est conditio possidentis: The stronger is the condition of the party in possession. A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 790.
Rights of dominion are transferred without title or delivery, by prescription, to wit, long and quiet possession.
The habitation of each one is an inviolable asylum for him.
What belongs to no one, naturally belongs to the first occupant.
Possession is a good title, where no better title appears.
Long possession produces the right of possession, and takes away from the true owner his action.
Possessor has right against all men but him who has the very right.
When a man has the possession as well as the right of property, he is said to have jus duplicatum - a double right, forming a complete title.
A person in possession is not bound to prove that the possessions belong to him.
Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person.
Every man's house is his castle.
Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to it.
With the land goes whatever is on the land planted.
What is built upon the land, goes with the land: a building follows the land.
Land comprehends any ground soil, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, and marshes.

Possessor: He who holds, detains, or enjoys a thing as his own.
A bona fide possessor of land is one who not only supposes himself to be the true proprietor, but who is ignorant that his title is contested by another person claiming a better right to the land. 2 Bl. Com. 198, 190.

Court Decisions and Definitions

"Actual possession: Exists when a thing is in ones immediate occupancy. Constructive possession: Possession in contemplation of the law." Brown v. Volkening, 64 N.Y. 80 (1876); Lillianskyoldt v. Goss, 2 Utah, 297 (1878).

"Actual possession, which means a subjection to the will and dominion of the claimant, is usually evidenced by occupation, by a substantial enclosure, by cultivation, or by appropriate use, according to the particular locality and quality of the property." Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 573 (1860), Field, C.J. See also 71 Ala.265; 1 Cal.263; 16 id. 109; 4 Nev. 68; 59 N.Y. 136.

"Constructive possession, where there is no actual possession, is in him who has the legal and rightful title." Norris's Appeal, 64 Pa. 282 (1870).

"Naked possession: Actual occupation of an estate, without apparent right, or shadow or pretense of right, to hold or continue such possession. Called also bare possession." Gillett v. Gaffney, 3 Col. 360 (1877).

"Thus, where one man invades the possession of another, and by force or surprise turns him out of his occupation, till some act be done by the rightful owner to divest this possession is prima facie evidence of a legal title, which, by length of time, may ripen into an indefeasible title. A man out of possession has remaining the right of possession, which is an apparent right of possession, defensible by proof of a better right, and an actual right of possession, which will stand the test against all opponents." 2 Bl. Com. 195-96; 8 id. 177, 179.

Statutory Terms

Note: To establish your dominion through possession, you will need to avoid using all the terms hereafter. For example, "Adverse Possession" is a statutory term, just as "squatter" is a statutory term. Do not use these terms or answer to them:

Settler or settle.

Squatter or Squatters Rights.

Adverse Possession or Preemption.

Custody or Custodian.

Personal Property

Estate, Realty or Real Estate

These are not the same as "standing upon the land." The "rights of squatters" are greater than those who hold a legal title, but "standing upon land" is greater than the rights of squatters and adverse possessions. Adverse possession (or pre-emption) is a method of gaining legal title to land by openly occupying the land continuously for a number of years (as set by State law) while claiming "ownership" of the land. "Standing on the land" has nothing to do with a legal title to and personal ownership of an "estate" or "realty," which are commercial in nature.

"Adverse possession: Possession of realty avowedly opposed to some claim of title in another." A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 790.

"A possession not under the legal proprietor [owner], but entered into without his consent, directly or indirectly given; a possession by which he is disseised [unlawful dispossession from real property] and ousted." French v. Pierce, 8 Conn. 442-46 (1831), Hosmer, Chief Justice.

"An adverse and hostile possession is one held for the possessor, as distinguished from one held in subordination to the right of another; a possession inconsistent with the possession or right of possession by another. Such is an exclusive possession of one who is not in privity with the true owner. "Visible" and "notorious" are terms employed to denote that the possession must be more than secret, and unknown to the disseised owner. Since acquiescence implies knowledge, a possession that he permits must be "notorious" or known to him." Sheaffer v. Eakman, 56 Pa. 153 (1867), Strong J.; Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. 53 (1837).

"If under claim of right, and uninterrupted, open, visible, and notorious for twenty years, such possession is evidence of title in the possessor, and a good defense in ejectment." Hogan v. Kurtz, 94 U.S. 776 (1876), cases.

"Independently of positive statute law, such a possession affords a presumption that all the claimants to the land acquiesce in the claim of the possessor, or that they forbear for some substantial reason to controvert his claim or to disturb him in his quiet enjoyment. Secret possession will not do, as publicity and notoriety are necessary as evidence of notice and to put adverse claimants upon inquiry. Mere occupation is not sufficient, but adverse and continuous possession is." Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. 145-46 (1871), cases, Clifford J.; Hughes v. United States, 4 id. 232 (1866).

"The weight of authority is that, where one has had the peaceable, undisturbed, open possession of real or personal property, with an assertion of his ownership, for the period which, under the law, would bar an action for its recovery by the real owner, the former has acquired a good title - a title superior to that of the latter, whose neglect to avail himself of his legal rights has lost him his title." Campbell v. Holy, 115 U.S. 623 (1885), cases, Miller, J.; Gilbert v. Decker, 53 Conn. 401-5 (1865), cases; Hollingsworth v. Sherman, 81 Va. 671, 674 (1886), cases.

"Adverse possession of vacant lands, under color of title, includes as much as is within the boundaries of the title, and to that extent the true owner is disseised. But if the latter be in actual possession of any part, his constructive seizure extends to not all in fact occupied by the intruder. The reason is, the intruder's acts give notice only to the extent of actual occupancy." Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U.S. 368-69 (1880), cases, Strong, J.

"Prescription: Title by prescription is a right which a possessor of land acquires by reason of his diverse possession during a period of time fixed by law, and where it does not originate in fraud, and is under a claim of right. What the primary owner has lost by his laches the other party has gained by continued possession, without question of his right. This is the foundation of the doctrine, which, in the English law, is mainly applied to incorporeal hereditaments, but which in the Roman law, and the codes founded on it, is applied to property of all kinds." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), page 804.

"Settler: Within the meaning of pre-emption laws, one who actually resides upon the land in question." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), page 944.

"Pre-emptor: He who holds such prior right of purchase. One who by settlement on the public land or by cultivating a portion of it has obtained the right to purchase a portion of such land, to the exclusion of all other persons." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), page 800.

"Squatter's right: The "right" to ownership of land merely because you have occupied it for a long time. This is different than adverse possession and is not recognized as a right in most places." Oran's Dictionary of the Law.

"Squatter: A person who settles or locates on land without obtaining legal title. n. 1. a person or thing that squats. 2. a person who occupies property without permission, lease, or payment of rent. 3. a person who settles on land under government regulation, in order to acquire title." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), page 963.

"Squatter: 1. One who squats; specifically, one who settles unlawfully upon land without a title. In the United States and Australia the term is sometimes applied also to a person who settles lawfully upon government land under permission and restrictions, before acquiring title. In such a tract, squatters and trespassers were tolerated to an extent now unknown. Macaulay. 2. (Zoöl.) See Squat snipe, under Squat. Squatter sovereignty, the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a Territory of the United States to make their own laws." [Local, U.S.] Bartlett. Webster Dictionary (1913), Page: 1397.

"Squat: v. 1. To sit down upon the hams or heels; as, the savages squatted near the fire. 2. To sit close to the ground; to cower; to stoop, or lie close, to escape observation, as a partridge or rabbit. 3. To settle on another's land without title; also, to settle on common or public lands." Webster Dictionary (1913), Page: 1397.

Miscellaneous Terms

"Support: The right in an owner to rely upon the support afforded his land by the ground adjoining, in its natural state. Spoken of as "lateral," when the support is thought of as contiguous or adjacent, rather than as subjacent.

The right to support for land in its natural condition is ex jure naturae, not dependent on grant and not acquirable by prescription. The right to support for artificial burdens is an easement acquirable only by grant, express or implied.

Subject to any express grant, reservation, covenant, or inconsistent right gained by prescription, it is well established that when the surface of land belongs to one person and the subjacent earth and minerals to another, the latter is burdened with a natural servitude to support the former, and also that the owner of land is entitled to the performance of a similar servitude of lateral support by adjacent land; but these easements only extend to the land in its natural and unencumbered state, and not with the additional weight of buildings upon it.

Every land-owner has a right to have his land preserved unbroken. An adjacent owner excavating on his land is subject to the restriction that he must not remove the earth so near his neighbor's land that his soil will crumble under its own weight and fall. But this right to lateral support extends only to soil in its natural condition. It does not protect whatever is placed upon the soil increasing the downward and lateral pressure. If it did, it would be in the power of a lot-owner, by erecting heavy buildings, to greatly abridge the right of his neighbor to use his lot." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), Pages 994-995.

"Title: A person may have a title to property although he is not the absolute owner. If he has the actual or constructive possession, or the right of possession, he has a title." A Dictionary of Law, William C. Anderson (1893), Page 1034.

The State cannot Tax Land--

only Patents to Land

The following evidences that the "government" can only tax the patent to the land that it has issued, and not the land itself.

This is a message from the Governor of Minnesota, which would introduce a Bill for the incorporation of the town of Marmata. The Private Secretary of His Excellency the Governor appeared and presented a message and accompanying documents from the Governor. On motion, the message was read by the Clerk as follows:

Executive Office, St. Paul, Minn., June 15th, 1858

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I feel it to be my duty to transmit to you, information relative to the affairs of the State, and to recommend such action as, in my judgment, will be most conducive to the public interests.

Owing to the delay attendant upon the induction into office of the State Officers elect, the assessment of property required to be made under the direction of the Auditor, has not yet been commenced. The rolls have been printed and are ready for distribution to the Register of Deeds of the several counties, but some weeks must elapse before they can be placed in the hands of the township assessors. I therefore suggest for your consideration, that the time for the assessment of property be extended to the 15th of August.

The late decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, by which lands owned by individuals for which the patents have not issued, are declared free from taxation, has not been received here in an official form, but there seems to be little doubt that such a decision has been made. In that case a very great diminution will be the result in the anticipated revenue of the State for taxes the coming year, as in most of the new, and in some of the older counties, large tracts of land have been entered by pre-emption, but no patents have yet been issued. Therefore, I recommend that a memorial be passed as soon as practical, by you, to the President, asking that patents be issued for all such lands by the General Land Office, with the utmost possible expedition, so that they may be included in the assessments for the coming year.

It will probably be found necessary, likewise, to provide more specifically by statute for separate assessments upon the improvements made on these lands, so that in case the patent cannot be issued at a sufficiently early period to enable the assessors to place the land itself on the rolls of the present year, the burden of taxation may be as nearly equalized throughout the State, as circumstances will permit. The man who holds the duplicate of the Land Office is really as much the owner of his land as his neighbor who has received his patent, and a mere technicality should not shield him from sharing equally with that neighbor, in supporting the government which protects both alike in the possession of their property. In the memorial to the President, he might properly be petitioned to instruct the Commissioner of the General Land Office to cause to be transmitted to the Governor, to be filed in the office of the State Auditor, a list of the patents issued, with a description of the lands therein contained, in this State, at the expiration of each three months. If this could be done, the Auditor would have the means in his power to afford correct information to the assessors in the different counties, which they could not readily obtain in any other manner.

In consequence of the depreciated value of real estate everywhere caused by the financial derangements in the country, together with the exemption from taxation of so much land under the decision of the Supreme Court referred to, it would not be safe to base an estimate upon the taxable property of the State, of more than $35,000,000 or $40,000,000. Should the next regular session of the Legislature not take place before the middle of the year 1859, I trust that by exercise of strict economy, the expenses of the intervening period may be met, even upon that reduced basis of calculation. To effect this, however, it will be necessary for you to pass a stringent law, to compel the collecting officers in the different counties to pay into the State Treasury, within a fixed period in each year, the amount for which such counties are liable, for it is evident that the tax system tolerated under the Territorial Government cannot be permitted to continue with safety to the State. There is already due of unpaid taxes from many of the counties between $25,000 and $30,000, which should also be collected during the current year. It does not appear from the books of the late Auditor and Treasurer, that any money remains in the Treasury, and as the report of the latter officer lately made to you, shows that nearly all of the $250,000 has already been appropriated to meet Territorial and State liabilities, leaving a small amount only wherewith to meet the expenses of your session, and other necessary demands, the appropriations for the support of the State Government, etc., must necessarily be in anticipation of the revenue to be derived from taxation. The Constitution limits the State debt to $250,000 so that no further issue of Scrip or other evidences of indebtedness by the State is allowable.

As the law authorizing the loan of $250,000, imposed upon the Government and Treasurer the duty of negotiating it, upon consultation we deemed it most advantageous to receive bids therefore, in the city of New York, and measures have been taken to advertise for proposals there until the first of July next, in the papers of that and other commercial cities.

I propose to meet the Treasurer in New York on the 25th inst., it being advisable for us to have personal interviews with leading capitalists before the expiration of the time specified for receiving proposals, that we may give such verbal explanations with regard to the resources of the State, and particulars connected with the contemplated loan, as may be required. It is my intention, also, to visit Washington before my return to urge upon the President the necessity of causing all the patents for lands in this State, which have not yet been prepared, to be issued without delay."

Buying Land

If someone buys land, or a part of someone else's land, one can just stand on the land. There need not be any "price" recorded for the so-called "purchase," because "...freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). And as far as the government is concerned, the "previous owner" can just inform them that the land is no longer his.

The "government" might want to contact you and tell you they want their yearly "rent" from you for living on "their" land which they issued a patent to for your commercial use. If you do not receive free mail delivery, they won't be able to contact you through mail. So, they may try to call you on the phone. When you answer the phone, you should say, "Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus. Do you greet me in the same name?" If they do not understand the question, you may say, "God's Law is the Law I follow, so you must find your answers there." And if they say they are calling in the name of another besides Christ (i.e., THE COUNTY--Caesar), you can tell them, "Well, the only the purpose for which the Lord brought us together is for us to speak the truth to one another. Therefore, that is what I will discuss, for I am to obey rather than men.."

So, they may try to contact you by coming to your land "in person." Remember, they do not tax the land, they only tax the commercial "title" to the land. If they show you a piece of paper that claims jurisdiction for them, you can tell them, "That piece of paper does not represent or attach to this land." Then point out all the abbreviations on that paper, and show them how it is only an "image," a creation of man.

Posting the Close over the Land--

not a NO TRESPASSING sign

In reading the notice at the bottom of this article, you might think it says the same thing as your commercial "NO TRESPASSING" sign says. This may be difficult to understand, but there is a universe of difference between the two--a great chasm separating them, if you will. Chaff is not wheat, and wheat is not chaff.

We are to enter into that Righteous Relationship with God, through our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus, by the Grace God gives to men called for His Righteous Purposes. It is this relationship which is evidenced to the world by the outward acts (James 2:14-26).

"Outward acts indicate inward intent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.
"Acts indicate the intention." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2124.

The Intent of a bondservant of Christ is twofold: One, to walk meekly before God our Father doing all things for His Glory and Majesty to the end of revealing to the world Him and the Superiority of His Ways as you walk in them; and, Two, to Lawfully execute the Duties and Powers appertaining to the Noble and Sacred Office of the Christ, for the Glory of His only Begotten Son.

God, through His Son, bestows conditional Authority, Powers, Privileges and Immunities to those called by Him. The conditional nature is that those who are called must answer that call by ministering for Him, not for themselves. Let us make no mistake about this--no one has any inherent Lawful "right" to adoption by God. Thus, it is not a matter of "self-will" or "personal choice." It is solely a matter of the Grace of Him Who calls you to repentance. And with it, men find that eternal life in Him Who called them. Having once been called and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, a new creature is born in a Venue separate from the will of men; and are not subordinate to the will of men, but submissive or meek (praus) only to the voice of their only Master and Shepherd Christ Jesus, the Author of the call. To be born of the Spirit of God is not to be born of the spirit of codes, rules, and regulations. Therefore, the stranger is one who comes in the name or warrant of such things, which are not general laws emanating from the Body of Christ, His ekklesia. This may seem harsh, but stranger is the appropriate word. Because Christ Jesus is the Only Door, then those who do not have that relationship with Him are strangers, not being His several Ministerial Officers executing His Testament:

"STRANGERS. By this term is intended third persons generally. Thus the persons bound by a fine are parties, privies, and strangers; the parties are either cognizors or cognizees; the privies are such as are in any way related to those who levy the fine, and claim under them by any right of blood, or other right of representation [*Christ Jesus is our Mediator]; the strangers are all other persons in the world, except only the parties and privies. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word 'privy.' Those who are in no way parties to a covenant [*establishing the Inheritance and adoption], nor bound by it [*Lawless, anomian and antinomians] are also said to be strangers to the covenant. Brown. See Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L.Ed. 427; Wilson v. Smith, 213 Ky. 836, 281 S.W. 1008, 1010; State v. Mills, 23 N.M. 549, 169 P. 1171, 1173; Gronewold v. Gronewold, 304 Ill. 11, 136 N.E. 489, 490. See, also, STRANGER." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968), page 1590.

Beware then, of those who come in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves, seeking whom they may devour:

"PERSONATE. In criminal law. To assume the person (character) of another, without his consent or knowledge, in order to deceive others, and, in such feigned character, to fraudulently do some act or gain some advantage, to the harm or prejudice of the person counterfeited. 2 East, P.C. 1010. To pass one's self off as another having a certain identity. Lane v. U.S., C.C.A.Ohio, 17 F.2d 923." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 1301.

The stranger is of the will of man, for the Ways of God are not the ways of man:

"For My counsels are not as your counsels, nor are My ways as your ways, saith the Lord. But as the heaven is distant from the earth, so is My way distant from your ways, and your thoughts from My mind" Isaiah 55:8-9

If you are an heir, then you must manifest such by bearing the fruits of repentance--obedience and meekness--and claim that Inheritance of God given you through Christ Jesus, "for the meek shall inherit the earth." (see Matthew 5:5 and Psalm 37:11). Such is the foregoing notice--but it is not the whole earth you inherit--it is the Close you Inherit, that Righteous Warrant in the Law which establishes the Power to claim the land in His Name and not your own. We cannot, and, in deed must not, use any commercial counterfeits. Why? Because of the following maxims of Law that man will look to for determination:

"The cause and origin is the substance of the thing; the cause and origin of a thing are a material part of it." Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1957 & 1968), p. 278; Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.
"That which is the principal part of a thing is the thing itself." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2166.

If you use a commercial counterfeit, then the source is not of God's or His Law--it is the lex mercatoria. Thus, there is no sanctification or separation from and between yourself and Caesar's commercial world. You will have ignorantly imported the fiction over the Truth in Christ Jesus, thereby marring the Seal of, and grieving, the Holy Spirit of God our Father. You must declare the Law written on your heart having the Seal of the Spirit of God which evidences and witnesses your adoption by Him in and through Christ Jesus. It is the adoption and evidence or witness of the Holy Spirit which gives evidence or witness of interest in the Close declared by the Law. The two are like a hand in a glove. If you use a commercial counterfeit, the foot does not fit a glove made for the hand; neither does a stocking properly fit a hand. You must use the law fit for the purpose and God's Law is the only law that governs the Close given you by Him through Christ Jesus:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

This is the original act bringing the estate into being. All other derivative estates are necessarily dependent upon and governed by the Intent and Will of God, the Creator of all.

"The law is the highest inheritance that the king possesses; for by the law both he and all his subjects are ruled; and if there were no law, there would be neither king nor inheritance." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.
"Trespass distinguished. Waste is an injury to the inheritance by one rightfully in possession of the property. Trespass is an injury to the estate or the use thereof by one who is a stranger to the title, with no right whatever in the property." Stephenson v. National Bank of Winter Haven, 109 So. 424, 425, 92 Fla. 347; Brigham v. Overstreet, 57 S.E. 484, 128 Ga. 447, 10 L.R.A.N.S. 452, 11 Ann.Cas. 75; Dahlquist v. Mattson, 233 P. 883, 886, 40 Idaho 378; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland 569, 18 Am.D. 350; Price v. Ward, 58 P. 849, 25 Nev. 203, 46 L.R.A. 459; Roots v. Boring Junction Lumber Co., 92 P. 811, 94 P. 182, 50 Or. 298; Walker v. Fox, 2 S.W. 98, 85 Tenn. 154; Lander v. Hall, 34 N.W. 80, 69 Wisc. 326; Lowndes v. Bettle (English), 33 L.J.Ch. 451.

Posting the Close

Posted

Notice to All Breaking the Close over this land:

Obedient sons of God our Father solely by His Grace through our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, to all breaking this Close of and over this land, greetings from God our Father, and His Son Christ Jesus:

In the Blessed Name and Authority of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, by His Direction and Mandate and under His Warrant in His Testament, we hereby post the following at the gates to this Close of and over this land and on the door posts of the dwelling-house thereof:

Whereas, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and His Intent manifested in His original Act in His Testament of bringing into being His Estate governs all derived from it; therefore when God our Father sent His Son to execute His Testament according to His Will, so His Son sent into the world those called by Him from the foundation of the world for His Dignity, Glory, Majesty and Purposes; and,

Whereas, as many as believe in and on His Son He gives the power to become the sons of God by and through adoption, and a son hath Inheritance common in all other sons through and in Christ Jesus, therefore the Close of and over this land and all Dominion in and of the Inheritance established by, through and in Christ Jesus, have been Willed by God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, to His sons and his seed in perpetuity; and,

Whereas, the Will of our King and Testator in His Law and Testament instituting the Inheritance establishes and governs the Dominion of those who Inherit the Close of and over this land instituted by our King in His Law and Testament, therefore those who act and do contrary to the Will of our King and Testator are not His sons, but bastards, having no Close or Dominion in and to any Inheritance established by the Will of our Blessed King and Testator; and,

Whereas, the Law of God and the law of the land are all one, and both favour and preserve the common good of the land, therefore ignorance of God's Law is no excuse, for all men know God, even His eternal Power and Godhood, and are not presumed ignorant of their eternal welfare; and,

Wherefore, any and all who enter here without consent evidenced by Warrant in Law from God our Father, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ, and His several appointed Ministerial Officers having and being of one Mind in the Christ, but enter either in their own name or by the name of a stranger having no Dominion of and in the Inheritance common among all bondservants of Jesus the Christ: One, break this Close; Two, breach the Peace of our King, by violating His Law establishing this Close and all Powers appertaining to His Noble and Sacred Ministerial Office; Three, disturb, and thereby destroy the Domestic Tranquility of His sons; Four, endanger His Inheritance in and of His sons by adoption; and, Five, are, in His Law governing this Close, trespassers, thieves, and robbers having not entered through the Door; and,

Therefore, an action of trespass quare clausam fregit will lie against all such who break this Close through or under such pretenses or color of Law.

Removing the Registration to Land

Many have asked about how one can remove or "junk" the registration of land, similar to how one can junk the title to an automobile. At this time, we have information on two different "laws" from two different States, explaining how to "Unregister" land.

The first statute is from North Carolina found in:

The General Statutes of North Carolina
Chapter 43 - Land Registration
Section 43-25 - Release from Registration

which explains how one can "remove" the registration, and states that it will be "as if such estate had never been so registered."

The second law is from New York found in:

The New York State Consolidated Laws
Article 12-Registering Title to Real Property
Section 404

wherein it explains the process of "withdrawal from registration." Because of their length, the full texts of them are not included in this article. To find out the corresponding law in the state where you are currently sojourning, you will have to do some cross-referencing at the law library.

In our studies and research on this vital subject, we hope to be able to continue to share and receive any additional information that our Brothers and Sisters will be able to use for our Father's Glory. As always, we welcome fellowship anytime.

Invoking God's Truth in Court

When Peter and John were arrested and taken to the council, they didn't give an invitation to be arrested, they were taken involuntarily, but neither one of them drew a sword nor resisted. This conforms up with what Paul said:

"(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:4-6

As bondservants of Jesus the Christ, we witness to the world from without to change it for the Glory of God from within. Our weapons are specifically mentioned in Ephesians 6:11-20.

Peter and John went along to the council because they had to bear witness of the Truth to the Sanhedrim as to why and what they were doing. Notice how simple the words Peter and John spoke; so simple that they could not be overcome:

"But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Acts 4:19-20

They didn't use extravagant words or opinions, they used Truth. In other words, Peter and John were saying, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and they were declaring that hearsay would not be the truth, and is not evidence, because they can only speak of things that they themselves have witnessed (John 18:34).

Appearing in Court

We should never appear in court voluntarily, because that would cause joinder and give them jurisdiction over us to take away our physical liberty. This is what happened to Paul in Acts 25 through 26. Paul's life was in danger, and he appealed to Caesar's courts (Acts 25:11-12,21,25; 28:19), and we see the possible outcome otherwise:

"Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar." Acts 26:32

In other words, the king himself, Agrippa, wished for Paul's immediate liberation; but this was now rendered impracticable, because he had appealed to Caesar. The appeal was no doubt recorded, and the whole affairs must now proceed to a full hearing. If Festus had decided before Paul had made his appeal, he would have been released; but as the appeal had now been made, to Caesar he must go.

Now, with Paul in this case, we must remember that it was a "special" circumstance, as we now know from Scripture. It was the Lord's will that he go to Rome.

But, as Paul wrote, we are specifically prohibited from going to courts before the natural man:

"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." 1 Corinthians 6:1

The terms "unjust" and "saints" in the above verse are referring to unbelievers as opposed to believers. How incredible that the just should go before the unjust for justice! Why set them to judge who are least esteemed (i.e. the heathen) in the Christ's assembly (1 Corinthians 6:4)?

And our Lord said at Luke 12:11, "When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers" Notice we are not to bring ourselves voluntarily to their courts, but they are the ones who must bring us to their courts. And do not worry about how you should answer them once in court, because we have these promises from God as Luke continues:

"...take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say."
"Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:14-15

What is the purpose for being "brought" to court? Peter states the purpose:

"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." 1 Peter 2:15-16

So, yes, you are going to be taken before the magistrate, but it's the will of God that you appear before magistrates, and it's also the will of God that you speak the Truth to them, so that they also will understand and come to the knowledge of God, through Christ Jesus:

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matthew 5:16

This is bearing witness to the world. When the world attacks you, you bear witness to the Truth. We are to bear witness of Christ Jesus in us that the world may see who He is, and have that evidence in the works that we do and the words that we speak. This is how we are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). We are not the salt of the world, as others have misspoken, but only the light of the world. The world has no salt. We are "the salt of the earth" but not of the world (Matthew 5:13). The terms 'world' and 'earth' have different meanings. Jesus certainly made a distinction between 'world' and 'earth' when he said, "I have overcome the world" at John 16:33. This would not make any sense if he said, "I have overcome the earth."

If you go to Jail

If you are taken to jail, do not fret. Do not think, "Man is hindering the work that God has for me by putting me in jail," because man does not have the power to hinder God's Will. Remember Joseph (Genesis 37-48)? He was shown a vision by God that he would be a ruler some day. But his brothers sold him into slavery, and then his master's wife falsely accused him of rape, and he was thrown into prison for years and years. It might have never crossed Joseph's mind, until it was all over, that this was God's process to prepare him to rule. Joseph was learning obedience by what he suffered (Hebrews 5:8). And after God saw to it that he was ready, Joseph became a ruler.

Often in these training-up periods we focus on the impossibility of our circumstances, instead of the greatness of God. As a result we are discouraged and need to blame someone, so we look for the one we "feel" is responsible for our despair. When we face the fact that God could have prevented our whole mess, and didn't, we often blame God. Prison was a time of sifting for Joseph, but it was also a time of opportunity.

Now let's look at the example of Paul. On the Sabbath day (Acts 16:13), Paul did the godly work of healing a woman who was possessed (Acts 16:16-18), but this took away "gain" from some merchants, so they accused Paul and brought him to the rulers and magistrates (Acts 16:19-21). The magistrates sentenced him to get beaten with 39 stripes (2 Corinthians 11:24), and put him in prison with his feet in stocks (Acts 16:22-24). Did Paul get depressed and complain that men were hindering him from doing God's Will? No. Did he get angry at the men who put him in prison? No. What did Paul do? Well, let's see:

"And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God:" Acts 16:25

Then his loving Father sent an earthquake which opened the prison doors and loosed the shackles from everyone (Acts 16:26). Most people would look at this as an opportunity to "escape" from prison. After all, it's not God's Will that we be in prison. Right? If God loosed my chains, that must mean he wants me to escape. Right? But is this what Paul did? No, Paul did not leave prison; he stayed in prison!:

"And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled." Acts 16:27

Paul did not flee, he stayed put. And because he stayed, Paul stopped the prison guard from committing suicide! If Paul escaped, the guard would have died (if not by suicide, then by Caesar's sword, because death was the penalty to a guard if his prisoner escaped). And this was now an opportunity to witness to him! And after the guard heard the Truth, the guard and his household were baptized and became believers in God (Acts 16:29-34).

But this is not all. The next day, the magistrates told the sergeants, which, in turn, told the guards, to tell Paul that he and his men were free to go (Acts 16:35-36)! Did Paul leave prison after he had permission from the guards? No, he did not!!! Why? Listen to what Paul said:

"But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out." Acts 16:37

Paul wanted his accusers to tell him, face to face, that he was free to go. He did not want them to release him "privately." And even though his accusers feared him because of this bold stand, his accusers themselves did go to him and asked him to leave prison (Acts 16:38-39). This humbled his accusers. And only then did Paul leave prison (Acts 16:40).

The earthquake was not intended to deliver Paul but to convert the jailer; God knew that Paul would be released the next day. Likewise, maybe God will send you to jail to convert someone in need. The earthquake would have been meaningless had not the jailer and prisoners heard Paul's testimony in prayer and song. Their singing brought about divine intervention. If you go to jail, you should do likewise. Not for your benefit, but for God's Glory.

Some may think that they cannot submit to jail or prison. You can submit to unfair treatment, if you know the Father's Will is unfolding:

"For this is acceptable if, for the sake of conscience toward God, anyone endures griefs, suffering unjustly. For what glory is it, if sinning and being buffeted ye endure it? but if doing good and suffering ye endure it, this is acceptable with God. For to this ye were called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow after in his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: Who, being railed at, railed not in return; when suffering threatened not; but gave Himself over to Him who judges righteously:" 1 Peter 2:19-23

Before Trial

Sometimes, when you tell a judge that you are a bondservant of Christ Jesus, he will send you to a psychiatric hospital to see if you're crazy. There is no obligation for you to say anything to the psychologist, but if you do say anything, simply speak the Truth to them and take the opportunity to share the Kingdom of God with him.

A court may also try to force you to take a lawyer, often by assigning a court appointed attorney to you. By accepting a lawyer you give jurisdiction to the court, and you are considered a "ward of the court" in their heathen law, meaning you are not capable of speaking in court. Besides, this is a benefit of the court, and will nullify your witness. You cannot be forced to accept one. Therefore, when the lawyer comes to see you, simply tell him, "If you believe you are hired, consider yourself fired. Christ Jesus, and He alone, is my Advocate and Wonderful Counselor."

Before you are brought to the judge, pray for the judge, and pray that his judgment will be a righteous judgment as God would have led him to make. The judge's job is not easy, and pray that God will bless him with the strength and wisdom to do it well, and pray that God continue to bless him. The judge will most likely be under political pressure from the government, and from the court that he works in.

How to Speak in Court

Those in government are trying to impose a foreign law on you, by taking you out of your godly venue and putting you in a foreign venue to answer a charge to a foreign law. They are always testing the spirits. Therefore, when you walk into a foreign court, you must import God's Law into that court in order to distinguish and separate yourself from that court's foreign law. When you are confronted by governing authorities, pray in spirit while you are talking to them. For example, "Father, just give me the words. Tell me what it is you want me to say and I'll say it, because I know that only your knowledge and wisdom will deliver me out of these tribulations."

Warning: Do not ever keep a copy of this paper with you while you are on the roads or in court. If you do, and the judge sees this paper, it will nullify your witness, because the words you speak are not coming from your heart as guided by the Holy Spirit, but are coming from a piece of paper. The governing authorities will see by your actions that you are lacking in faith, and they will not believe that you mean what you say. More important than the words that come out of your mouth is whether or not you are sincere in what you speak. If you are simply repeating what somebody else told you, you are not being sincere. These are not just words that you're parroting, because even the natural man knows when you're lying because he walks in a lie all the time, so he recognizes his own. So, you have to speak the things that are written on your heart.

It's okay to have a prepared statement, and to tell the judge, "For the record, I'd like to make some points," and then read from that. But you should only have points you want to cover on it, and then speak from the heart on those points.

The Name

If you have not answered to the fictitious name that Caesar has given you, Caesar will assign a different fictitious name to you; JOHN DOE. Never answer to this name:

"John Doe: A fictitious name frequently used to indicate a person for the purpose of argument or illustration, or in the course of enforcing a fiction in the law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, page 1696.

By answering to this name, you admit you're a "person," engaged in an "argument," and are a partaker of Caesar's "fictions of law."

The following responses given here are only to show the general spirit of how one may fend off the fiery darts of the natural man's courtroom, and are not to be taken word for word. All questions and answers are different according to each individual situation, so let the Holy Spirit lead you.

If the judge calls out your name (RICHARD JAMES for example, even if Richard James is your God-given name), do not respond, since that name is not yours. Even if it sounds like your name, it will not be the correct spelling, because all names on their process are spelled in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and, since your name is not spelled in all capital letters, that name is not yours. That is not who you are.

You may say, "Are you trying to hail me?" If judge says, "Yes," then say, "I send you greetings from our King and Lord, Jesus, the Christ. I am a bondservant of the King, and I am here to execute His will and testament. I could not be who you think I am because the name you have is in all capital letters, which as it is written in your foreign law, is a misnomer."

There are possibly two ways the court may proceed.

1) The judge may try to ignore your abatement of the misnomer and pretend it's not important. In this case, face the prosecutor and say, "I wish to state that I am not the person named in this particular action, by virtue of the fact that the name on your process is spelled in all capital letters, and therefore could not be me. My God-given name does not appear on your purported process. I am who my Lawgiver says I am, not who you say I am. Is it not written in your foreign law that, no man can sue somebody in the name of another? You are attempting to deceive me and the magistrate by your imposition of your purported process, by suing me in the name of another. How say you?

2) On the other hand, the judge might say, "Yes, it is spelled in capital letters." Then respond, "My God-given name is spelled capital "R," lowercase "i,c,h,a,r,d, etc." and proceed to spell it.

If the judge says something like, "Let's go over this. I want to get the spelling correct. Your first name is" You should recognize here that the judge's patronizing acceptance of the proper spelling is done for deceptive purposes. By the acceptance of the proper spelling by the Court, they have recognized your substance in Christ and have abandoned the ability of prosecuting you. One should object to this acceptance because the Court can "normally" only prosecute the "person" (name in all caps), not the substance. If objection is not made, it is taken by the court that you are giving permission to be prosecuted. So say something like, "I object to being prosecuted under my God-given name. The court does not have the ability of prosecuting me under my true name without my permission. For the record, I do not give this court permission to do so."

If the court addresses you as "Mr." so and so, or as 'Sir', respond, "For the record, I am not a 'Mr.' or a 'Sir,' for those are pagan and heathen titles of nobility." If they continue to use those designations, it doesn't matter, for you have rebutted the presumption that you are one of their pagan entities.

The court is presuming you are the person named on their papers. They may try to "test" you to establish a response from you to the "name" on their papers, so that they may "presume" jurisdiction over you. For example, the court may say, "Mr. --, why don't you have a seat for just a minute." Then, after you sit down, the court might say, "Mr. --, would you stand up, please." Having responded to the name by sitting down and standing up at the direction of the judge, the judge can now presume that "you and the name are one and the same," due to the obedience shown by his commands.

If the court says, "Well, it says on our papers that you are so and so," then reply, "You say it does." If the court says, "So, are you saying you are not so and so?" Do not answer yes or no, do not deny or confirm it. Simply say, "As I told you, you say it does." If the court asks you, "Well, what is your name?" reply, "I will also ask you one thing. Is a name a note, symbol, or mark of a thing given by those in authority to those in subjection to that authority?" If the judge is "honest," he should concur and say, "Yes." If then, reply, "Well, I am under the authority of Christ Jesus, and I am commanded by Him to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25). Since I do not have a name given to me by Caesar, I do not have a name that can be rendered to Caesar." If the court asks what others call you, you can say, "That's not important, and it's irrelevant. What's important is that I am not so and so. My accuser presumes I am so and so. But it is written in both God's Law and man's law that everything must be proven by at least two witnesses. I see no witnesses here."

Presumptions

If accused of being a resident one should respond, "You say I'm a resident, but I'm a bondservant of and sojourner with Jesus the Christ."

If they say their laws apply to non-residents as well, respond, "You say I'm a non-resident (or civilian, person, human being, etc.), but my Father has never described me as such. I'm a bondservant of and sojourner with Jesus the Christ. You are making presumptions contrary to the facts already in evidence."

If asked what evidence, respond: "The Truth of the Matter spoken. I am who my Father says I am, not who Caesar says I am. For instance, are you breathing on your own, or is God giving you your breath? If you have control over you're own breath, then you would live forever. Where does your DNA come from? Were you created randomly by chance or Caesar, or were you created by God? You are living proof that there is a Creator."

If the court reads the charges to you, they are still against the "person" only. One reply could be, "Those charges are against the person RICHARD JAMES in all capital letters, which I am not, because I am known by, and do the will of, my Father only

If the court has your fingerprints and tries to admit evidence to prove you to be one of theirs, such as showing the mug shot from their computers, or a signature of you from a piece of paper, these are fictions and can be rebutted. If they point to a picture of you and ask, "Is this you?" Reply "You say it is me, but that is only a false image in your mind." It might be an "image" of you, but it is not you. Besides, anybody can put a picture in a computer and add whatever false information they want about that picture.

If they ask if that's your signature on a piece of paper, and claim it as evidence, reply: "You say it is, but it is only another false image." It might be a "false seal" signature from your "old man," but you have become a "new man" in Christ. But you must repent of that. You just can't pick and choose what you want to be your signature, you must repent of merging yourself with the unclean things, and not do it again. That is part of putting off the old man (Colossians 3).

You may also add, "By the law of My Master, in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13:1). Where are your witnesses? You are asking me to be a witness against myself. Everything on a piece of paper is an idle word. Everything on a computer is a false image. You presume that is my signature. You presume that is me in the computer. But those presumptions are all based on false images."

You may also say, "It is written in your law that computer generated images evidences nothing and have no substance, and are nothing more than conclusionary reasoning indulged in to supply the absence of facts. And 'reason" means whatever you want it to mean."

Authority

It is written in your law that "No man is ignorant of his eternal welfare" (maxim), and "that which is contrary to the Law of God is no law at all (Blackstone). The Scripture saith, "There is one lawgiver (James 4:12). The Lord is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22)." It is also written in your law, "We are all bound to our lawgiver, regardless of our personal interpretation of reality (maxim)" and "Legality is not reality (maxim)." The reality is what God says it is, not what your perception of it is. It is also written in your law, "There is no fiction without law. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions (maxim)."

If the judge says you cannot bring God's Law into his court, you can say, "I did not bring God's Law in here, you did. I'm simply confirming it."

If the judge says no preaching is allowed in his courtroom, you can respond by saying, "I am not preaching, I am declaring the Law. It is only your opinion that I'm preaching. Is your opinion greater than the Truth?"

If he labels you a "defendant," respond by saying, "I am not defending anything. I am simply maintaining my standing in law in the office of Christ. I am one of His several ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20, John 20:21), and it is written in your law, "It is contrary to the Law of Nations to violate the Rights of Ambassadors (maxim)."

If they ask you to prove ambassadorship, say, "It is written in your law, 'everything must be proved by two witnesses' (Maxim). The works I do bear witness of who and what I am, as do the scriptures, the Holy Spirit, all the saints in heaven, and my Father that sent me."

If they ask who your father is, reply, "As an ambassador of Jesus the Christ, you neither know me nor my Father: if you had known me, you should have known my Father also" (John 8:19).

If they ask where in the scripture it says I'm an ambassador, reply, "Is it not written in your law, 'Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law (maxim)' and 'All men know God' (maxim)."

If they try to discuss the facts of the case, reply, "Do you say this thing of yourself, or did others tell it to you of me? (John 18:34 )."

Do not discuss the facts of the case, because it will be defensive and it will cause "joinder," and the court will presume jurisdiction. The court will seek the "Benefit of Discussion" in order to further "enhance" the jurisdiction of the court. In this situation, we must stay with the Sword of the Word, avoiding any defensive posture or addressing the facts of the case, thereby avoiding any joinder.

If the judge threatens you with contempt of court, reply, "I am not being contemptuous because I am speaking the Truth, and the Truth is not contemptuous. If you are claiming that the Truth is contemptuous, then you are claiming that God is contemptuous, for He is the author of all Truth."

Declare the Law

Remember, you are in court to declare the Law, and not to dispute or join with their jurisdiction. Raise a political question, because there's no jurisdiction there. An example of a political question would be to confess that you are a bondservant of Christ. Man's law only applies to "persons", and under the law of slaves, slaves are not persons. The courts recognize this, and judges cannot decide on political questions. That political question is "Who do you belong to? Which Kingdom do you walk in? Do you walk in man's kingdom or God's Kingdom? You have to evidence that you are part of His Kingdom, by the words that come out of your mouth and your daily walk. You can say you're a Christian all day long and you love Jesus, but if you partake of the things of the world then you belong to the world! And the world will take jurisdiction over you. Jesus told us we cannot serve two masters, and if you are serving two masters, that second master will have jurisdiction over you. If you challenge jurisdiction in a court because of your status, as soon as you argue status you give them jurisdiction, because you're arguing a "moral" question, and moral questions are of their realm.

If accused of being brought in court for "breaking the law," respond, "I am here by visitation to declare and testify to you the Gospel of Christ. This is why God brought me here, to bring you the Gospel." You should only make positive declaratory statements. You don't ever hear our Lord or His apostles saying, "I believe" and then go on with an opinion. Or saying, "The morality of this situation dictates this" They never spoke like that. At every question that was put to them, they declared the Law, and wasted no words:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

They didn't say "we believe we ought to obey God," or "we think that we ought to obey God," or "we have heard that we ought to obey God." When you say, "I believe I ought to obey God," that's not a positive declaratory statement. When you say, "I believe," that's an opinion and the courts can now discuss that. But if you make a positive declaratory statement such as "We ought to obey God rather than men," the issue is not open for discussion, the issue was already settled in God's Word. And there's nothing anyone can do against it. It's out of our hands. When you say "I believe," or "I feel," then someone can attack your feelings or your thoughts, and twist you around like the serpent did to Eve in the Garden of Eden, and get you to walk away from the Truth.

All you should do is make declaratory statements, the same statements that our Father has already made and declared in His Word. This is how you follow Him and how you walk in His Way. Basically, you answer like Christ answered, "It is written" You're basically saying, "I didn't write it, but these are the things that I have seen and heard from God." You're going back to 1 Corinthians 2:15:

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

The spiritual man judges all things, and is judged by no man (the natural man). If you speak, in the spirit, the words that Christ spoke, and do the things, in spirit, that Christ did, you're judged of no man, because you have the mind of Christ. And you stand before God in Christ's Righteousness, not in front of a natural man who says, "you can't do that."

"For even Christ pleased not himself (Romans 15:3)" If our Lord didn't please Himself, neither are we to please ourselves. We're to be as our Master:

"Then said they unto Him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." John 6:28-29

We must follow Him rather than men.

The 2nd Coming of Christ ???

Did you know that the phrase "the second coming of Christ" does not appear anywhere in Scripture? Nor the phrase "second coming." Does this surprise you?

Notice in the above title, we did not spell out the word "second," but used "2nd" instead. This is because numbers are fictions in numerical form and have no substance. And the "second" coming of Christ is also a fiction according to Scripture, which again has no substance. It is born and bred from the doctrines of man--not from the Holy Scripture.

Additionally, you will not find the "idea" of a physical "second coming" of Christ, or the literal "return of Christ" taught anywhere in Scripture. When searching out the truth given to us in Scripture, we must use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Some of the phrases construed to denote His "return" that are used in the New Testament books are "the coming of the Lord," "the day of the Lord," "the sign of Thy coming," "the day of Christ is at hand," "the Son of man coming in the clouds," and other similar expressions. All of these phrases refer to the same event. To understand what event these phrases refer to, we must go to Scripture, and not to the pre-conceived ideas and teachings of "theological" philosophy and "end times" merchandisers.

The apostles and Jews of the first century clearly understood what the above phrases meant, because they read it many times in the Old Testament books. These phrases were very common to their eyes and ears. Such language was used many times in the past whenever God would overthrow and destroy a single nation at a specific time. While reading the following examples from the Old Testament books, notice how similar these phrases are to the same expressions used in the New Testament books.

The Lord's Coming

in the Old Testament

In Scripture, "the day of the Lord" has never referred to a physical, literal return of the Lord. "The day of the Lord" has always referred to the Lord's judgment upon either a city or nation of people. It refers to a destruction from God Almighty:

"Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come." Joel 1:15.

It refers to the destruction upon the heathen:

"For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen." Obadiah 1:15

It refers to the anger of God upon a nation not desired by Him:

"Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desiredbefore the fierce anger of the LORD come upon you, before the day of the LORD'S anger come upon you. Seek ye the LORDit may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD'S anger" Zephaniah 2:1-3

The following are some examples of "the day of the Lord" and "the Lord riding on a swift cloud and shall come" being fulfilled upon many people throughout scriptural history:

"Against EgyptFor this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that He may avenge Him of His adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates." Jeremiah 46:2,10

This was referring to the destruction of the Egyptians, and this was fulfilled when Pharaohnechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. See 2 Kings 23:29.

"The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt" Isaiah 19:1

This was referring to the destruction of Egypt, and this was fulfilled in 480 BC.

"For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy dayAnd the sword shall come upon Egypt." Ezekiel 30:3-4

This was also referring to the destruction of Egypt, fulfilled in 480 BC.

"The burden of Babylonthe day of the LORD is at handthe day of the LORD cometh." Isaiah 13:1,6-9

This was referring to the destruction of Babylon, and this was fulfilled in 539 BC.

"I will also stretch out Mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalemfor the day of the LORD is at hand: The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD:That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness." Zephaniah 1:4,7,14-15

This was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and this was fulfilled in 586 BC.

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD!the day of the LORD is darkness, and not lightShall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?" Amos 5:18-20

Note that it is "Woe unto them" that desire the day of the LORD. This was referring to the destruction of Israel, and this was fulfilled in 722 BC.

Since only Scripture can interpret Scripture, when we read of "the day of the Lord" in the New Testament books, it can only refer to God's judgment upon a nation of people. Specifically, in the New Testament, it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D. We shall now examine just one of the many passages which clearly show this.

The Lord's Coming

in the New Testament

Matthew 24, "theologically" known as "the Olivet discourse," is our Lord's prophecies regarding His so-called "second coming." Verse 3 is the most important verse in this whole chapter, because the entirety of Matthew 24 is in response to this specific question asked in verse 3 by the apostles. If you don't understand their question, you will never understand Jesus' answer. We must be sure we understand the question first.

"...And what is the sign of Thy coming" Matthew 24:3

The Greek word for "coming" is "parousia." This Greek word means "arrival or presence," not "return." It is never translated as "return" in the entire Bible. It didn't refer to any future "return" of Christ. To the disciples, the "parousia" signified the destruction of Jerusalem, just as it referred to the destruction of a city in the scriptures of their time. Let's now look at the context of Matthew 24. Throughout Matthew's gospel, Jesus continually warned the Jews of their coming judgment because of their apostasy.

"Because of this I say to you, that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and it shall be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." Matthew 21:43
"And having heard it the king was wroth, and having sent out his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city." Matthew 22:7

It is clear that the reference here is to the city of Jerusalem's destruction, which happened upon that generation in AD 70. Jesus continues to warn that generation of a coming judgment because of their rejection of the Messiah (please read Matthew 23:23-39).

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who killest the prophets and stoneth those who have been sent to her!Behold, your house is left to you desolate." Matthew 23:36-38

All word studies and commentaries agree that the word "house" (#3624) refers to Jerusalem and the temple (now their house, not the Lord's). Now, with this in mind, we move into Chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse of Jesus (this is a continuation of what was said in Matthew 23). In verse 1, as the apostles depart from the Temple, the words of Jesus to the Pharasees, "Your house is left to you desolate," still burned in their ears and "the disciples came to Him for to show Him the buildings of the temple." In verse 2, Jesus prophesied that "these things," (the whole temple) would be utterly destroyed in an act of God's judgment. And in verse 3:

"Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when will these things [*destruction of the temple] be? And what will be the sign of Thy coming, and of the completion of the age?" Matthew 24:3

The Mount of Olives was just east of Jerusalem across the Kidron Valley. It is about a mile in length and about 700 feet in height, and overlooks Jerusalem, so that from its summit almost every part of the city could be seen. It was from Jerusalem about a Sabbath day's journey (Acts 1:12). A Sabbath day's journey was as far as the law allowed (not the law of Moses, but that advanced by the Jewish teachers) one to travel on the Sabbath. This was 2,000 paces or cubits, which would be not quite one mile.

This walk, uphill with sandals, would have taken them maybe 15-30 minutes. During this time they were no doubt thinking about what Jesus had just said about the destruction of the temple and how their house (Jerusalem and the temple) would be left desolate. Once Jesus sat down on the mountain, the disciples approached Him and questioned Him about the temple's destruction. According to Mark 13:3, the questions were asked by Peter, James, John, and Andrew. And according to Matthew and Mark, they came "privately" to Jesus. Their question was two-fold. First they asked, "when will these things be?" All three of the synoptic gospels ask, "when":

"Tell us, when shall these things be?" Matthew 24:3
"Tell us, when shall these things be?" Mark 13:4
"So they asked Him, saying, Teacher, but when shall these things be?" Luke 21:7

The "these things" refer to the temple's destruction in verse 2 (Matthew 24). In verse 1 the disciples point out the temple buildings to Jesus. In verse 2, Jesus says, "All these things shall be destroyed." It should be clear that they are asking, "When will the temple be destroyed? When will our house be left desolate?" After all, Jesus had just talked about judgment on Jerusalem, and then about not one stone not being left upon another, the disciples' response is, "When?" Those that have an ear to hear, let them hear.

Now, it is the second part of their question where things get sticky. The second part of their question is, "What shall be the sign of thy coming and the completion of the age?" To help us understand the question, we need to compare all three synoptic gospels, comparing scripture with scripture:

"...And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the completion of the age?" Matthew 24:3
"...And what shall be the sign when all these things should be fulfilled?" Mark 13:4
"...And what sign shall there be when these things are about to take place?" Luke 21:7

Comparing all three accounts shows us that the disciples considered "thy coming" and "the completion of the age" (the old covenant age) to be identical events with the destruction of the temple:

"Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things should be fulfilled?" Mark 13:4

Notice in the first part of the verse they say, "When shall these things be?" -- referring to the temples' destruction. Then in the second half, they ask, "What shall be the sign when all these things should be fulfilled?" The sign of "His coming" and "the end of the age" was the same as the "these things," which referred to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year AD 70. These are not separate questions that can be divided up into different time-events. The disciples had one thing, and only one thing, on their mind and that was the destruction of the temple. With the destruction of the temple, they understood that the coming of the Lord and the end of the old covenant age was determined by when that event occurred.

Notice that the disciples did not ask about the dissolution of the physical heaven and earth or the judgment of the "world" (kosmos), but about the end of the "age" (aion). The Disciples asked Jesus when the temple would be torn down. They could not possibly have been asking Jesus about his physical second coming, because of these three undisputed facts:

Fact #1:

The Disciples did not understand that Jesus was going to die "the first time" (John 12:34; 16:16-18; 20:9, Mark 9:10,31-32, Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34). And if the apostles had no idea that Jesus would physically leave them, why would they ask him about his physical return? Return from what? Therefore, the disciples could not have been asking about a future return of Christ, because they had no idea that he was leaving!

Fact #2:

The disciples believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Matthew 16:15-16). The people living in the first century believed that Messiah would come and rule physically, having no idea of Him coming, then leaving, then coming again (John 12:34). The disciples expected Jesus to be their physical King and set up a worldly Kingdom at his "first" coming (John 6:15, Luke 19:11; 24:21), not at his "second coming." Even after the crucifixion, they still had no concept about his "second coming," because they still thought he was going to give them the Kingdom at that time (Acts 1:6).

Fact #3:

Jesus talked to them about his death and going to the Father, but the apostles did not understand it at all (Matthew 16:21-22, Mark 8:31-32; 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34, John 13:33-14:6; 16:16-18). This account in John takes place after He had given them the Olivet discourse and they still didn't understand that He was leaving them. The disciples could not grasp that Jesus was going to die, and be resurrected from the dead, and ascend to the Father! Even after the crucifixion, they still didn't understand that He was going to rise from the dead (John 20:8-9). If they did not understand that He was going to return (from the dead) the first time, how would they have had any concept that He was going to return (from heaven) a second time?

If the disciples had no idea that Jesus was going to leave them, how could they ask Him about His return? The disciples could not have asked a question about something they knew nothing about! They didn't understand anything about a second coming. The fact is, the disciples believed "the coming of the Lord" or "the day of the Lord" would be the coming judgment upon, and the destruction of, Jerusalem and the Temple. This is the same meaning (destruction of a nation) as used throughout the old testament scripture.

Did Jesus answer the apostles question as to when the temple would be destroyed, and when "these things" would be fulfilled? Yes, He did! He answered it twice in the same conversation:

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 23:36
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34

Yes, Jesus said it would happen within the generation of the people then living. Do you believe Jesus was a false prophet? Does this question shock you? The futurist position denies the fulfillment of the prophesies of Jesus. Because of the time statements connected with these prophesies, if the prophesies had not come true then He would be a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 18:22. These prophesies are not specific as to the day or the hour, but they do give a definite generational time-frame. And, sure enough, God's Word is true, and it did happen just when Jesus said it would happen, within 40 years (a generation) of Jesus making these prophesies! It happened in 70 A.D.

For further study, you may want to read Matthew 16:27-28, because in this passage, Jesus said that some of His disciples, who were standing right there in front of Him, would not die until they have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom. And the apostle John is one of these apostles who lived to see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

And one last point to consider. The apostles wrote in scripture that they expected Christ's coming to happen within their own lifetime. This fact is indisputable, and easily proven from scripture. Those who believe the "second coming" of Christ is still future must also believe that the apostles were wrong. Why? Because "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). The apostles did not write their opinions, but they wrote "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21).

If the apostles were wrong, one cannot avoid the conclusion that scripture is wrong. And if scripture is wrong, and Jesus did not come in His kingdom when he said He would, that means the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and all the apostles were either wrong, or they lied (Numbers 23:19).

So, we have a choice. We must believe that the Word of God is Truth and Jesus came when He said He would, or we must believe the teachings of men's philosophy is truth and Jesus will physically return sometime in the future. Both cannot be true. And if scripture is wrong about the timing of Christ's coming, what other parts of scripture are wrong and untrue?

"Futurists" make the same mistake that the Jews who crucified Christ made - they were not satisfied with a spiritual kingdom; they had to have a literal, worldly, physical kingdom. That's why they rejected Christ's "first coming." We hope and pray that you do not make the same mistake about his so-called "second coming" and reject the fulfillment of the coming of His Kingdom that came in 70 A.D. Glory be to God, His Kingdom is here now! If not, what kingdom is He the King of kings of ?

If you believe that the foregoing contains error, or if you would like to fellowship further on prophesy, or any other subject, please feel free to call or write anytime.

Dating, Courtship, & Scriptural Betrothal

"Christian" Dating Courtship Scriptural
Betrothal

Definition Temporary romantic relationship focused on current enjoyment/pleasure without future commitments; usually one of series of relationships Parentally authorized romantic relationship focused on serious contemplation and hope of future marriage; hopefully, but not necessarily, sole romantic relationship before marriage Romantic relationship following publicly announced, irrevocable commitment to marriage; allows couple to "fall in love" before marriage, but after commitment is made

Scriptural Terminology & Definition No; term "dating" never used in Scripture; best described by the scriptural term "defrauding" (1 Thessalonians 4:6) No; term "courtship" never used in Scripture; some scriptural principles consciously applied, particularly warning against "defrauding" (1 Thessalonians 4:6) Yes; term "betrothed" used frequently in both Old and New Testaments; God, in Deuteronomy 22:22-29, at least reinforces pattern by specifying punishments within three distinct marital states: single, betrothed, and married

Timing Sequence of Emotional Oneness Physical attraction, begin dating, romantic cultivation, emotional oneness (fall in love), assume Lord's will, engagement, irrevocable(?) commitment at marriage Attraction, parental authorization of courtship, seeking Lord's will, romantic cultivation, emotional oneness (fall in love), confirm Lord's will, parental authorization for marriage, engagement, irrevocable commitment at marriage The Lord's direction to one, confirmed by parents, then by all, publicly announced irrevocable commitment at betrothal, romantic cultivation, emotional oneness (fall in love), marriage authorizes full physical union
Termination Procedure Either party may terminate relationship any time, for any reason Either party may terminate relationship any time, for any reason Betrothal can only be terminated on the basis of infidelity; requires scriptural divorce

Purpose Current enjoyment; exploration of compatibility for possible future relationship Exploration of compatibility for possible future relationship Cultivation of romance in preparation for spiritual and emotional unity in marriage

Parental Involvement Generally considered irrelevant Parental authorization required throughout courtship; may be revoked at any time; authorization for marriage may or may not be included in courtship authorization Full parental blessing required before betrothal commitment; thereafter parental authorization is irrevocable except in the event of infidelity

Activities/Motivation Entertainment in groups or as couple alone; effort to impress and please other to retain or move forward in relationship; fear of being rejected (defrauded/broken-hearted) Entertainment in groups or as couple alone; compatibility for marriage explored seriously; effort to impress and please due partly to fear of being rejected (defrauded/broken-hearted) Following betrothal ceremony time of separation in preparation for marriage with full confidence; commitment eliminates fear of defrauding; direct communication controlled, focused on spiritual and emotional unity

Physical Affection Generally acceptable to some pre-determined point short of full physical union; opens the door to temptation Generally acceptable to some pre-determined point short of full physical union; parental involvement limits, but does not preclude temptation No physical contact whatsoever until the wedding; betrothal period is for spiritual and emotional preparation (falling in love), not physical affection

Possibility/Likelihood of DEFRAUDING (1 Thessalonians 4:6) Virtually inevitable; hearts are melded together romantically, then ripped apart repeatedly; flirtation (defrauding) is expected and institutionalized Unlikely if both parties court only each other; however, some court a series of prospective spouses before making commitment -- thus defrauding happens Virtually impossible given irrevocable nature of betrothal and avoidance of romantic cultivation prior to betrothal; emotionally as well as physically one-woman men and one-man women

Issue the Sixty-fifth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Who We Are...

Truth and Critical Thinking...

The 2nd Coming, Part Two, The Last Days?...

Can God Tell Time?...

Is It Right To Judge?...

Security and Provision

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Who We Are

Special acknowledgement is given to the Christ's assembly at Alabama for the following.

Who are we? We are who our Heavenly Father says we are. We are ambassadors, ministers and bondservants of Jesus the Christ, in His Ministry of Reconciliation--with the Word of Reconciliation.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:17-20

"...Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." John 7:14-16

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent [*of the world], and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight." Luke 10:21

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23

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

Always bear in mind the words contained in Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee." Do you want God to reject you?

What questions do you have? Do you really own your house if you paid off a mortgage of $100,000 for it, and if you were to fail to pay the "property" taxes on it, what would happen eventually? Can the State take it and sell it? Is your child yours? Can "Human Resources" take and remove your child from you in the name of "the law"? Is the State a third party in your life? Have you ever been in a court of justice and your attorney instructed you to say "Not Guilty," when the judge asks you your plea? Many have. Do you know what a "right and duty bearing unit" is? Is this what every citizen of the U.S. is to the government? Is the drivers license really for safety or money? Do you naively believe that to cast ballots, and participate in other illusionary trappings of a "free people," will bring you liberty? Are you deceived? Who is really your master?

May Almighty God bless you and keep you in the Truth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.

Contact Information

the Christ's assembly at Alabama

Robert Eugene (205) 995-0532

---------------

the Christ's assembly at California

(818) 347-7080

Notes on Critical Thinking

Beware that "critical thinking" is a common term coined by the "philosophical" world.

So, what is critical thinking? How would you define critical and in what context? Do you ascribe to critical as meaning important or do you prefer it to mean inclined to criticism? "Conceptually" speaking, what about the things that we suppose, or in many cases presuppose, are a certain way and then discover later that they were not as they appeared but are actually completely different? The question is-- What can we use to guide us in discerning when a particular premise is false or flawed so that we may avoid the error that the misconception causes? The answer to this is found in our Father's criteria of "a sound mind."

The meaning and power of words that we use to communicate are critical to answer these questions and concepts. In order to understand these words in their proper context we should go to a definition. This will also help to illustrate a difficult concept that for many of us may be difficult to grasp.

Firstly, we must look into the nature, meaning and origins of the word critical. We offer this definition from Webster's New International Dictionary (1931, 8th edition) as follows:

"Critical: (see critic, n., crisis) 1. Inclined to criticize; esp., given to unfavorable criticism or faultfinding; captious; censorious.
'O Gentle lady, do not put me to 't, For I am nothing, if not critical.' Shakespeare
2. Exercising or qualified to exercise careful judgment; exact; nicely [*this is another word that merits some study] judicious; as a critical writer.
3. Of the nature of or pertaining to, criticism or critics; characterized by, or involving the qualities of, criticism or the methods of critics; as a critical analysis or judgment; critical traditions.
4. {cap.} Biblical Criticism. Designating, or pertaining to, that school of bible students who treat the received text with greater freedom than the traditionalists do, discussing its sources and history and departing in many places from the Traditional conclusion.
5. Pertaining to or indicating a crisis, turning point, or specially important juncture; of the nature of, or constituting, a crisis; important as regards consequences; hence, of doubtful issue; decisive; crucial; as , the critical moment; a critical issue; attended with risk; dangerous; as the critical stage of a fever; a critical situation.
'Our circumstances are indeed critical.' Burke.
6. Physics, Math, etc., Pertaining to or designating a transition point at which some character or property suffers a finite change; as, the critical angle; the parabola is a critical curve which a conic passes from an ellipse into a hyperbola."

So what is critical to you? Can you, or have you, separated what you want from what you need? What then does one do when one finds that the list was in fact wrong? What about the possibility that everything we know is wrong? Do you know where you are? Do you know what you have? It is written:

"Be not ye like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him." Mathew 6:8

"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink: nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?
(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take for thoughts for the things itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof." Mathew 6: 25-34

Critical questions to consider: Is it possible to be wrong when believing you know what it is you need? Do you feel that you are always right? Can you recognize and admit the error of your own ways?

Is it not suggested in the above verses that we should ask for help to change through our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ through Whom we can ask our heavenly Father to show us the truth? Are you able to ask Him? Are you sure?

Would it not also be appropriate to consider what your own definition of truth is? Here is offered a definition for the word truth (as a concept "of man's law"), from Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., page 1685):

"TRUTH: There are three conceptions as to what constitutes "truth": agreement of thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with itself. For "Fact" and "truth" distinguished, see Fact."

Consider the undeniable truth that our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ manifests all three conditions of the above definition. Truth has been defined in many ways by many different "authorities." There are many who assert qualities to truth which are relative to the world. For example one might choose another set of rules for defining truth in order to comfort oneself when facing the truth.

For example, at first glance in Anderson's Dictionary of Law, page 1063, it would seem there is no direct definition for truth, for under Truth it says, "see 'true' pg 1056." When we go to True, we see that Anderson illustrates the natural man's "idea" of truth, giving it "human-like" and "moral" qualities as follows:

"TRUE : 1. conforming to the facts; actual; real 2. Honest; sincere; not knowingly false or misstated. Compare Just, 2.
In one sense that only is 'true' which is comfortable to the actual state of things; and in that sense a statement is 'untrue' which does not express things exactly as they are. But in another and broader sense 'true' is often used as a synonym of honest, sincere, not fraudulent.
Prima facie 'untrue' means inaccurate not necessarily willfully false.
True Bill see Ignore
Truth Actuality, reality, verity, veracity, veraciousness."

With a synopsis of this definition, we see that truth "can be whatever you feel or want it to be." So now we have a problem to look at with truth. That is, when determining truth, avoid confusing it with the spirit of man. Truth when defined from the natural man's perspective becomes sincerity, comfort or veraciousness, which tends to the emotions. Emotion is an interesting word. Emotions come from the spirit of the world when applied to truth. It is the opposite of the Truth which is given by Almighty God. One must discern the differences between what is from the spirit of man and his world, verses what is from the Holy Spirit of our Heavenly Father. Look at veraciousness as a definition of truth. If one does not change one's position is it then made true? If one defines truth within the context of comfort it should be noted that Truth, which brings change, is not comfortable.

What about the differences between Epistemological Self-Consciousness and the Militant Agnostic. These are views from the philosophical world which represent a distortion of truth. The Militant Agnostic asserts, "If I don't know, neither do you." And the "Epistemogist" asks, "I know, but how do you know you know?" Perhaps it would be wise to understand the importance of diligently studying the Word yourself with others in direct fellowship, and avoid attempting to "save time" by letting others of "unsound mind" read and interpret it for you.

We must understand that "critical thinking" is fruitless unless the one engaged in it is "of sound mind." If not, all of the questions above can not be answered in Truth. Therefore, we must go to Scripture to find out who is "of sound mind." Sound mind is found only one time in the 1611 King James version:

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7

The problem here is that there are no other verses in the King James to tell us exactly what a sound mind is. But when we go to the Septuagint, we are told very clearly what a sound mind is:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the law is the character of a sound mind." Proverbs 9:10

The Lord has shown us in His Word the true criteria to be "a critical thinker." And He is not talking about man's law!! If one does not meet His standards of a sound mind, "they are none of His," and therefore should not be listened to.

May the Father Bless you and keep you in the Light and Peace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.

The 2nd Coming?

Part Two:

The Last Days?

Following last month's article on "The 2nd Coming?", further written fellowship has been requested on this subject by several Brothers. In this light, we offer the following for your consideration and edification.

The following is a compilation of various New Testament verses which "End Times" theologians avoid because they have no adequate explanation to fit their "presuppositions."

If you can step into the shoes of those being addressed here, nearly two thousand years ago, you would be led to believe that you were living in the end times and that you might live to see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. Clearly, Jesus taught that the timing of His so-called "second coming" would be in the first century. And His disciples also believed He would come again in the first century. Clearly, they taught that those were the last days.

John the Baptist to the Jews:

"...Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near." Matthew 3:2
"Then said he to the multitude..O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? And now also the axe is laidevery tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." Luke 3:7,9

The Teachings of our Lord Jesus to His twelve apostles

(telling them to preach to Israel):

"...preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven has drawn near. " Matthew 10:7
"...In no wise will ye have completed the cities of Israel, until the Son of man be come." Matthew 10:23

Notice He told the 12 apostles that they would not have completed preaching to first-century Israel when the Son of man comes, which was during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Jesus to Peter, James,

John and Andrew privately:

" they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great gloryThis generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:30,34
" But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken....this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. " Mark 13:24,25,30
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled... for the powers of heaven shall be shakenThis generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Luke 21:22,26,32

A Generation

"This generation" refers to the generation then living at the time Jesus spoke these words. God calls 40 years a generation at Numbers 32:13 and is confirmed at Hebrews 3:8-10. Also, in Matthew 1:17, we have specific information to estimate the length of a generation. It tells us that from the captivity in Babylon until Christ are fourteen generations. The dating of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is estimated according to historical information to be 586 years before the physical birth of our Lord. 586 divided by 14 (generations), makes the average length of a generation about 41 years.

Some "theologians" that admit to the simplicity of this data but have an "end times" agenda, attack the word "generation" and apply various meanings to the Greek 'genea,' (genea); mainly that it should be translated "race" or "nation." This would have Messiah saying, "This race or nationality shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled." That would be such a ridiculous answer, if you take into consideration that these people never expected their race or nation to ever vanish off the face of the earth. In fact they expected to populate the whole earth!

This term for generation can't mean "race", for the Greek word genos (#1085), which means "race", would have been used, as it is at 1 Peter 2:9. And it cannot mean "age", for the Greek word aion (#165), which means "age", or "a period of time", would've been used (Ephesians 2:7, Colossians 1:26). Instead, genea (#1074) was used.

Jesus to His disciples:

"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the Holy angels." Mark 8:38

Is it not plainly seen what "generation" He was referring to in this passage? He said it was the adulterous and sinful generation that was then living while He was physically alive!

Jesus to His twelve disciples

(who were standing in front of Him):

"For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28
"when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels....there are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God having come in power." Mark 8:38 - 9:1
"... when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angelsthere are some of those standing here, who in no wise shall taste of death, until they have seen the kingdom of God." Luke 9:26-27

Notice how He said that some of His disciples, who were standing right there in front of Him, would not physically die by the time He came with His angels to reward every man according to his works (Revelation 22:12). John was one of these men who lived to see it, as you can see by the following verse:

Jesus to Peter:

"...If I (Jesus) desire him (John) to abide till I come, what is that to thee?" John 21:22-23

John was one of the twelve apostles who was never martyred, and abided on earth well after the destuction of Jerusalem. Therefore, John did abide until the Christ came in 70AD, just like He desired him to!

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming, and will receive you unto Myself;" John 14:3

Jesus to the high priest:

"...Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64

Jesus to Nathanael:

"...ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." John 1:51

Jesus to the Jews of Jerusalem:

"...Repent: for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near." Matthew 4:17
"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matthew 23:36,38
"...The time has been fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near:" Mark 1:15

Jesus to the daughters of Jerusalem:

"weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming," Luke 23:28-29

Jesus to the Jews seeking to kill Him:

"...O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?" Matthew 3:7
"The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." John 5:25

The Revelation of Jesus Christ,

communicated through John,

to His seven literal assemblies which were in Asia in the first century:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to shew unto His servants things which must take place shortly." 1:1
"...the time is near." 1:3
"Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him." 1:7 [*Those Jews who had crucified Him in the first century would see His coming!]
"...I am coming to thee quickly," 2:16
"hold fast till I shall come." 2:25 [*To the church in Thyatira, 1 of 7 actual assemblies that physically existed in Asia Minor in 65AD.]
"Behold, I come quickly:" 3:11
"And sware by Him that liveth for ever and everthat there should be no more delay:" 10:6 [*He said He would not delay His coming to those living in the first century!]

The remaining verses are from the very last chapter of Revelation, after all these prophesies have been revealed. Just when will all these things come to pass? This chapter tells us!:

"God of the holy prophets sent His angel to shew unto His servants the things which must come to pass soon." 22:6
"Behold, I am coming quickly:" 22:7
"...Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is near." 22:10
"And, behold, I come quickly;" 22:12
"...Surely I am coming quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." 22:20

The Teachings of the Apostles

Paul to all who were beloved of God

in Rome:

"And that, knowing the time,...now is our salvation nearer than when we believedthe day has drawn near:" Romans 13:11-12
"And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." Romans 16:20 [*See this prophesy in Genesis 3:15, and revealed to Paul that it is to be fulfilled shortly].

Paul to Timothy:

"That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 1 Timothy 6:14
"The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day:" 2 Timothy 1:18

Paul to the Hebrews:

"God hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son," Hebrews 1:1-2 [*The scripture says the last days were in the first century, not 2,000 years later].
"For then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the consummation of the ages hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Hebrews 9:26
"...ye see the day drawing near." Hebrews 10:25
"...He that shall come will come, and will not delay." Hebrews 10:37 [*Paul said that Jesus would not delay His coming!]

Paul to the assembly at Philippi:

"...The Lord is near." Philippians 4:5

Paul to the assembly at Corinth:

"So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 1:7-8
"...the time is short:" 1 Corinthians 7:29
"...the fashion of this world passeth away." 1 Corinthians 7:31
"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are arrived." 1 Corinthians 10:11

Paul, Silvanus and Timothy

to the assembly at Thessalonica:

"To the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints." 1 Thessalonians 3:13
"Then we the living who remain shall be caught away together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:17
"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23
"...the day of Christ is present." 2 Thessalonians 2:2

Paul to the assemblies at Galatia:

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law," Galatians 4:4
"For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."Galatians 5:5

James to the twelve tribes

who were dispersed abroad:

"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. the coming of the Lord has drawn nearbehold, the judge stands before the door." James 5:7-9

Peter to the elect scattered abroad:

"That the proving of your faithmight be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:" 1 Peter 1:7
"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:" 1 Peter 1:9-10
"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the appearing of Jesus Christ; Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you," 1 Peter 1:13,20 [*Now Peter confirms that the last days were during the first century].
"Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." 1 Peter 4:5
"But the end of all things has drawn near:" 1 Peter 4:7
"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God:" 1 Peter 4:17
"The Lord does not delay concerning His promise" 2 Peter 3:9 [*What promise is this verse talking about? The very next verse reads, "But the day of the Lord will come..." Peter wrote the Lord would not delay His promise concerning the Day of the Lord!]
"Expecting and hastening the coming of the day of God," 2 Peter 3:12

Peter to the men of Judaea:

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last daysThe sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:" Acts 2:16-20 [*This confirms that the "last days" the Old Testament prophesized about took place in the first century].
"Yea, and all the prophetshave likewise foretold of these days." Acts 3:24 [*Peter said all the prophets foretold of which days? "These days" of the first century, which were "the last days" of the Old Testament era].

John to those who believed on the name of the Son of God:

"And the world passeth awayLittle children, it is the last hourwe know that it is the last hour." 1 John 2:17-18 [*John wrote these epistles sometime after 60 AD. Notice how, as the destruction of Jerusalem was very nearly approaching, John wrote that it is the "last hour", instead of the "last days."]
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." 1 John 2:28
"...when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2

Conclusion

We know that Jesus said He would come -- while some that were standing there were still living; in that generation; soon; quickly; at hand, has drawn near; He said His coming was near. Everywhere the Scripture talks about the Lord's coming it gives us a time statement. The New Testament saints fully expected the Lord to come in their lifetime. How could we possibly miss this? Yet the majority of "Christians" today, some two thousand years later, are still saying that the Lord will return soon. Can the same event be imminent at two different periods of time separated by two thousand years?

It has been said by some that they felt that the Lord said He was coming soon because He wanted every generation to be watching for Him. Think about that. What that means is that when He told the first century saints that He was coming soon, He really didn't mean it; He was giving them false information to keep them looking for Him throughout several generations. Can you live with that? If that was the case, what else did He tell them that wasn't true? Do we have a God who intentionally deceives men? If we walk in the Truth, we must believe what He said and believe that He came back in the first century, just like everyone said He would.

What is at stake here is the inspiration of Scripture. If Jesus was mistaken, or if He lied to us, then what validity does the rest of the scripture carry? There are those adversaries who say that if you "believe" that Jesus came back in the first century, then you don't need to read your Bible any more. This is obviously an argument impossible to understand for a true believer. But for those who doubt this truth, if Jesus didn't come back in the first century when He said that He would, then they might as well throw their Bible out for it cannot be considered by them as the inspired Word of God.

Faith is understanding and assent to what God has told us. Our Father tells us at Proverbs 23:7, " For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:."

What is really frightening is that today thinking is not really that important to too many. Do you realize this? We are not so concerned about thinking as we are about two other things, emotion and pragmatism (doing that which is "practical"]. The concerns are about feelings, and about how "successful" one can become in the commercial world of Tyrannus. Where is the concern about thinking. How many people ask the question, 'is it true, is it right'? Instead, the tendency is to ask the question, 'does it work' and 'how will it make me feel?'. Emotion and pragmatism. This is that which calls itself "the Christian Church.

The spirit of "theology" sometimes has a tendency to not ask what is right or true, but, will it offend or upset someone, asking "How will they feel?" In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were noble because they searched the scriptures, not to see if these things felt good, or to see if these things "worked," or even to see if these things would offend, but to see if these things were "so," to see if they were right and true.

Some "Church people" may say, "If I believe that Jesus came back in 70 AD, it might effect some areas of my life. Such as; "will a mission board take me, or, will I be accepted at certain seminaries, or, would I be able to work in a "prestigious" program?" Listen, and listen carefully. Those are the wrong questions! The first, the foremost, the only important question that we need to ask is: is it true? If it's true we'll have to live with the choices that the Lord gives us, but the issue here is Truth. Is it true?

The choice: to walk in the Truth, or walk in error!! He gives you that choice.

Can God Tell Time?

There is no question that "time" is nothing to God. A thousand years are like yesterday to Him (Psalm 90:4). And at 2 Peter 3:8, we find the same Declaration of Truth that "a thousand years is as one day with Him" (and vice versa). By the way, please note the verse does not say one day is a thousand years with the Lord, but "as."

At verse 9 we find a forgotten statement: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness;" The word "slack" means "slow" [Greek "braduno"]. Peter's point is that if God sets a time for fulfillment, He fulfills on time! He is not slow; our Father can tell time and knows how to keep His promises on time! This verse asserts in no uncertain terms that He is a Lord who keeps His promises!

But time is nothing only to God. When He communicates time to man, He communicates with His creation in a way that man can understand Him. But in the scripture, God spoke to man! The time statements about the kingdom's establishment were made to man! The time statements in the Bible were spoken to man to encourage or to warn man. If God did not mean time as man understands time when He used time statements, what did He mean? Since man thinks in time when "a long time" or "at hand" is used, would it not have been misleading on God's part to say something was not going to happen for a long time when in fact it was imminent? Conversely, would it not have been misleading for God to say something was at hand when it was really not to happen for centuries?

The question here is one of communication. Can God communicate with His creation in an understandable way; or does God speak in purposely ambiguous ways? Does He hold out a carrot stick of imminent blessings to His hurting creation while knowing all the time He is not really going to bring the promises soon? Did He constantly threaten nations with imminent judgment and not punish them for centuries? Where then is the reality of the threat to the wicked? Does His transcendence over time prevent Him from speaking to man in words that convey genuine nearness?

Here is a question to consider: if God is in the practice of saying something is imminent when in reality it may not transpire for centuries, why is there not one single Old Covenant prophecy of the kingdom that said it was "at hand?" Daniel said the kingdom would be established in the days of the Roman empire; he called it "the last days" (Daniel 2:28). From Daniel's perspective, it was several hundred years away. From God's perspective of course, it was only a moment; but that is not the issue. God was speaking to Daniel about things to happen in man's world--not in timeless eternity. This is why God did not cause Daniel to say the kingdom was "near," "at hand," "right at the door," or coming "very, very soon."

It was not until John the Baptist came that the message "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" was preached; and the kingdom was established in the very generation that heard John say it was at hand! In other words, God did not allow His prophets to say the kingdom was at hand until it was truly at hand! It would have been something less than honest if God had said the kingdom was imminent when it was really hundreds of years away!

Why did Isaiah, who wrote over 600 years before the birth of Messiah, never say His coming was "at hand?" Would it not have been terribly distressing for the Jews to have heard a constant message of the imminence of the kingdom and their savior yet hundreds of years roll on and on without fulfillment? The writer of Proverbs correctly noted mankind's attitude toward waiting for fulfillment of promises: "Hope that is deferred makes the heart sick" (Proverbs 13:12).

It is one thing for God to promise something and not give any indication as to when He would fulfill the promise, for then man has no indication of when to expect fulfillment. It is an entirely different thing for Him to indicate a time frame for fulfillment and not bring the promise to fulfillment in that indicated time frame! This involves a basic attribute of the nature of God.

We are told that prophetic time may indicate imminence, when in fact hundreds of years are involved. In order to demonstrate the utter falsity of this concept let us see how God has dealt with time statements in scripture.

In Numbers 24:17-18, Balaam the prophet made a prediction of Christ's coming: "I see Him but not now, I behold Him but not near." Notice he said Christ's coming was not near; it was not at hand. Why did he say this? Because Christ's coming was over 1400 years away, and 1400 years really is a long time! Here is a concrete example where God referred to a long time as just that.

Daniel 10-12 is a vision encompassing a period of time from 536 BC to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD; about 600 years. Two times in this text Daniel was told "the appointed time is long" and "the vision refers to many days to come" (Daniel 10:1,14). Remember, this vision was relayed to Daniel from God. While God is not bound by time, He was communicating to man who is bound to time. God called this 600 year period of time "long"; He said it involved "many days." God can most assuredly tell time and read a calendar!

Daniel contains another important example of how God used time words. Chapter 8 contains a prophecy that extends from 530 BC to about 165-164 BC and the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. The time covered is about 365 years. How did the God of Israel express the prophecy? Did He say it was at hand? Did He say some of it was at hand while some of it was for a long time off? No! He viewed the prophecy as a whole. He said the vision "refers to many days in the future" (Daniel 8:26). Here is a prophecy that covers 365 years and God called it "a long time." Friends, if God called 365 years a long time, how can man say that time, when God is speaking to man, means nothing?

This is an important question in light of the traditional interpretations of Revelation. Daniel was told to seal up his vision because the time for its fulfillment was a long time away--365 years. John was specifically told not to seal up his vision because what he saw was at hand! John is told his vision (not part of his vision) was "at hand" and "must shortly come to pass!" Did God call the 365 years for the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy a "long time" and call the fulfillment of Revelation, which most say has not been fulfilled after 2000 years so far, "at hand?" To say the least, this would hardly be consistent!

In Jeremiah 29:10, Jehovah told His prophet the Babylonian captivity would last for seventy years. In verse 28, the people complained that Jeremiah had told them "The exile will be long." While keeping in mind that the prophet was inspired of God, we see an example of a prophet specifying a period of time, seventy years, and the people saying that the prophet said the captivity would be "long." Why was seventy years called a long time by Jeremiah? Because to man seventy years is a long time! Thus, God used time words as man would normally understand them. He can tell time when speaking to man!

Many do not realize the Bible gives an example of man attempting to change the meaning of time words used by God; and God's response. In Ezekiel 7, God said the Day of the Lord was at hand. The Day of the Lord in this context was when God used Babylon to punish Israel for her sin. This is the meaning of the Day of the Lord; destruction. not an "end of time" idea. It is when God used a nation to punish another as it related to His chosen people.

In chapter 11, Israel responded to the threat of coming judgment. They insisted that although Ezekiel said it was at hand it really wasn't. It was time to build houses, not worry about judgment. One can almost hear some of those people: "Well, yes, Ezekiel has said the Day of the Lord is at hand, but after all, 'one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day' (Psalms 90:4)."

When Israel "elasticized" God's words of imminence into relativity, ambiguity and meaning-less-ness, He responded. In Ezekiel 12:21ff, [please, take the time to get your Bible and read it for yourself!] God told Ezekiel to tell Israel that her days of changing the time for His warnings were over. He had said judgment was at hand; Israel said it was not at hand. God would not tolerate it.

Ezekiel was instructed to tell Israel that in that generation judgment would fall just as God had indicated when He said it was at hand. [Have you read those verses for yourself yet? If not, why not do it right now and see for yourself that what we are saying is true?] What we have, then, is an example of man saying that while God had said something was imminent it really was not; it was for a long time off. We have God's response; when He said "at hand" He meant "at hand!" He did not mean hundreds or thousands of years; He meant "soon!"

Another example of man changing the meaning of God's time words is at Amos 6:3. God warned Israel the time had come for her to be judged, Hosea 1:4 and Amos 8:2. In spite of the warnings, Israel "put far away the evil day." Isaiah 56:12 shows they were saying "tomorrow shall be as today." In spite of God's warning that judgment was at hand they insisted "All things continue as they were," II Peter 3:3-4! Because of their "willing ignorance", the scoffers refused to believe God meant "near" when He said "at hand!" As a result God said "Woe" to them!

With this, is there any substantial difference between Israel of Old denying "at hand" meant "soon," and the theologians and Bible students of today who read the New Testament time statements and say they did not mean "soon?" What is the difference between those in Isaiah's day who denied the warnings of imminent judgment, saying life was going to go on as usual, and those of today who read the time statements made in the first century and say the predicted events were not truly imminent? Those who deny the first century application of the "at hand" time statements of the New Testament are doing the same thing as the Israelites of Old--denying that "at hand" meant "soon!"

Has God changed His vocabulary? Is it true that "at hand" once did mean "at hand" but now it can mean "a long time?" If so, where is the evidence for the change? Surely, the honest believer can clearly see there has been no such change in God's vocabulary. God can tell time; God can read a calendar. When God says something is "at hand" it is near. For man to argue otherwise is to reject the inspiration of the scriptures; it is to impugn the faithfulness of God; it is to impugn the ability of our Father to communicate to His children; it is to do the very thing Israel of old did and for which they were condemned!

Consider this: today, many "Christians" say "Well, you can't take 'generation' and 'at hand' literally because God's time is not our time." Then what do they do? They go and interpret the "thousand years" in Revelation 20 as literal! Do you see the contradiction created when one leans on their own understanding and is content to be "willingly ignorant"?

The 1000 Year Reign of Christ ???

Did you know that the phrase "1000 Year Reign of Christ does not appear anywhere in scripture? Nor the word "millenium"? Does this surprise you?

Notice in the above title, as in "The 2nd Coming," we did not spell out the word "thousand," but used "1000" instead. This is because numbers are fictions in numerical form and have no substance. And the "1000 year reign of Christ" is also a fiction and without substance according to Scripture. It is born and bred from the doctrines of men, not from the Holy Scripture.

The "thousand year reign" appears nowhere in the sixty-six books, 1,189 chapters, 31,173 verses of the Bible except in this one passage where it occurs six times in six consecutive verses (Revelation 20:3-8). It is not solid study to build an entire system of beliefs about the end of the age, and the status of the kingdom on such a highly symbolic passage--more especially when that interpretation conflicts with other plain passages of scripture.

Revelation 20:3-8 is the only passage in the New Testament that the so-called "pre-millinialists" have as the basis for the "1000 year reign." What endless variations of concocted fables have resulted! Clearly it does not contain the detail that they attribute to it.

First, it should be pointed out that scripture does not speak of "the thousand year reign of Christ." Revelation 20:4 says, "...and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." It's not Christ that reigns 1000 years, but those who were killed for God's sake that reign with Christ 1000 years.

For example, take the phrase, "John Doe reigned with the king for one year." Does this mean the king reigned for only one year? No, it does not. The king could reign for many years, but the point is not how long the king reigned but how long John reigned with the king. The king isn't the subject; it is speaking about how long John reigns with him. Likewise, Revelation 20:4 is not about how long Jesus will reign, but how long others will reign with Jesus. There's a big difference.

There are some things not mentioned in Revelation 20.

second coming of Christ

Second, it does not mention a reign on earth.

Third, this passage does not mention a bodily resurrection.

Fourth, it does not mention Christ on earth.

And fifth, it does not mention us; it says "they" lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Who are the "they" that lived and reigned with Christ? The souls of them that had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus. In an earlier chapter of this same book of Revelations, in Chapter 6:9-11, the picture is of the souls of martyrs who had been slain for the word of God under an altar crying for vengeance. Here the martyrs are on thrones, God's inevitable judgment has come. The victory came in the spirit world (not the physical), and God assured their victory. This passage only speaks of the "dead" reigning with Christ, not about those who are "alive" reigning with Christ.

The passage also mentions the first resurrection, which is in contrast with the second death. The point is not that the righteous are raised a thousand years before the wicked for a "physical" reign on earth, but that the cause of Christ for which the martyrs died is triumphant. Evil is not forever on the throne. God has overcome.

This passage says nothing about Jesus coming to this earth and establishing a worldly kingdom at Jerusalem -- those that so teach are duty-bound to prove their doctrines with scripture, not just their imaginations. In this, keep in mind that the Jews expected Messiah to establish an earthly kingdom.

"and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Revelation 20:4

This is where the phrase "1000 year reign" came from. Its proper use would be limited to exactly what John was describing at this point. The so-called "pre-millinialists" believe that they will be worldly conquerors with Christ when He comes to reign on this earth for 1000 years; but Paul says that "we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us," now! And this is the essence of what John the Revelator is communicating. There is no "reason" to differentiate between these reigns. There is no "reason" to believe (other than impatience or dissatisfaction with God's plan for us) that there is anything sweeter on this earth than reigning in His kingdom, now.

At Revelation 20:6, the first resurrection clearly applies to those dead in Christ who lived and reigned with Christ for the figurative "1000-year period" in wait for the final judgment and the general resurrection of the just and the unjust. The second death is explained further below. It is the ultimate death that those who are lost will experience at that judgment, the first death being physical death. While the saints and true believers who die physically experience this first death, the second death will have no power over them.

While the main thrust of Revelation 20:6 is that the righteous dead are reigning with Christ, there is no "reason" to believe that those who walk in His ways and do His will do not share in this reign now. One of the major losses of the doctrines of men and their resulting traditions is that, in their quest for a worldly kingdom in the future, they fail to recognize the blessings of Christ reigning in our lives now.

Let us now compare scripture with scripture to interpret the "thousand years." In scripture, the term "thousand," when in reference to time, is always used symbolically of a predetermined time that God chooses. In other cases, it is always used symbolically for a large number of people or things. Surely, nobody can honestly interpret the following "thousands" as literal:

People or Things

"If he will contend with Him, he cannot answer Him one of a thousand." Job 9:3
"For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." Psalms 50:10
"...one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found." Ecclesiastes 7:28
"whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men." Song of Solomon 4:4
"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand." Daniel 5:1
"...thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him." Daniel 7:10

Days, Years and Generations

"which keepeth covenant and mercy with them thatkeep His commandments to a thousand generations;" Deuteronomy 7:9
"Be ye mindful always of His covenant; the word which He commanded to a thousand generations;" 1 Chronicles 16:15
"For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand." Psalms 84:10
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past," Psalms 90:4
"He hath remembered His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations." Psalms 105:8
"Yea, though he [*man] live a thousand years twice told, yet hath He seen no good: do not all go to one place?" Ecclesiastes 6:6
"...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8

As it should be obvious from the above that every occurrence of the word "thousand," by itself, throughout scripture, is not literal but symbolic for a large number or long period of time, then why is it when we go to the book of Revelation (the most symbolic book of them all) many interpret this thousand years as literal? Especially when there is no scriptural warrant for doing so?

The Truth of the matter is not that Christ will reign for a thousand years some time in the future, but that Christ is reigning now, and will continue to reign for eternity. We do not have to wait for His Kingdom to come sometime in the future before He starts reigning over our lives; for Christ's Kingdom is here now, and He desires that we reign with and wait on Him now, whether we choose to recognize it or not! "Choose you this day whom ye will serve."

Is It Right To Judge?

This question, "Is it right to judge?", seems to be one that puzzles many sincere believers. A careful and honest study of the Bible makes it clear that, concerning certain vital matters, it is not only right but a positive duty to judge. Many do not acknowledge that -- the Word commands us to judge.

Jesus the Christ commanded, "Judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24). He told a man, "Thou hast rightly judged" (Luke 7:43). To others, our Lord asked, "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" (Luke 12:57).

The Apostle Paul wrote, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (1 Corinthians 10:15). Again, Paul declared, "He that is spiritual judgeth all things" (1Corinthians 2:15). It is our positive duty to judge.

False Teachers and False Teaching

"Beware of false prophets!" (Matthew 7:15) is the warning and command of our Lord. But how could we "beware" and how could we know they are "false prophets" if we did not judge? And what is the God-given standard by which we are to judge?:

"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

The Christ said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). And in judging the "fruits," we must judge by God's Word, not by what appeals to "human reasoning." Many things seem good to human judgment which are false to the Word of God.

Our Brother Paul admonished believers, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17-18). This apostolic command could not be obeyed were it not right to judge. Our Father wants us to know His Word and then test all teachers and teaching by it. Notice also that it is the false teachers who make the "divisions," and not those who protest against their false teaching. And these deceivers are not serving Christ, as they profess, "but their own belly" -- or their own "bread and butter" as we would put it. We are to "mark them" and "avoid them."

"Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land, and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man seeketh mischief:And all the elders and all the people said unto him, Hearken not unto him, nor consent." 1 King 20:7-8
"Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." 2 Corinthians 6:17 (read also verses 14-18)
"From such turn away" 2 Timothy 3:5
"Withdraw yourselves." 2 Thessalonians 3:6
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11
"Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good." Romans 12:9
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

It would be impossible to obey these injunctions of God's Word unless it were right to judge. And remember, nothing is "good" in God's eyes that is not true to His Word.

Our Brother John wrote:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [*test, judge] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" 1 John 4:1
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh... If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" 2 John 7, 10-11

These verses command us to judge between those who do and those who do not bring the true doctrine of Christ.

Whenever a child of God contributes to a denominational budget that supports Modernist missionaries or teachers, he is guilty before God, according to this Scripture, of bidding them "God speed" in the most effective way possible. And he thereby becomes a "partaker" with them of their "evil deeds" of spreading soul-damning poison. How terrible, but how true! Arouse yourself, child of God. If you are guilty, ask God to forgive you and help you never again to be guilty of the blood of souls for whom Christ died. When we are willing to suffer for Christ, we can readily see the truth of God's Word on this tremendously important matter.

"If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him" 2 Timothy 2:12

Misunderstood and Misused Scripture

One of the best known and most important and misapplied Scriptures is "Judge not" at Matthew 7:1. Let us examine the entire passage:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5

Read this again carefully. Notice that it is addressed to a hypocrite--not to those who sincerely desire to discern whether a teacher or teaching is true or false to God's Word. And instead of being a prohibition against honest judgment, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. In fact, the last statement of these verses commands sincere judgment -- "...then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

If we take a verse or a part of a verse out of its setting, we can make the Word of God appear to teach the very opposite of what it really does teach. And those who do this cannot escape the judgment of God for twisting His Word (2 Peter 3:16). Let this be a warning to us never again to take His Word out of its context.

Many who piously quote, "Judge not," out of its connection, in order to defend that which is false to God's Word, do not see their own inconsistency in thus judging those who would obey God's Word about judging that which is untrue to His Word of Truth. It is a travesty that so much that is of an anti-Christ spirit has found undeserved shelter behind a misuse of the Scripture just quoted.

The reason "the Church" is today honeycombed and paralyzed by Satanic Modernism is because those who call themselves Christians have not obeyed the command of God's Word to judge and put away and separate from false teachers and false teaching when they first appeared in their midst. Physical health is maintained by separation from disease germs. Spiritual health is maintained by separation from germs of false doctrine. The greatest peril of our day is not too much judging, but too little judging of spiritual falsehood. God wants His children to be like the noble Bereans who "searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).

Romans 2:1-3 is also addressed to the religious hypocrite who condemned himself because he was guilty of the same things for which he condemned others. James 4:11-12 refers to an evil spirit of backbiting and fault finding, not to judging whether teachers or teachings agree or disagree with God's Word. Our Father never contradicts Himself. To understand one portion of Scripture we must view it in the light of all Scripture. "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private [*isolated] interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). "Comparing spiritual things [*The Word] with spiritual [*The Word]" (1 Corinthians 2:13).

The Wheat and the Tares

The "Wheat and the Tares" parable of Matthew 13:24-30,36-43, is also much misunderstood. First of all, our Lord is talking about the world, not His ekklesia--"the field is the world." He goes on to say that "the good seed are the children of the Kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one." (Matthew 13:38). The two groups are: the wheat being in the world, the tares being of the world; the children of God are those who have received the Christ (John 1:12), and the children of the wicked one are those who reject the Christ (John 8:44). When any of the "children of the wicked one" attempt to become members of the body of Christ, as they have always done, a definite procedure for God's children is set forth in His Word. First, it is their duty to tell them that they have "neither part nor lot" in Christ (see Acts 8:21-23 and context). If the children of the wicked one do not leave voluntarily, as is generally the case, God's children are commanded to "purge out" these unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:7). But God's people have disobeyed His Word about this, and so unbelievers have taken control in many areas, as is now the case in most denominations. Therefore, those who purpose to be true to the Christ and His Word are commanded to "come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Corinthians 6:17), regardless of property or any other considerations. When we obey God's Word, we can trust Him to take care of all the consequences of our obedience.

Other Matters to be Judged

Unrighteous conduct of professed believers is to be judged. 1 Corinthians chapter 5 tells a sad story and closes with the Apostolic injunction, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (2 Corinthians 5:13).

Disputes between fellow-servants of the Christ concerning "things that pertain to this life" (1 Corinthians 6:3) should be judged by a tribunal of fellow-servants instead of going before unbelievers in the civil courts. The whole sixth chapter of 1 Corinthians makes clear God's plan for His people in this regard. And some startling truths are here revealed: First, "the saints shall judge the world." Second, "we shall judge angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2- 3). Beloved, are we letting God prepare us for this high place?

We ought to judge ourselves. "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Corinthians 13:5). "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of [*chastised by] the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (1 Corinthians 11:31-32). What a change and what a blessing it would be if we would judge our own faults as uncharitably as we do the faults of others--and if we would judge the failings of others as charitably as we do our own! And "professing Christians" could save themselves much chastening of the Lord if they would judge and confess and cease their disobedience to God. And, O, how much dishonour and lack of fruit would our blessed Lord be spared!

Man's Limitations of Judgment

We are not to judge motives [see 1 Corinthians 4:1-5]. Only God can see into the heart and know the motives that underlie actions, both good and evil.

We are also not to judge who is saved. "The Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Timothy 2:19). We cannot look into anyone's heart and say whether or not they have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour, if they profess that they have. But we had better test ourselves according to 2 Corinthians 5:17: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." If this change has not taken place, our profession is vain.

Elements in Judgment

The New Testament Greek word that is most often translated "judge" or "judgment" is "krino." On the one hand, it means "to distinguish, to decide, to determine, to conclude, to try, to think and to call in question." That is what God wants His children to do as to whether preachers and teachers and their teachings, and brothers are true or false to His Word.

Our Brother Paul writes: "And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent" (Philippians 1:9-10). A wrong idea of love and lack of knowledge and judgment causes God's people often to approve things that are anything but excellent in God's eyes. The epistle to the Hebrews tells us that mature believers, that is, those who are of "full age," are those who by reason of use [*diligence use] have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:14).

On the other hand, the Greek word "krino"--judge or judgment--also means to condemn, to sentence, and to punish. This is God's prerogative, for He has said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:19).

Thus, the Christ's assembled ones are to exercise diligent discernment, but not vengeance.

Guard against a wrong Attitude

All of God's children should watch against the tendency of the flesh to assume a critical and censorious attitude toward those who do not share our opinions about other matters than those which have to do with Bible doctrine and righteous conduct as God has shown us. Rather than "pick to pieces" our brethren in Christ, it is our privilege and duty under God to do everything we can to encourage their spiritual up-building. We ought to love and pray for one another and consider ourselves, lest we be tempted.

A Final Word

Let us not forget that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:10). It will be well with those who are studying God's Word, walking in the light of it, and living for the Christ and His salvation of souls. It will go ill with those who have accepted Him but who are living for the things of this world.

If you are a mere professor of Christ, or profess nothing, we must lovingly remind everyone that:

"...judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel?" 1 Peter 4:17

We must not delay another moment to ask our Father for the Christ's sake to forgive our sins. To surrender our heart and will to the loving Saviour who died for us. We must make Him the Lord of our whole life. Happy and blessed will we be, now and forever.

Security and Provision

Many people ask us what we think about the government's social security system. Well, the answer is...we don't! Why? Because it is nothing more than a Pyramid Scheme foisted upon the weak and ignorant who mistakenly believe that God's provisions are not sufficient.

To illustrate this fact, here is a little story about John Doe, who walks into an office building and talks to Mr. X about a retirement plan. What would you do if you were John Doe?

John Doe: I'm interested in investing in a retirement plan. What kind of plans do you have?

Mr. X: Well, we have a very special plan for you! It's a plan that will give you the utmost sense of security for your old age years.

John: Good. How does it work?

Mr. X: Well, you pay us a percentage of your paycheck each week. Better yet, you don't have to do a thing! To make it easier for you, we'll automatically deduct it from your paycheck every week. And when you reach retirement age, we'll pay you your retirement money on a monthly basis.

John: Do I determine for myself how much I pay every week?

Mr. X: No, we decide how much we will take from you.

John: How much do you deduct each week?

Mr. X: That changes, depending upon how much we need the money to pay the current retirees.

John: What is the retirement age?

Mr. X: Oh, the retirement age is whatever we say it is. It changes. As people live longer, we raise the retirement age up to compensate for our possible losses.

John: Hmm, I see. And if I start today, will the retirement age be locked at its current age?

Mr. X: No. If people are living longer when you reach retirement age, we will probably decide to raise the age limit. I'm really sorry, but there's nothing you can do about it.

John: And just how much will I get paid once I retire?

Mr. X: Oh, that changes also. We are always lowering the payments as more people retire and draw from this system, because there is not enough money coming in to compensate for all the money going out. You see, we take the money that others have paid into it and, after we pocket most of it, we divide it among new retirees.

John: But, isn't that called a Pyramid Scheme?

Mr. X: Yes, it is, but we call it something else.

John: And aren't all Pyramid Schemes illegal in America?

Mr. X: Yes, they are. But as I said, we call it something else. And besides, we are immune from those laws. You see, we're a subsidiary of a big corporation, and we have the backing of that corporation. Those laws don't apply to us.

John: I see. May I see the contract please?

Mr. X: There is no contract. All you have to do is trust us! Have faith in us. We'll give you our word that we'll pay you.

John: But, if there's no contract to sign, there's no guarantee that I'll get any retirement money from you!

Mr. X: Correct, but you do have our word.

John: If this office decides to cancel their retirement plan service, do I get back the money I already put into it?

Mr. X: No, we keep it all. We don't have to give you a penny. That's the law.

John: Well, I don't think I like what I'm hearing. It sounds like a scam. Give me one reason why I should consider your retirement plan if I am the one taking all the risk, and if there are no guarantees?

Mr. X: Well, 99% of all Americans partake of our retirement plan because they are led to believe it is mandatory to sign-up.

John: So, let me get this straight. Your retirement plan is based upon the Pyramid Scheme, which is illegal in America. There is no guarantee that I'll get paid once I retire. You can change the retirement age at will. You can change how much is deducted from my paycheck at will. If this office decides to cancel this retirement plan service, I lose all the money I put into it. There's no written contract between us, only your word. There's no obligation for you to keep your word, but there appears to be an obligation for me to keep paying you money, regardless.

Mr. X: Yes, that is absolutely correct.

John: And what happens if I decide to stop paying into your retirement plan?

Mr. X: Oh, you can't stop. Once you start, you cannot voluntarily drop out.

John: Really? Well, let's say I decide to join your system. What happens if I stop paying into your retirement plan?

Mr. X: In that case, we will garnish your wages, confiscate your possessions, sell your house, car, and everything else you have. Then we'll take that money from those sales to pay your fair share of this retirement plan, plus interest and penalties. And, in addition to monetary damages, we may have you arrested, taken to court, and thrown in prison.

John: I don't believe what I'm hearing from you! What kind of security is this? I've heard enough! I'm leaving!

Mr. X: But, Mr. Doe, according to our records, you have already joined our retirement system! It's called, "Social Security."

A Lesson in Provision

Israel's history demonstrates that the lesson of provision is one of the most important lessons we learn in our spiritual pilgrimage. This truth was certainly demonstrated during Israel's exodus from Egypt. It didn't take long for the provisions of Egypt to run out. Moses and the people expected a relatively quick trip across the Sinai Peninsula and into the land of Canaan. Unfortunately, what should have been about a two-week journey ended up being forty years of wandering. During those forty years God provided supernaturally for the nation. Six days a week, when the dew dried off the ground, a thin flaky substance was left on the desert floor. God called it "bread from heaven" (Exodus 16:4). When the people saw it they asked, "What is it?" (Exodus 16:15). That question in Hebrew could be transliterated, "man hu?" Eventually they called the substance "man ha," meaning roughly "it is what it is."

God's instruction was clear; each one is to gather as much as he needs (Exodus 16:16). No one was to gather a surplus. When they did, it rotted (Exodus 16:20). This was to be a day-by-day experience of God's provision. God faithfully provided manna for forty years.

After forty years, a new generation prepared to enter the promised land under the leadership of Joshua. Moses reminded this new generation of the provision of God and what it was intended to teach:

"And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no. And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." Deuteronomy 8:2-3

God Almighty was teaching Israel the lesson of provision. His covenant is one of provision. Therefore, as His children, we are to depend on God as the source of our security. We are to ask Him to meet our needs, and know by faith that He will.

Conclusion

If you find you are looking to the State and their human devices for your security a little more than you should be, simply repent of it. The Lord will provide for all your needs. But, you may ask, "Don't I need social security?" Well, the State scares you by saying, "What are you going to do when you are old?" The State has convinced everyone that nobody's going to be there for you. Well, the Lord is always there for you.

Would you not rather put your faith and trust in Almighty God, rather than in the "Socialist Security" system?

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Socialism, Social Security and Welfare

"Socialism, n. A political and economic theory of social reorganization , the essential feature of which is governmental control of economic activities, to the end that competition shall give way to cooperation and that the opportunities of life and the rewards of labor shall be equitably apportioned. Its various theories and various programs have received many distinctive names. Such are Christian socialism; Owenism and Fabianism; collectivism; the communism of the Brook Farm and the nationalism of the followers of Edward Bellamy in America; the socialism of the chair, state socialism; and social democracy." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 1987.

"Prior to the 1920's, public assistance was generally regarded as a supplement to private philanthropy; public relief was supplied primarily by local governments. In the period following World War I, public assistance programs, especially those for the aged, the blind, and dependent children, expanded at a faster rate than private philanthropy. By 1929, more than half of all relief funds came from governmental sources. The National Government, however, spent nothing on public welfare programs before 1932, although it did undertake research in the child welfare field through the Children's Bureau, established in 1912.

"The depression prompted a drastic reallocation of public assistance activities. States and local governments, with few exceptions, could not carry the ever-mounting relief burden by themselves; the National Government took over a larger and larger share.

"At first, the National Government gave temporary aid to State and local relief authorities. In July 1932, the first major National emergency relief legislation authorized loans for direct relief purposes. In 1933, Federal aid took the form of outright grants under the Federal Emergency Relief Act. Through this program, which continued until 1935, grants of over $3 billion were made to the States. In order to remove employable persons from the relief rolls, the National Government also undertook directly to provide work relief. Most important among the several Nationally-administered work programs was the Works Projects Administration, under which more than $10 billion was expended between 1935 and 1942.

An even more far-reaching effect of the depression was the enactment of the Social Security Act of 1935, which marked the assumption by the National Government of a continuing responsibility for assisting the States in promoting the economic security of their citizens. This legislation grew out of the recommendations of the President's Committee on Economic Security. The Committee recommended the social insurance approach for unemployment compensation and old-age insurance as the foundation for a broad system of economic security. The public assistance approach was proposed to complement the insurance programs by covering three groups normally not in the labor force: the aged, the blind, and dependent children. It was expected that old-age assistance would protect those already aged as well as those who could not be covered at all, or covered adequately, by insurance.

"The Social Security Act created a Federally-administered system of old-age insurance financed by compulsory contributions from both employer and employee. Unemployment insurance was established as a cooperative system under which a Federal payroll tax on employers could be partially offset by similar contributions made under State laws. Grants would be made to enable the States to administer unemployment compensation and employment service programs. The act further provided for grants-in-aid to the States for three types of assistance to the needy: old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind. The National Government thereby discontinued participation in emergency relief for the unemployed and entered the field of categorical assistance instead. A special grant was provided, also, for child welfare services." The Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, a report to the President (1955), pp. 266-267

"It is against public policy to endow perpetually a political party; hence a trust to promote the success of a particular political party is not charitable. See note, 'Charitable Trusts for Political Purposes,' 37 Va.L.Rev. 988 (1951). However, some rather subtle distinctions have been drawn between a trust for a political party and a trust for the improvement of the structure and methods of government, which is charitable. For example, a trust to provide a place where the doctrines of socialism could be taught by example as well as by precept is charitable. Peth v. Spear (1911), 63 Wash. 291, 115 P. 164." Dukeminier and Johnson, Wills, Trusts, and Estates, p. 588.

Bits and Pieces

Senate Prayer

When Pastor Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual politically correct generalities. But on January 23, 1996, what they heard instead was a stirring prayer.

The response was immediate - with a number of legislators walking out during the prayer. In six short weeks Central Christian Church logged more than 5,000 phone calls, with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. Commentator Paul Harvey aired Pastor Joe Wright's prayer on the radio and received a larger response to this program than any other program Paul Harvey has ever aired. In addition, central Christian Church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa, and Korea. The prayer is reprinted below as an encouragement and challenge for each of us--

"Heavenly Father, we come before You today to ask Your forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, "Woe unto them that call evil good," but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.

We confess that:

We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;

We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation;

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare;

We have killed our unborn and called it choice;

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable;

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;

We have abused power and called it political savvy;

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition;

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state. Grant them Your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your will. I ask in the name of Your Son, the Living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."

Bits of Wisdom

"History = n. A formal record of the outward appearance created for the unknowing masses." Unknown

"History, n. An account, mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools." Ambrose Bierce

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." Dresden James

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Unknown

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." John Hay

"None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Unknown

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words." Samuel Adams

"Remember, if everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for. Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at least one level below what "everybody knows." Unknown

"The world neither has, nor can it give eternal life." The Truth, the Way, and the Life.

A "Moral" Dilemma?

It's time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He's also a chain smoker and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian who doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Candidate A: Franklin D. Roosevelt

Candidate B: Winston Churchill

Candidate C: Adolph Hitler

The Sheep of the Welfare State

The State is my Shepherd, I need not work. It alloweth me to lie down on a good job; It leadeth me beside still factories; It destroyeth my initiative. It leadeth me in the path of a parasite for politic's sake; Yea, though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending, I will fear no evil, for the government is with me. It prepareth an economic Utopia for me, by appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren. It filleth my head with false security; My inefficiency runneth over. Surely the government should care for me all the days of my life, And I shall dwell in a fool's house forever.

The Freudian Slip

According to his book Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas said George Bush talked of his faith and how meaningful it was to him in front of a religious broadcasters convention around 1990. He said he didn't wear it on his shirt sleeve, but it was there none-the-less. He shared his favorite Bible verse...

John 16:3, "For God so loved the world..."

Of course, the speech writer meant to have George Bush say he was quoting John 3:16. But neither he nor the president had enough familiarity with the text to know the difference. So, what does John 16:3 actually say?

John 16:3, "And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor Me."

What things will they do unto you. Verse 2 tells us, "the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service."

It is true that the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways!!

Issue the Sixty-sixth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

There is only One Lawgiver, Part One ...

Debt and Mortgage--and the Law Merchant ...

What Scripture says about Merchants, Money, & Credit ..

Must we call God by a "Sacred Name"? ...

The Names of God ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

There is only One Lawgiver!

Part One

"There is one lawgiver, Who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" James 4:12
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." Isaiah 33:22

It has become evident in these times that too many "Christians" have accepted the unrighteous spirit of the State--its rules and regulations--instead of insisting that the State follow the only Law--the Law of Almighty God. Compromising with temporal powers can never lead to redemption (Romans 3:31, Ephesians 5:5).

This article will examine the difference between Law and force. If one's walk is according to Law (love is the fulfilling of the law - Romans 13:8), they do not need force, for then there is nothing to force. The kingdoms of this world need and use force, for there is no love in what they do. Whereas the rule of the Kingdom of God is Law, for therein the fulfillment of love is found and is all that is needed. Where there is force, there is the lie of self-will. Where there is love, there is the Truth of the Will of God.

In truth, the natural man does not have authority to make laws, but only the authority to make 'ordinances' which enforce Laws already in existence, which are the Laws of God. To obey the so-called 'laws' conjured up by the worldly governing authorities is to set aside the Glad Tidings of our Lord, and place oneself under a separate government other than His.

Bondmen of Christ Jesus are not citizens of any country on this earth; our citizenship is in heaven, and so our first loyalty is to God, not "our" country (Ephesians 2:19, Philippians 3:20). Ours is a better, heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16).

Throughout the Scriptures, governments of the world have always been the leader in bringing people to sin (Daniel 3:4-6, 1 Kings 12:25:33; 14:21-24, 2 Kings 13:2; 17:21; 21:11,16, 2 Chronicles 21:6,11-13, Isaiah 9:16). God condemned Israel for wanting to be ruled like other nations, by a human king (1 Samuel 8:5,20), which the Father considered to be a rejection of Himself because He would not then reign over them (1 Samuel 8:7). Notice their kings never had any power to make new laws; nor did their best and wisest kings make any, as in the cases of David and Solomon; and when a return to the ways of the Lord was made among them, as by Hezekiah and Josiah, it was not by making any new regulations, but by putting the original Law into execution; and by directing and requiring of the judges, and other officers, to act according to that Law.

To serve an earthly king, or his government, is to serve other gods (1 Samuel 8:8-9), which is violating the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3). It is wickedness and a sin to ask to be ruled by a human government instead of God (1 Samuel 12:17-19). Our Father condemned Israel for following the statutes of their disobedient government (2 Kings 17:7-8). He rejected those who followed the statutes of governments instead of His commandments (2 Kings 17:19-20). He specifically said not to follow the ordinances of earthly governments, but to follow His laws, ordinances, and statutes instead (Leviticus 18:1-5). Throughout the history of Israel, the majority of the kings of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord (1 Kings 11:4-9, 2 Kings 8:18), which shows that most rulers and governments are corrupt because of their carnal nature (Romans 8:7). The Jews eventually chose king Caesar over King Jesus (John 19:15). Those who do the same are just like them.

The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep (live by) His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13), not to fear man and live by man's commandments which turn from the Truth (Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:20-22, Titus 1:14). What duty is there to a servant of Jesus Christ except to fulfil God's Law (Romans 13:8)? When we pray, we pray to do our Father's Will, not man's will (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2). God rewards those who place His Laws above man-made laws (Exodus 1:17,20). We are even instructed to avoid going to courts of law before the unjust and unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). How incredible that the just would go before the unjust for justice! Therein no blessings are found:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly." Psalms 1:1

The kings and rulers of the earth are against the Lord, and against His anointed (Psalm 2:2). Governments frame mischief and sin through their laws (Psalm 94:20).

"Woe unto them that prescribe grievous laws and take away the right from the poor" Isaiah 10:1-2

When a government is ungodly, and people trust in that government, then God will punish those who trust in that government (Jeremiah 15:4; 46:25, 2 Kings 21:11-12, Isaiah 9:16). The people will be cursed for trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5, Hosea 10:13). We are to trust in the Lord, rather than put confidence in man and governments (Psalm 118:8-9). We are told not to put our trust in them (Psalm 146:3). We are commanded to "turn away" from those with the spirit of the world (2 Timothy 3:2-5), and today's governing authorities possess that spirit! That spirit is:

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" 2 Timothy 3:5

So we are to turn away from any government with these characteristics. They proclaim their own power (force), which becomes a "law" unto itself. The law is made for evil-doers, not for the righteous (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

We have been taught that we must obey even ungodly governments, and to support them by paying taxes, but:

"...Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD." 2 Chronicles 19:2

Jesus' teaching on Men's Governments

What did our Lord teach about the governments of men? Let us examine 3 parallel accounts in His Glad Tidings. He Himself exclaimed:

"...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them." Matthew 20:25
"...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." Mark 10:42
"...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. " Luke 22:25

By comparing these 3 parallel verses, our Lord stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings) exercise authority over the Gentiles (non-believers). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Truth at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32), and His Glad Tidings were not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after His resurrection (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48).

Notice what our Lord said next. Does He say that His ekklesia will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not!:

"But it shall not be so among you:" Matthew 20:26
"But so shall it not be among you:" Mark 10:43
"But ye shall not be so:" Luke 22:26

He said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the Gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and His people. Read what He said after He told His disciples (learners) that princes, rulers, and kings of the nations will not have authority over His Chosen:

"but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Matthew 20:26-27
"but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Mark 10:43-44
"...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." Luke 22:26

As we see, He does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all-- unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of scripture, when our Father created the earth. When He first created man, He commanded:

"...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" Genesis 1:26,28

Also note that this dominion was given to man when he was walking with God in the Garden--not after man believed he could "be as god." When an earthly government believes it is "god walking on earth," it has no true dominion (authority) but only force, and has fallen from the Grace of Almighty God. Dominion and force are opposed to one another. Force is false power.

Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man.

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Matthew 23:10

Remember, the "reason" Jesus the Christ was crucified was because the governing "authorities" at that time were afraid that they were going to lose their "place and nation," their political power, if the people believed on Jesus (John 11:47-48).

The Apostle's teaching on Men's Governments

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). The "reason" the apostles were all arrested and most eventually executed was because they "all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). Our Brother Paul said:

"That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" 1 Corinthians 2:5

The apostles disobeyed their governing authorities because, "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24), and we are not to be "the servants of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23). We can only serve one lord, one Messiah, and no other lord. As He asked in Luke 6:46, "And why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" We are to follow and do the things Christ says to do, not the things Caesar says to do.

Do you remember when people used to call their government officials--the police, etc.--their "public servants"? Why? Because they were supposed to serve those people (Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:26). Now, those servants have become the masters and they are feared, by most, more than they fear God (Matthew 10:28, Proverbs 29:25). However, true servants of God do not fear the king's commandments (Hebrews 11:23). We are not to fear man (Psalm 56:4; 118:6, Isaiah 51:7, Matthew 10:28, Hebrews 13:6).

The earthly government is to sit on the Christ's shoulder (Isaiah 9:6), and there is no end to His government (Isaiah 9:7, Psalms 145:13). Those in government are instructed to follow God's Law and serve Him (Psalm 2:10-12). And we are to obey the ordinances of man as long as they do God's Will; through punishing evildoers and praising them that do well (Romans 13:3, 1 Peter 2:13-17).

A Study of Romans 13

Romans 13:1-10 explains the government which applies to the bondmen of Christ. Our Father has ordained rulers, and those rulers have responsibilities before Him. Unfortunately, many interpret this chapter to mean we are to obey all governments, no matter how ungodly they are. However, this cannot mean we are to roll over and submit to governing authorities, because if that's the case, Jesus Himself violated Romans 13. Bringing Him into conflict with "the powers that be" by doing the Will of the Father, they crucified Him unlawfully. Just because God ordains government for His purposes, it does not mean they are a Godly government. He does "use" evil to draw His people closer to Him.

Here's a little food for thought:

Who wrote the book of Romans? Paul. Where did Paul write Romans? In prison. Where did Paul write most of his Epistles? In prison. What is another name to describe the epistles of Paul? The "Prison Epistles." Why are they known as the "Prison Epistles"? Because Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorities." Why was Paul being repeatedly arrested? Because he kept breaking the laws of the "governing authorities." Now, the "modern" church claims that Paul was in prison only because he would not confess that Caesar was his lord. This is not possible, because one immediately received the death penalty for not doing so. Obviously, Paul was never directly asked to do so until they executed him in Rome in AD 67.

Who put Jesus to death? The government of Rome. Who put Paul to death? The Emperor of the Roman Empire, Nero. Who killed most of the apostles? The "governing authorities." Did Jesus and the apostles obey the "governing authorities" of their day? Obviously not.

If Paul, in Romans 13, was saying to "obey all governments" then Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples were hypocrites, because they all lived their life by placing God's Law above man-made laws!

Now, let us take a look at the first six passages of Romans 13.

Does verse 1 say, "let every servant of the Christ be subject unto all governments"? Or does it say, "let every soul (including governing authorities such as kings, judges, police, etc.) be subject unto the Higher Power"? Who do souls belong to? And who is the Higher Power? Our Father's Word, at Ezekiel 18:4, tells us:

"Behold, all souls are Mine."

And the second part of verse 1 tells Who the Higher Power is: "For there is no power but of God:".

The souls of the governmental powers belong to God, and they are not the higher powers; the higher powers are held by Christ Himself (Matthew 28:18). Is our Lord not the Higher Power, then, if all power has been committed unto Him (John 17:2)? The Christ is the governor among the nations (Psalms 22:28). All power over earthly kings has been given unto Him (Romans 14:9). All judgment has been given unto Him (John 5:22,27). Notice the separation of Power in Romans 13:1. All power comes from, and belongs to, God (Psalm 62:11)--not the one exercising it. And remember that most men, especially those constituting the "governing authorities" usually deny that power given to Jesus (2 Timothy 3:5).

Verse 2 says, "Whosoever therefore resisteth (Greek word #498 antitassomai) the power, resisteth (Greek word #436 anthistemi) the ordinance of God:" The words "resisteth" in this verse are from two completely different Greek words with two different meanings. Let's look into the first word "resisteth" by going to the original Greek. To "resist" the power of rulers ordained by God means the following:

"antitassomai. To range in battle against." Thayer's Greek Lexicon
"antitassomai. To set an army in array against; to arrange in battle order." Zodhiates' Word Studies
"antitassomai. Setteth himself in array against; as one draws out a host for battle. Implying an organized or concerted resistance" Vincent's Word Studies
"antitassomai. To range in battle against" Strong's Greek Lexicon

This is in accord with these passages:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)." 2 Corinthians 10:3-4
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:11-12

Ephesians goes on to list all of our spiritual weapons. Notice, there are no physical weapons listed. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, so when you use the carnal weapons against the governing power ordained by God, then you are resisting the ordinance of God.

"Wisdom is better than weapons of war: and one sinner will destroy much good." Ecclesiastes 9:18

Now the meaning of the second term, "resisteth the ordinance of God" simply means "to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose." In other words, the first "resisteth" means to use physical weapons in battle against an ordained power, which would result in the second "resisteth" because the use of those weapons is opposed to the Will of God. He would have us use spiritual weapons only--the Sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6: 13-18).

Verse 3 says God ordained governments, but the only power He gave to "governing authorities" is to punish evil-doers and reward the doers of good (John 18:23, Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:14). The definition of good and evil is defined in the scripture. God did not give government the power to interfere with, and interpose itself in, the exercising of God's Law by His people.

Verse 4 says rulers are to be ministers of God--servants of God. If rulers are not the servants of God--if they do not follow and obey His Word--no obedience is due to them. And how do we know if they are servants of God? By testing them with God's Word (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 12:30, Mark 7:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Titus 1:14, 1 John 4:1, 3 John 1:11, Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15).

God's purpose for all governments is to be "a minister of God to thee for good."

Verse 6 says we are to pay taxes to the government for one purpose only--because they are God's ministers. If a government uses tax "dollars" that go contrary to God's Will, then they are no longer ministers of God, and thus no taxes are due to them (Ezra 4:12-13).

Their purpose is to punish evil doers as a rod of correction to drive them back to the ways of the Lord, and to encourage the righteous. They are to be ministers of God, meaning they are to carry out the duties that God has given them. But when the governing authorities ever fail to do this, or go beyond this, then they themselves are resisting the ordinances of God being unlawful authorities that must be "resisted" with the Sword of the Word.

Another claim that some people make for the "reason" our Brother Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorities" was because he was "preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ." Is this true?

In Part Two of this article in the next Issue, we will answer that very question; plus examinations of taxes, the Roman Libellus, the positions of the Christ's ekklesia and the "State" within God's Order, and some answers to possible questions.

Debt and Mortgage --

and the Law Merchant

"He that buildeth his house with other men's money is like one that gathereth himself stones for the tomb of his burial." Ecclesiasticus 21:8

What is the meaning and origin of the word mortgage? Mort means "death" (as in mortuary or mortality), and gage means "pledge." Mort-gage means a "dead pledge," a pledge of death. In Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856, Dead-Pledge is defined as "a mortgage of lands or goods." It's a pledge of death, as the verse above clearly tells us, because its an "engagement in debt" (a neglect or violation of duty). That is why we're to owe no man anything but to love one another. There is no love or life when one neglects or violates the Law of God. The definition from Bouvier's is full disclosure that one is walking in bondage and death when engaged in mortgages and debt. And we're also warned:

"We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses. We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyardsand, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards." Nehemiah 5:3-5

This article will detail how debt brings into captivity he who engages in it.

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7

When one enters into debt, who is he a servant to? Simply put, he is a servant to the merchants of the earth because their "law," the Law Merchant, has full jurisdiction over debt within their system. Between Brothers there's not really any debt, because we give and expect nothing in return, because "it is more blessed to give than to receive," (but when we're dealing with the natural man and we go in debt with the world, we're entering into a private law, which is known as the lex mercatoria (Law Merchant).

Private law, not God's Law

This quote is from Stone, Smith, Frank and Rommage in their book Fundamentals of Business Law, from 1950:

"The merchants of the Italian city states and of the cities that were members of the Hensiatic League rejuvenated general European trade in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, following its almost total abandonment after the fall of Rome. These traders took precepts from the ancient law of the Romans Empire, adapted them to their times, and created customs of trade and ways of doing business that became accepted among the merchants of all Europe. And hence, this body of business, or commercial law, obtained the name Law Merchant. The law of agency, sales, negotiable instruments, insurance, carriage, debt, guarantees, soccage and transit, liens, partnership and bankruptcy, was made by these traveling, international private merchants."

In other words, the whole debt system that's set up today, when you enter into it, you're entering into that private law of those private merchants, and that's who you become a servant to.

Why Mortgages are Ungodly

The idea of paying interest on anything that is loaned to you is foreign to the Word of God, because interest (usury) is condemned by God (Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:36-37; 23:19-20, Nehemiah 5:7,10-11, Psalms 15:5, Proverbs 28:8, Isaiah 24:1-3, Ezekiel 18:8,13; 22:12-13). So, when one pays those usury fees (interest) they are partaking of the sin of the merchant who engages in the usury. And this would follow one of God's commandments concerning borrowing. Simply and directly put: "Thou shalt not borrow" (Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:12).

Now we'll look and see how, when a mortgage is contracted, one man is partaking of another man's sins. Basically, the mortgage system originated in Babylon, and by partaking of the ways of Babylon, we are forsaking God's ways.

The following quote is from The Georgetown Law Journal, written by Judith A. Shapiro. The name of this article is called The Shetar's Affect on the English Law, and subtitled, A Law of the Jews becomes the Law of the Land. The Introduction reads as follows:

"English Law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discreet elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English and efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn, contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law. Their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English law.
"Several elements of historical Jewish practices have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement, Shetar, or Starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the Shetar, or Jewish Gage, was a lean on all property, including realty, that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the Shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulted debtor. Both movable and immovable property was subjected to distraint.
"In contrast, the obligation of knight service, under Anglo-Saxon Norman law, barred a land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant, and therefore, a different knight owing service upon the lord. The dominance of personal feudal loyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of a debt; only the debtor's chattels could be seized."

At this point we will pause here and explain the above quote. When someone took out a loan, that loan could not be applied to the land. The land was free of any debt, because it was under knight service. To continue the Introduction:

"These rules kept feudal obligations in tact, assuring that the lord would continue to be served by his own knights. When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law, that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable", was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding."

So, they brought in the Shetar as a weapon, and it completely changed what debt could apply itself to. And it is now the modern mortgage system. Previously to that law being implemented, the land could never be taken from you, but of course today it can. And to continue:

"The crusades of the twelfth century opened an era of change in feudal England. To obtain funds from Jews, nobles offered their land as collateral, although the Jews, as aliens, could not hold land in fee simple, they could take security interest in substantial money value. That Jews were permitted to hold security interest in land, they did not occupy expanded interest in land beyond the traditional tendencies. The separation of possessory interest from interest in fee contributed to the decline of the rigid feudal land tenure structure."

So, when they bring in a new law, it changes it slightly, and then over time they bring in new laws. The rule of the despot is, "Three steps forward, two steps back." There is always one step forward gained in the equation. Very similar to what the Federal government does today. They'll bring in just a little change that really doesn't affect much, then they'll bring in another little change, and so on and so forth, and before you know it everything is turned upside down and things aren't exactly as they used to be. And finally:

"At the same time, the strength of the feudal system had inheritant resistance to this widespread innovation abated. By 1250, scuttage had completely replaced feudal services. Tenant obligations had been reduced to money payments, and as the identity of the principles in the landlord tenant relationship became less critical, a change in the feudal rules restricting alienability of interest in land became possible."

The Shetar

Now, in the same law review under the section The Jewish Credit Agreement in Feudal England, page 1182, it explains the more intricate history of the Shetar in Jewish law:

"The law of the Shetar developed and elaborated by 500 A.D. in the Babylonian Talmud, antedates the Norman conquest by six centuries. Historically, the Shetar was an instrument that established formal obligation either in contract or in debt. At the moment that a debtor acknowledged his indebtedness through a Shetar, a general lien was established encumbering all the debtors property as security for ultimate repayment. In case of default, the creditor could proceed not only against "movable and immovable property" held by the debtor, but also against encumbered land that the debtor had transferred to a third party. The debt attached to the land and the creditors lien had priority over subsequent alienations.
"Because of the severe obligation imposed by the Shetar, the contents of the instrument followed a standard form designed to insure authenticity and precision. Each Shetar recited standard clauses of obligation, the creditor's right to customary modes of execution, and a final phrase stating that the document was not merely a forum, but a statement of an express contract. Inserted into the forum language were the names of the parties, the sum and the currency of the debt, and the date of the obligation, thereby indicating the creation of the lien. To prevent fraud, the document was signed by two witnesses who knew the parties."

So when you see the description of the original Shetar, it's the same description of the modern mortgage. To continue:

"A nation of wanderers, in adapting a variety of cultures, determined that the language in which the Shetar was written should be irrelevant to its legal validity. Thus, in dealings with a surrounding Gentile populous, Jews were content that loan agreements be formalized in Latin or in the Norman French of early England. Generally, the Jewish parties and witnesses were to test in Hebrew and the Christians in French or Latin. Although neither party may have understood the other's language, the document had the full force of law in both communities.
"The crucial limitation on debt collection under Jewish law was that a creditor had a lien against the debtor's land, but not against the debtor's person. Personal freedom was not to be diminished by a debt obligation, and a creditor could not enslave one who was unable to repay him. The origin of this practice was the biblical protection of the dignity of debtors as embodied in the injunction not to enter the debtor's home to receive a pledge, but rather to wait outside for the debtor to bring it out. This was the structure of the law of obligation that the Jews brought with them to England."

What we see here is the modern mortgage system and its origin. It came out of the Babylonian Talmud, and it was adopted by the merchants of the world, the world banking system, etc. Therefore, it is fully revealed that he who engages in a mortgage is yoked with those of the world. "Repent ye: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

There were warnings:

"Ruling during an era of socio-economic change from 1272 to 1307, king Edward was want to legislate accordingly, and Edward was weary of the Jews. Thus, he issued laws forbidding the Jews from holding real property, denying them usurious practice and ordering them to wear distinctive dress and identifying badges."

So Hitler did nothing new when he forbade Jews from owning land and making them wear distinctive dress and identifying marks. On its face, it would appear that he was repeating history, but:

"Even as he restricted Jewish money lenders, Edward expanded the universe of non-Jewish money lending. He had before him a model of secured debt contracts, enforced for centuries by the royal courts for the royal users."

What we see from the above is that the "non-Jews" picked-up on the ways of the Jews and became "one" with them and their Babylonian Talmud. So, we're not talking strictly about the Jews. We're talking about the spirit of anti-Christ provided, promoted and enlarged by the kings and merchants of the earth:

"In the Statute of Merchants in 1285, Edward extended to creditors the forms of registry, remedy, and enforcement that had previously been the substance of the exchequer of the Jews. Under the statute, a debtor acknowledged the existence of his debt before the mayor and one of the recording clerks. The clerks recorded the debt in two rolls, one to remain with the mayor and one with the clerks. In his own recognizable handwriting, the clerk prepared a debt instrument to which the debtor affixed his seal and the officials affixed the king's seal. This instrument was given to the creditor who would present it to the mayor and the courts to prove his rights if the debtor defaulted.
"More than the enrollment procedures paralleled the structures of the exchequer of the Jews. The remedies also extended to Christian creditors the relief formally available only to Jews. No longer was a Christian creditor's release before judgment limited by the debtor's absence. If the Christian creditor presented to the mayor a matured acknowledged debt instrument corresponding to an enrolled debt he had established full right to relief. If the debtor did not pay, the creditor eventually obtained access to the debtor's lands even as the Jews had done for years. And if the creditor was ejected from the debtor's lands, he could bring an asseize of novel desisen to be put back in possession. The Statute of Merchants expressly allowed merchant's "damages and all necessary and reasonable costs in their labors, suits, delays and expenses," the same label that disguised otherwise usurious interest in Jewish contracts. Finally, the king assumed the duty of maintaining the Role of Debts affixing his seal next to the debtor's and charging one penny for each pound of obligation. The new law expressly excluded Jews."

We see then how this spirit was developed and promoted. The Jews "invented" it, the "Christians" bought "rights" to the "invention," and then the king, to make this spirit "appear" Christian, excluded the original "inventors," the Jews. And then he went even further to complete the ruse:

"Five years after the Statute of Merchants, Edward the First expelled the Jews from England. Religious hostility was rife. Repeated atalages had depleted the Jew's resources and lessened their value to the king's purse. No longer were the Jews the unique source of credit in England. By the Statute of Merchants, Edward had granted to all non-Jewish creditors the same remedies and procedural rights previously available to the Jews. Debts were secured by land and the security interests survived the death of the creditor and the alienation of the property. In addition to the property that escheated to the king on their departure, the Jews left behind A Law of Debtors and Creditors developed in the Talmud, introduced in the exchequer and preserved in the laws of England.
"Traces of the Shetar procedures survived for centuries in English law. A sealed debt continued to be discharged only by a Deed of Release or by cancellation or destruction of the debt instrument. The practice of debt cancellation by requiring return of the pes of the chirograph continued from 1194 until its abolition by statute in 1833. Most important, the encumbrance of real property permitted by the Jewish law of the Shetar had been adopted by English law. Bonds contained the traditional Hebrew formula of pledging "all my goods, movable and immovable." Creditors had the statutory right to execute against the debtor's land. No longer were personal obligations and rights in land rigidly separate. Even while Edward was divesting himself of his Jewish money lenders, he made their legacy permanent. A small but significant principle of Jewish law wherein personal debt superceded rights in real property had become the law of the land."

Oh, that crafty serpent!! The ways of the Babylonian Talmud became part of the common law of England. In spirit, the law of the merchants of the earth was merged with the Common Law of England, what up until that time contained only Biblical Law. So today the term "Common Law" includes the Law Merchant. The merger "officially" took place in the 1600's in England through a court decision by Lord Mansfield, and was then brought to America and "incorporated" into the Federal and State constitutions, i.e., "the Common Law of England shall rule in all case of law and equity."

The above is an example of why Proverbs 22:7 warns us about those who join with and engage in the ways of the heathen:

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."

The Answer

People ask, "Well, what we can do about it?" The only answer is to stop partaking of it. Follow the ways of the Lord in your dealings with others. Remember, the Lord provides for all of our needs. We're not to seek those things of the world. And if your heart is truly after Him, you will abandon those things and find, through Him, His alternatives and His ways. It all comes down to faith. You go to His Word and you go to prayer and He will show you the way. He always does. And that walk of faith results in knowing, and then seeing, that He will provide for you when you walk in His ways.

"Choose you this day whom ye will serve." When you enter into the system that's "set up" today, you're entering into that private law of those private merchants, and that's who you become a servant to. You're serving sin, because our Lord rejected all those things of the Roman Empire. As He rejected those things, we must also.

Now, words are easy to say, but doing it is always the difficult part. People are in debt and they don't know how to get out of it, or they don't think they can survive in the world without going into debt. Especially in the area of buying a house and the mortgage system. And, along with that, everyone believes that they have to have just as good of a house as everyone else. So, it has a lot with being spoiled and going for the wants instead of needs.

When you walk with the Lord, He provides all of our needs (Matthew 6:26-33; Luke 12:28-31, Psalm 34:10). It's our wants that get us into debt. We have to put all those wants behind us and stop looking to the things of the flesh to satisfy us, because there is no satisfaction there.

"The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 (KJV)
"The Lord tends me as a shepherd, and I shall want nothing." Psalm 23:1 (Septuagint)

We are shown at 1 Samuel 22:1-2 that those who were "in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented" abandoned all of those things and went to a man of the Lord (David) and had him rule over them. They abandoned that yoke and heavy burden of bondage of the ways of the heathen, and exchanged it for a yoke that is easy and a burden that's light (Matthew 11:30). And we must do the same thing; we must put all those things behind us and follow Christ Jesus only, and not the ways of the world. Without bringing you into bondage through debt, the beast has no power.

If we read the history of God's people, we find that sin always leads to slavery. And that's why we have to follow His Words and His Commandments.

"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is Mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me." Leviticus 25:23

What Scripture says about

Merchants, Money, and Credit

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that one of our duties as bondmen of Jesus the Christ is to remain separate from the unclean things of the commercial world. Our Father has made it clear that we cannot serve both Him and mammon (wealth, riches, money, etc.). When men are pursuing riches, or "a living," they will often times do whatever it takes to get what they "want." It is that "pursuit" that we must avoid, for His sake.

Merchants are condemned in scripture, as will be seen, because their mode of commerce not only involves thievery and war, but it also creates a form of slavery for those who are "captured" by it. Governments regulate the commerce of the merchants of the earth and their "customers" in an "attempt" to keep the thievery and slavery at a manageable level, and to finance their war machines. That is why those who engage in such activity are "presumed" guilty until proven innocent, for they are guilty according to God's Law.

Most of the natural man's governmental codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, public policies, etc., are designed to regulate those partaking of the ways and means of the lex mercatoria, the Law Merchant. That law, as distinguished from God's Law, is a private law.

Thievery

"The law recognizes the fact that men will naturally overstate the value and qualities of the articles which they have to sell." Kimball v. Bangs, 141 Mass. 323, Morton. C.J. ; Mooney v. Miller, 102 id. 220; Gordon v. Butler, 105 U.S. 557, Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 id. 256.

The spirit of the world continually encourages everyone to join with and obey the Law Merchant. That crafty serpent never sleeps. It continually offers the benefits of the world. When you look to man for your benefits, a duty outside the Word of God attaches to you, and man becomes your lord, lording over you. The "bait and switch" of the crafty serpent is this: the resulting duty greatly outweighs the benefit received! So you end up with less, and you give it more power. And remember, the beast has no power except that which it is given by its obedient servants.

However, by not partaking of the commercial benefits that the world offers, we are not submitting ourselves to those particular laws governing commercial activity. Therefore, those laws do not apply to those who are not engaged in their mode of commercial activity.

The following passages will reveal how evil the pursuit of money, wealth, riches, credit, interest, borrowing, and benefits really are.

But first, we must make a clarification, that is, if God blesses us with riches that's one thing; but if we chase after riches that's another. Our life is not to revolve around gain, but around Christ. Why chase things that are temporal which will be lost anyway? We are to pursue a true relationship with God, letting our soul be after Him, and He will provide everything we need as we walk in His ways. (Matthew 6:30, Luke 12:28, Philippians 4:19).

Rich men and money

"They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave." Job 21:13
"The rich man shall lie down, but he shall not be gathered: he openeth his eyes, and he is not. Terrors take hold on him as waters, a tempest stealeth him away in the night. The east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth: and as a storm hurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not spare: he would fain flee out of His hand. Men shall clap their hands at him, and shall hiss him out of his place." Job 27:19-23
"If I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because mine hand had gotten much; This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above." Job 31:25,28
"They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Psalms 49:6-7
"God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, He shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah. The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him: Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness." Psalms 52:5-7
"Trust not in oppression, and become not vain in robbery: if riches increase, set not your heart upon them." Psalms 62:10
"Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches." Psalms 73:12
"And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof." Proverbs 1:18-19
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold." Proverbs 3:13-14
"Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death." Proverbs 11:4
"He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch." Proverbs 11:28
"There is that maketh himself rich, yet hath nothing: there is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches." Proverbs 13:7
"The poor is hated even of his own neighbour: but the rich hath many friends. He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath mercy on the poor, happy is he." Proverbs 14:20-21
"In the house of the righteous is much treasure: but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble." Proverbs 15:6
"Better is little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble therewith." Proverbs 15:16
"He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live." Proverbs 15:27
"Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right." Proverbs 16:8
"The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit." Proverbs 18:11
"The poor useth intreaties; but the rich answereth roughly." Proverbs 18:23
"Wealth maketh many friends; but the poor is separated from his neighbour." Proverbs 19:4
"The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death." Proverbs 21:6
"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold." Proverbs 22:1
"The rich ruleth over the poor," Proverbs 22:7
"He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want." Proverbs 22:16
"Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom." Proverbs 23:4
"Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich." Proverbs 28:6
"The rich man is wise in his own conceit; but the poor that hath understanding searcheth him out." Proverbs 28:11
"A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent." Proverbs 28:20
"He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him." Proverbs 28:22
"What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" Ecclesiastes 1:3
"Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun." Ecclesiastes 2:11
"What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?" Ecclesiastes 3:9
"...and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind?" Ecclesiastes 5:16
"For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it." Ecclesiastes 7:12
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto Me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." Isaiah 55:1-2
"Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter." Isaiah 56:11
"For among My people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich." Jeremiah 5:26-27
"As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool." Jeremiah 17:11
"For because thou hast trusted in thy works and in thy treasures, thou shalt also be taken:" Jeremiah 48:7
" for Ai is spoiled:...O backsliding daughter that trusted in her treasures," Jeremiah 49:4
"...a sword is upon her treasures; and they shall be robbed." Jeremiah 50:37
"O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness." Jeremiah 51:13
" thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thytraffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD;I will bring strangers upon theeand they shall draw their swords against theThey shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt dieby the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD." Ezekiel 28:4-10
"...He shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels." Hosea 13:15
"The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us." Micah 3:11
"For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth." Micah 6:12
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Matthew 6:19-21
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon [*riches]." Matthew 6:24
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me." Matthew 19:21
"Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:23-24
"And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." Mark 4:19
"And [*Jesus] commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:" Mark 6:8 (Luke 9:3).
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Mark 8:36-37
"Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." Mark 10:21
"And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 10:23-25
"And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray Him [*Jesus] unto them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray Him [*Jesus]." Mark 14:10-11
"But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation." Luke 6:24
"And He said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:15
"But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." Luke 12:20-21
"Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth." Luke 12:33
"Now when Jesus heard these things, He said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich." Luke 18:22-23
"Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:24, 33
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." Philippians 3:7
"A bishop then must be blamelessnot greedy of filthy lucre." 1 Timothy 3:2-3
"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;" 1 Timothy 3:8
"Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:5-7, 9-10
"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, Who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;" 1 Timothy 6:17
"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;" Titus 1:7
"But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways." James 1:10-11
"But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?" James 2:6-7
"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you." James 5:1-2
"Feed the flock of God which is among younot for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;" 1 Peter 5:2
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" Revelation 3:17
"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" Revelation 6:15-17

Interest (usury), Credit, Borrowing, and Debt

"If thou lend money to any of My people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep?" Exodus 22:25-27
"Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Leviticus 25:36-37
"...thou shalt not borrow; " Deuteronomy 15:6; 28:12
"At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a releaseEvery creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD'S release. Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;" Deuteronomy 15:1-3
"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." Deuteronomy 23:19-20
"No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man's life to pledge." Deuteronomy 24:6
"We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyardsand, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards." Nehemiah 5:3-5
"and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them." Nehemiah 5:7,10-11
"He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved." Psalms 15:5
"My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth." Proverbs 6:1-2
"He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretyship is sure." Proverbs 11:15
"the borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7
"Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Proverbs 22:26
"He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor." Proverbs 28:8
"Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. And it shall beas with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him. The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word." Isaiah 24:1-3
"He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, he that Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:8,13
"In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD. Behold, therefore I have smitten Mine hand at thy dishonest gain which thou hast made, and at thy blood which hath been in the midst of thee." Ezekiel 22:12-13
"Owe no man any thing," Romans 13:8

Merchants are Thieves and cause Violence

"Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt [*slavery]." Genesis 37:28
"Be still, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished. Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth? The LORD of hosts hath purposed it, to stain the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earththe LORD hath given a commandment against the merchant city, to destroy the strong holds thereof." Isaiah 23:2,8,9,11
"Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee." Isaiah 47:15
"He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants. Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Say now to the rebellious house." Ezekiel 17:4,11-12
"The merchants among the people shall hiss at thee; thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt be any more." Ezekiel 27:12-36
"By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned:" Ezekiel 28:16
"Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?" Ezekiel 38:13
"He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress." Hosea 12:7
"Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away. Thy crowned are as the locustsThy shepherds slumberThere is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit [*report] of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?" Nahum 3:16-19
" for all the merchant people are cut down;" Zephaniah 1:11
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:12-13 (Mark 11:15-17, John 2:14-16).
"...the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." Revelation 18:3,11,15,23
"A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doing wrong; and an huckster shall not be freed from sin." Ecclesiasticus 26:29
Huckster: "An aggressive or haggling merchant, esp. one who uses questionable methods. A person engaged in advertising, esp. for the mass media. To peddle or sell. To sell or advertise in an aggressive, questionable way." (Webster's Dictionary).

Instruction and Admonition

"The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good thing." Psalm 34:10
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matthew 6:25-34 [see also Luke 12:22-31].
"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat." Matthew 10:9-10
"Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way." Luke 10:3-4
"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh [*gives] not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:33
"And He said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing." Luke 22:35
"But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:19
"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

Conclusion

In Acts 16:16-34, there was a young female slave possessed with a demon, and the apostle Paul expelled this demon. But when her master saw that the hope of their gain (filthy lucre, profit, commerce) was gone, they dragged Paul and Silas into the market place (commercial court) to the "authorities." They were beaten and thrown into prison.

Our Father works in mysterious ways, for not only were their fellow-prisoners converted but the jailer also!

Must we call God by a "Sacred Name"?

The purpose of this article is to show why it is important to understand how "YHWH" (or YHVH) and its derivatives are used in God's Word to further assist us in rightly understanding Scripture and receiving the blessings of this knowledge. We also hope it will allow everyone, on their own, to answer the question, "Is it mandatory, or not, to actually call "God" by a "sacred name."

The translators of the King James Bible replaced one of His names with an ALL CAPS TITLE. That name for God, "YHWH" (Hebrew word #3068) originally appeared in the Old Testament Hebrew texts 6,519 times, sometimes being printed YH, YW, YHW, and YHH! But these names were replaced, at points in history, with "a title." When you see the word "GOD" or "LORD" in all capital letters in the King James Version, it means this was where the name for God, "YHWH," originally appeared in the texts. And when "God" or "Lord" are spelled in upper and/or lower case letters, they were translated, not from "YHWH," but from the corresponding Hebrew titles of 'God' (Elohim) and 'Lord' (Adonay).

When a text contains the name "YHWH" (GOD or LORD), this word applies only to the One True Creator, and never applies to anyone else. When a text contains the title "God" or "Lord," it may apply to either Almighty God or men, depending upon the context. Let's look at some examples.

The first time YHWH appears is at Genesis 2:4:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."

"LORD" is spelled in all caps. This tells us that this is where YHWH originally appeared in the text. So, this helps us understand that it is Almighty God who created the heavens and the earth. The second word, "God," in spelled in upper and lower case letters, which can apply to either Almighty God, or men. But by reading the context of this verse, we can see it applies to Almighty God, YHWH Elohim.

Now let's look at Psalms 110:1:

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

The first "LORD" is spelled in all caps. This tells us that this is where YHWH originally appeared. So, this helps us understand that it is the Almighty speaking. The second "Lord" is spelled in upper and lower case letters, which can apply to either Almighty God or men. By comparing scripture with scripture, we understand this "Lord" to be referring to Christ Jesus (Matthew 22:42-46, Mark 12:35-37).

Now, at Genesis 18:12-13 Abraham is a "lord":

"Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? And the LORD said unto Abraham."

The first "lord" in spelled in all lower case letters, which, by reading the context, is referring to Abraham (which is confirmed at 1 Peter 3:6, "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord"). The second "LORD" is spelled in all caps. This tells us that this is where YHWH originally appeared, which means that it is the Almighty who is talking to Sarah and Abraham.

And at Exodus 7:1, Moses is a god:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh:"

The first "LORD" is spelled in all caps. This tells us that this is where YHWH originally appeared, which tells us that it is the Almighty who is talking to Moses. The second title of "god" in spelled in all lower case letters, which, by reading the context, refers to Moses.

Pronouncing YHWH and Jehovah?

Many today insist on enunciating YHWH, obviously not knowing that the original pronunciation of the Hebrew language is lost! There were no vowels in the original Hebrew language, and therefore, nobody today really knows what vowels go between the consonants, to wit:

"The English names of the Hebrew letters are written with much less uniformity than those of the Greek because there has been more dispute respecting their powers. This is directly contrary to what one would have expected. The Hebrew names are words originally significant of other things in the letters and the Greek are not. The original pronunciation of both languages is admitted to be lost." The Grammar of English Grammar, 9th Edition, 1865.

Note that they did not say that the meaning of the words was lost, but only the pronunciation.

So, we must beware of those running around saying you must pronounce a particular name a certain way (Yahweh, Yahshua, Jehovah, etc.). What is important is the spirit and character behind the Word.

Here is further testimony that the original pronunciation of the "name" of God is unknown:

"God, names of: YHWH (the Tetragrammaton, whose original pronunciation was unknown, but scholars have suggested Yahweh - to avoid pronouncing it, Adonai was substituted, and later Ha-Shem or Adoshem were used)." Cecil Roth, The Concise Jewish Encyclopedia, 1980, pp. 202-203.

Not only is the original pronunciation of YHWH unknown, but the name "Jehovah" was derived from YHWH by adding vowels to it (the original Hebrew alphabet did not have vowels) thus adding to God's Word!

"The Masoretes who from the 6th to the 10th century worked to reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible replaced the vowels of the name YHWH with the vowel signs of Adonai or Elohim. Thus the artificial name Jehovah came into being." The New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 12, 1993 edition.
"Jehovah -- False reading of the Hebrew YAHWEH." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973 edition.
"Jehovah -- erroneous form of the name of the God of Israel." Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 16., 1972 edition.
"Jehovah -- a mispronunciation of the Hebrew YHWH the name of God. This pronunciation is grammatically impossible." The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 7, 1904 edition.
"It is clear that the word Jehovah is an artificial composite." The New Jewish Encyclopedia, 1962 edition.

The origins of the word "Jehovah"

The books of the so-called "Old Testament" Scriptures were originally written almost totally in the Hebrew language, plus some sections in Aramaic. Neither language contained any vowels, only consonants. The Jews knew what vowel sounds were to be used in the pronunciation of the words based on the construction of the sentence, the context, and tradition. Since very few people could afford to have written copies of even small portions of the Scriptures, huge amounts of Scripture were committed to memory.

In the 8th-10th century after the birth of Messiah, a group of Scribes known as the Masoretes added a system of vowel points to enable the preservation of the original pronunciation. Their version of the Scriptures is known as the Masoretic Text.

The name by which God revealed Himself to the patriarchs and to Moses was the Hebrew word for "I AM" or "I AM THAT I AM" -- meaning something similar to "The One Who exists by His own power." This Name was spelled with the Hebrew equivalent of "YHWH" and was considered too sacred to pronounce. This four-letter word is also know as the Tetragrammaton (meaning "four letters"). When reading the Scriptures or referring to the YHWH (HaShem), the Jews would substitute the word "Adonay," which means "Lord."

To indicate this substitution in the Masoretic Text, the Masoretes added the vowel points from the word "Adonay" to the YHWH, and came up with a word that would look to them something like YaHoWaH. Since there was no such word in the Hebrew language, the reader would be forced to stop and think about what he was reading, and thus would avoid accidentally speaking the "Sacred Name" aloud.

Later, some Christian translators mistakenly combined the vowels of "Adonay" with the consonants of "YHWH" producing the word "YaHoWaH." When the Scriptures were translated into German during the Reformation, the word was transliterated into the German pronunciation, which pronounces "Y" as an English "J" and pronounces "W" as an English "V" -- or "Jahovah." Then in the early 17th century when the Scriptures were being translated into English with the help of some of the German translations, the word was again transliterated as "Jehovah," and this error has carried over into many modern English translations.

Jehovah is now recognized by all proficient Bible scholars to be a late hybrid form, a translation error, that was never used by the Jews. And since no one today knows the correct pronunciation of YHWH anyway, there is no need to guess at it.

Our Father

Now, some "claim" that we must call "God" by a sacred name. They say that if we don't, "God" won't hear us. Contrary to their "belief," there is and was no command anywhere in the Scripture given by God to call Him by any sacred name. We do not hear or read God instructing anyone to use the terms 'Elohim', 'Yahweh', 'Yashua', 'Jehovah', 'El-Shaddai', 'Adonai'', 'Ha-Shem', 'Adoshem', 'Abba,' or other words that merely describe God. Everywhere in His Word, love for Him is what is required by Him; nowhere in His word are we told to lust after sacred letters of a sacred name.

Our Lord Jesus Christ said when we pray, we are to pray to "our Father." He did not use or insist on a "sacred" name.

Consider this. By exclusively using a "sacred" name, you are saying you are a stranger to God. It's like your dad telling you that he won't hear you unless you address him by his "personal" name. A dad doesn't say to his children, "Don't call me daddy, call me John." Loving fathers don't say things like that to their children. Likewise, Almighty God is our Father, and we are His children, and He requests only that we call Him 'Father.' "Father" is how Jesus called to Almighty God, and it was additionally used throughout the law, the prophets, and the psalms, for instruction:

"Wilt thou not from this time cry unto Me, My father, Thou art the guide of my youth?" Jeremiah 3:4
"Thou shalt call Me, My father; and shalt not turn away from Me." Jeremiah 3:19
"He shall cry unto Me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation." Psalms 89:26
"Doubtless Thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: Thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; Thy name is from everlasting." Isaiah 63:16
"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?" Malachi 2:10

Did Jesus ever call God by a "sacred" name? No. He called "YHVH" based upon the relation between them. He always called Him "Father" (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 8-9, 14-15, 18, 26, 32; 7:11, 21; 8:21; 10:20, 29, 32-33; 11:25-27; 12:50; 13:43; 15:13; 16:17, 27; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 20:23; 23:9; 24:36; 25:34; 26:39, 42, 53; 28:19, etc.).

Is it the pronouncing of the name itself that is important or the meaning of the name? For example, Revelation is describing Jesus, the Son of God. Notice, 'King' and 'Lord' are titles, but this was the name written on his vesture:

"And He hath on His vesture and on His thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." Revelation 19:16

If a name is written, does it mean we should call Him only by such a name? Or is the meaning of it more important than the written name itself. And this is the meaning of God's name and how it is called:

"And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God." Revelation 19:13

We see that if one really desires to know God's "sacred" name, they must first know the Word of God, and do His Will and obey His Law. This is our Father's command for all of us. He does not command us to exclusively call Him by any "personal" name, but to keep His Word! That is truly keeping His name "sacred."

We are also told that Jesus Christ's "name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Obviously, The Word is not mandating that we are to go around insisting that all must call the name of their Lord and Saviour "Wonderful," "Councellor, etc." These are simply His descriptions of His character, for our edification!

Name = Character

Biblically, a name represents one's character. This is why our Father changed the name of His servants (Genesis 17:5,15; 32:28; 35:10), and told parents what to name their unborn child (Genesis 16:11; 17:19, 1 Chronicles 22:9, Isaiah 7:14, Hosea 1:4,6,9, Matthew 1:21,24, Luke 1:13,31), and why men have chosen one name over another for their child (Genesis 35:18, Luke 1:59-60), and why name's of cities have been changed (Genesis 28:19): to reflect their character!

He desires to seal His name, His character, and His Law in us (Isaiah 8:16). God's name and character is His Word, which contains His Law. His Law will be written in our hearts and minds (foreheads) (Hebrews 10:16, Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).

The Names of God

From Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary

The titles or designations given to God throughout the Bible.

"In the ancient world, knowing another's name was a special privilege that offered access to that person's thought and life. God favored His people by revealing Himself by several names which offered special insight into His love and righteousness.

Jehovah Yahweh. One of the most important names for God in the Old Testament is Yahweh, or Jehovah, from the verb "to be," meaning simply but profoundly, "I am who I am," and "I will be who I will be." The four-letter Hebrew word YHWH was the name by which God revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush <Ex. 3:14>. This bush was a vivid symbol of the inexhaustible dynamism of God who burns like a fire with love and righteousness, yet remains the same and never diminishes. Some English translations of the Bible translate the word as Jehovah, while others use Yahweh.

God is the author of life and salvation. His "I am" expresses the fact that He is the infinite and original personal God who is behind everything and to whom everything must finally be traced. This name, "I am who I am," signals the truth that nothing else defines who God is but God Himself. What He says and does is who He is. The inspired Scriptures are the infallible guide to understanding who God is by what He says about Himself and what He does. Yahweh is the all-powerful and sovereign God who alone defines Himself and establishes truth for His creatures and works for their salvation.

Moses was called to proclaim deliverance to the people and was told by God, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you' "<Ex. 3:14>. In the deliverance of the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt, God revealed a deeper significance to His name. But He had already disclosed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Yahweh. Each of them had called on the name of the Lord (Yahweh) <Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 26:25; Ex. 3:15> as the God who protects and blesses. Yet <Exodus 6:3> shows that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know the fuller meaning of Yahweh, which was to be revealed to Moses and the Hebrew people in the Exodus experience.

The divine name Yahweh is usually translated Lord in English versions of the Bible, because it became a practice in late Old Testament Judaism not to pronounce the sacred name YHWH, but to say instead "my Lord" (Adonai)-- a practice still used today in the synagogue. When the vowels of Adonai were attached to the consonants YHWH in the medieval period, the word Jehovah resulted. Today, many Christians use the word Yahweh, the more original pronunciation, not hesitating to name the divine name since Jesus taught believers to speak in a familiar way to God.

The following are other names in honor of the Lord in the Old Testament that stem from the basic name of Yahweh:

Jehovah-jireh-- This name is translated as "The-LORD-Will-Provide," commemorating the provision of the ram in place of Isaac for Abraham's sacrifice <Gen. 22:14>.
Jehovah-nissi-- This name means "The-LORD-Is-My-Banner," in honor of God's defeat of the Amalekites <Ex. 17:15>.
Jehovah-shalom-- This phrase means "The-LORD-Is-Peace," the name Gideon gave the altar which he built in Ophrah <Judg. 6:24>.
Jehovah-shammah-- This phrase expresses the truth that "The-LORD-Is-There," referring to the city which the prophet Ezekiel saw in his vision <Ezek. 48:35>.
Jehovah-tsebaoth-- This name, translated "The-LORD-of-hosts," was used in the days of David and the prophets, witnessing to God the Savior who is surrounded by His hosts of heavenly power <1 Sam. 1:3>.
Jehovah Elohe Israel-- This name means "LORD-God-of-Israel," and it appears in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms. Other names similar to this are Netsah Israel, "The Strength of Israel" <1 Sam. 15:29>; and Abir Yisrael "The Mighty One of Israel" <Is. 1:24>.
El. Another important root name for God in the Old Testament is El. By itself it refers to a god in the most general sense. It was widely used in ancient eastern cultures whose languages are similar to Hebrew and therefore may refer either to the true God or to false gods. The highest Canaanite god was El whose son was Baal. In the Bible the word is often defined properly by a qualifier like Jehovah: "I, the LORD (Jehovah) your God (Elohim), am a jealous God (El)" <Deut. 5:9>.

Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba "and there called on the name of the LORD (Yahweh), the Everlasting God (El Olam) <Gen. 21:33>. Jacob built an altar on a piece of land he purchased at Shechem and called it "El Elohe Israel" ("God, the God of Israel"), commemorating his wrestling with the angel at the place he called Peni-el ("the face of God"), and receiving his new name Israel (Yisra-el, "God strives") <Gen. 32:28-30; 33:20>. El Shaddai (God Almighty), signifying God as a source of blessing, is the name with which God appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob <Ex. 6:3>.

Elohim. Elohim is the plural form of El, but it is usually translated in the singular. Some scholars have held that the plural represents an intensified form for the supreme God; others believe it describes the supreme God and His heavenly court of created beings. Still others hold that the plural form refers to the triune God of <Genesis 1:1-3>, who works through Word and Spirit in the creation of the world. All agree that the plural form Elohim does convey the sense of the one supreme being who is the only true God.

Several important names of God identify Him as Branch, King, Wisdom, Shepherd, and Servant:

Branch of Righteousness. <Jeremiah 23:5-6> names the coming messianic figure, the "Branch of righteousness," who will descend from David and be raised up to reign as King to execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. Christians see in this linkage a prophecy about God the Son taking on human flesh to serve as righteous King.
King. This descendant of David will have several divine qualities. He will be a Branch of Righteousness, a King, and His name will be called "The Lord Our Righteousness" (Jehovah Tsidkenu).
Wisdom. This person also appears in <Proverbs 8:1-36> as Wisdom, the speaker who always says and does what is righteous, is equal to Jehovah, and works with Him in the creation of the universe. Paul describes Christ in these terms in <Colossians 1:13-19; 2:1-3>.
Shepherd. God is also described in prophecy as the Shepherd who will feed His flock, gather the lambs in His arms, carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those with young <Is. 40:11; Jer. 31:10; Ezek. 34:11-16>. Jesus applied this name to Himself <Luke 15:4-7; John 10:11-16>, making Himself equal to God; and Jesus Christ is so named by His followers <Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 7:17>.
Servant. The name of Servant also identifies this divine person and His saving ministry on behalf of His people. God's Servant is described in terms that apply to Jesus. He is upheld and chosen by God; He delights in God; He receives God's Spirit. Like Wisdom in <Proverbs 8>, He is holy, just, and righteous. He will bring Jacob back to Him and will be a light to the nations since He is an offering for sin <Is. 42:1-4; 49:1-7; 53:1-12>.
Word of God. The Word of God figures prominently in Scripture as another name of God. The Word is not as clearly a person in the Old Testament as in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is identified as the personal Word of God <John 1:1, 14>. But it is evident from <Psalm 33:4,6>, and <9> that the Word should be understood in a personal sense, for "the word of the Lord is right" indicating a personified Word. "By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made" <v. 6>, echoing the creation in <Genesis 1:3,6>. In the New Testament Jesus is seen to be both Word and Law personified.
Glory. God is described as Glory (Shekinah) in <Exodus 16:7; Psalm 104:31>; and <Isaiah 60:1>. In the New Testament Jesus shares the glory of God <Matt. 25:31; 1 Cor. 2:8; Heb. 1:3>.

When the new age arrives with the birth of Jesus Christ, the names of God are made more explicit. These names fulfill the deeper meanings of the Old Testament names for God.

In the New Testament God is known as Father <Matt. 5:16; 28:19> and Abba . Jesus is known as Son <Matt. 11:27>, Son of God <John 9:35>, and Son of man <Matt. 8:20>, Messiah <John 1:41>, Lord <Rom. 14:8>, Word <John 1:1>, Wisdom <1 Cor. 1:30>, Bridegroom , Shepherd <John 10:11>, Vine <John 15:1>, Light <John 1:9>, and "I AM" <John 8:12>. The Holy Spirit is known as the Helper <John 14:16>."

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

LORD

'adon ^113^, or 'adonay ^113^, "lord; master; Lord." Cognates of this word appear in Ugaritic and Phoenician. The form 'adon appears 334 times, while the form 'adonay (used exclusively as a divine name) appears 439 times.

Basically, 'adon means "lord" or "master." It is distinguished from the Hebrew word ba`al, which signifies "possessor" or "owner." 'Adon basically describes the one who occupies the position of a "master" or "lord" over a slave or servant: "And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master..." <Gen. 24:9>. It is used of kings and their most powerful aides. Joseph told his brothers: "So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father [i. e., an adviser] to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt" <Gen. 45:8>; cf. <42:30>. Only once is this word used in the sense of "owner" or "possessor" <1 Kings 16:24>.

'Adon is often used as a term of polite address. In some cases, the one so named really occupies a position of authority. In <Gen. 18:12> (the first occurrence) Sarah called Abraham her "lord." On the other hand, this may be a purely honorary title by which the speaker intends to indicate his submission to the one so addressed. Jacob instructed his slaves to speak to "my lord Esau" <Gen. 32:18>; i. e., Jacob called his brother Esau "lord." In places where the speaker is addressing someone calling him "lord," the word virtually means "you."

When applied to God, 'adon is used in several senses. It signifies His position as the one who has authority (like a master) over His people to reward the obedient and punish the disobedient: "Ephraim provoked him to anger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood upon him, and his reproach shall his Lord return unto him" <Hos. 12:14>. In such contexts God is conceived as a Being who is sovereign ruler and almighty master. The word is often a title of respect, a term of direct address usually assuming a specific concrete lord-vassal or master-servant relationship <Ps. 8:1>. In some cases the word appears to be a title suggesting God's relationship to and position over Israel: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God" <Exod. 23:17>. In such contexts 'adon is a formal divine name and should probably be transliterated if the proper emphasis is to be retained. In the form 'adonay the word means "Lord" par excellence or "Lord over all," even as it sometimes does in the form 'adon (cf. <Deut. 10:17>, where God is called the "God of gods, and Lord of lords"; <Josh. 3:11>, where He is called the "Lord of all the earth").

The word 'adonay appears in <Gen. 15:2>: "And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless,...." This word frequently appears in Psalms <Ps. 68:17; 86:3> and Isaiah <Isa. 29:13; 40:10>.

yehwah ^3068^, "Lord." The Tetragrammaton YHWH appears without its own vowels, and its exact pronunciation is debated (Jehovah, Yehovah, Jahweh, Yahweh). The Hebrew text does insert the vowels for 'adonay, and Jewish students and scholars read 'adonay whenever they see the Tetragrammaton. This use of the word occurs 6,828 times. The word appears in every period of biblical Hebrew.

The divine name YHWH appears only in the Bible. Its precise meaning is much debated. God chose it as His personal name by which He related specifically to His chosen or covenant people. Its first appearance in the biblical record is <Gen. 2:4>: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Apparently Adam knew Him by this personal or covenantal name from the beginning, since Seth both called his son Enosh (i. e., man as a weak and dependent creature) and began (along with all other pious persons) to call upon (formally worship) the name of YHWH, "the Lord" <Gen. 4:26>. The covenant found a fuller expression and application when God revealed Himself to Abraham <Gen. 12:8>, promising redemption in the form of national existence. This promise became reality through Moses, to whom God explained that He was not only the "God who exists" but the "God who effects His will": "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord [YHWH] God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord [YHWH] God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites..." <Exod. 3:15-17>. So God explained the meaning of "I am who I am" <Exod. 3:14>. He spoke to the fathers as YHWH, but the promised deliverance and, therefore, the fuller significance or experienced meaning of His name were unknown to them <Exod. 6:2-8>."

Bits and Pieces

The Healots

There was a time when everyone, even Hollywood, knew better.

In a film from the 1930's starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwick titled "Meet John Doe," Cooper, as a "down and out drifter," is persuaded, for money, to take on a false identity in order to unknowingly further the political ends of a newspaper tycoon. Walter Brennen plays Cooper's "fellow-drifter," and gives his duped friend a warning on what he is about to get himself into. The dialog is as follows:

"I've seen guys like you before; free and happy guys that never had a worry. But they got a hold of some money and went goofy. I've seen plenty of fellas start out with fifty dollars and wind up with a bank account. When you become a guy with a bank account, they gotcha! Yes sir, they gotcha. Who's 'they'? The healots! What's a healot? Who are they?

Listen, have you ever been broke? Yes? Alright. You're walking along, not a nickel in your pocket; you're free as a wind, nobody bothers you. Hundreds of people pass you by in every line of business; shoes, hats, automobiles, radios, furniture--everything. They're all nice, lovable people; they let you alone. Then you get a hold of some money and what happens? All those nice, sweet, lovable people become healots! A lot of heals!!! They begin creeping up on you, trying to sell you something. They get long claws. They get a strangle hold on you. And you squirm and you duck and you holler and you try to push them away, but you haven't got a chance! They gotcha!

First thing you know you own things. The car for instance. Now your whole life is messed up with a lot more stuff! You get license fees and number plates and gas and oil and taxes and insurance and identification cards and letters and bills and flat tires and dents and traffic tickets and motorcycle cops and court rooms and lawyers and fines and a million and one other things. Then what happens? You're not the free and happy guy you used to be. You have to have money to pay for all those things. So you go after what the other fella's got.

And there you are; you're a healot yourself!!!"

Get Behind Me Satan

(From The American Government (1924) by Frederic J. Haskin [Government Sponsored]):

"Every American is familiar with the representation of the Government which is shown in the stalwart figure of Uncle Sam.

He is the most powerful thing on earth--and all the power he has is yours.

He represents more might and majesty than all the kingdoms of history--and all his mighty and majesty is yours.

He is the boss of the biggest business in the world--and it is your business.

He reads the shifting winds and forecasts the weather.

He marks the ocean lanes to make safe the way of the mariner.

He speeds the sure, swift flight of the two-cent letter.

He safeguards the perilous task of the miner.

He smites the rock and the dead waste of the desert teems with life.

He makes two blades of grass grow where only one grew before.

He is the conqueror of disease.

He is the father of invention.

He measures the heat of the stars.

He makes the money.

He regulates the time.

He fixes the standard for weight and measure.

He is the great record-keeper and the world's master builder.

He is teacher and law-giver and judge.

He does a thousand things in a thousand ways--and he does them all for you.

He served your fathers and your father's fathers, and he will continue to serve you and your children and your children's children.

He is the unselfish, undefeated champion of liberty.

He is your Uncle Sam.

Today's Noah

God said to Noah, "I'm going to make it rain until the earth is covered with water and all the evil is destroyed. I want you to build an ark and save two of each animal species. Here are the blueprints for the ark."

Many years passed, and the skies began to cloud and rain began to fall. Noah sat in his front yard, weeping.

"Why haven't you built the ark?" asked the Lord.

"I did my best," replied Noah, "but so many things kept happening! The blueprints you gave me didn't meet the city's building code, so I had to change them. Then the city said I was violating zoning ordinances by building the ark in my front yard. So, I had to get a variance. Then the Forest Service required tree-cutting permits! Then the EPA requested an environmental impact statement concerning the proposed flood, and the Army Corps of Engineers wanted a map of the proposed flood plain!

An animal rights group sued me when I tried to gather up all the animals by two, followed closely by the Gay Rights Group who were upset because I was only taking male and female pairs! Then the State fined me because the animals didn't get their vaccination shots. Then the Humane Society took all the animals because they weren't licensed and registered!

And, then, the IRS decided to seize all my assets, including my tools, claiming I was trying to avoid paying my taxes by leaving the country! And, to top it all off, the Equal Opportunity Commission jumped in claiming I wasn't hiring enough minorities! I'm sorry, Lord, but I can't finish the ark for at least five more years!"

Suddenly the rain stopped, the skies cleared and the sun began to shine.

"Lord, does this mean you're not going to devastate the earth?"

"Why should I?" said the Lord, "Seems to Me the state and federal governments are doing a great job of it already."

The Remnant of Martyrs

One Sunday morning during "Church services," a 2,000 member congregation was surprised to see two men enter, both covered from head to toe in ninja-type uniforms and carrying submachine guns. One of the men proclaimed, "Anyone willing to take a bullet for Christ remain where you are."

Immediately, the choir fled, the deacons fled, and most of the congregation fled. Out of the 2,000 there only remained around 20.

The man who had asked the question took off his hood, looked at the preacher and said, "Okay Pastor, I got rid of all the hypocrites. Now you may begin your service. Have a nice day!" And the two men turned and walked out.

To Whom Do You Belong?

"A man may have to die for our country: but no man must, in any exclusive sense, live for his country. He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: -- himself." - C. S. Lewis

Issue the Sixty-seventh

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Can You Define "Dollar," please? ...

There is Only One Lawgiver, Part two ...

The World ...

The all-mighty State?...

The Gospel of Self

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Can You Define "Dollar," please?

A Diligent Inquiry

by Michael Eugene

Editor's Note: As time goes on, and "society" falls further and further into captivity under the heathen, the "majority" continue to willingly accept the debasement by the heathen of that which was at one time, lawful money. That debased "money" is still referred to as "dollars." But are they, in truth, dollars?

When we examine what "dollar" means (the definition of which still applies today), we find that the heathen have a problem when confronted with the truth:

"Dollar. n. 1. Orig. the German thaler; hence, any of the various large silver coins resembling it. 3. A United States coin, which since 1837 has been made of 412.5 grains of silver .900 fine. Except for the design it is nearly identical with the old Spanish dollar. It was first issued in 1794." Webster's New International Dictionary (1935), page 658.

There are no statutes that have changed the original definition of a "dollar." Thus, "the law's" modern circular definition:

"Dollar. The money unit of the United States of the value of 100 cents, or any combination of coins totaling 100 cents." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed., 1990), page 483.
"Cent. A coin of the United States, the least in value of those now minted. It is the hundredth part of a dollar." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed., 1990), page 224.

Our Father is the God of Righteousness, not unrighteousness.

Hence, our Brother Michael's diligent inquiry into the whole matter:

The following is a testimony I give, not to glorify or receive glory upon myself, but to honor and acknowledge the glory of our Father and His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

A few years ago, upon awakening and accepting the Holy Scriptures as Truth and the infallible Word of God, the Lord has led me to the knowledge and understanding of how "the system" works, and how it's set up and based on lies and deceit. One of the deceits is the use of "federal reserve notes." Their own writings say that the federal reserve note is worthless, being backed only by "the faith and credit of the American people" (from the Federal Reserve pamphlet, The Fractional Reserve System).

So upon finding out about this, and after reading what the Word says about separating myself, I changed my mode of conduct. When I would go to market, and was asked to pay a certain amount in "dollars," I would raise the issue of "dollars" with them and say, "I don't have any dollars, but I do have federal reserve notes." They would usually ask, "What the heck are those?" Then I would show them a federal reserve note and ask them, "Will you accept these as a fair and righteous payment?" They would agree.

Time passed. I had received a notice of registration for the so-called vehicle and to pay the taxes upon it. I was led by the Spirit to go to the Frontier County courthouse, and took with me the piece of paper that claimed I owed THE STATE OF NEBRASKA "a fee," and also "a fee" for the vehicle "license plates," so-called. I approached the desk of the treasurer, and a lady came up to the window.

The conversation went as follows:

Treasurer: Oh, you're here to renew your tags and taxes!

Michael: Well, first of all, I have a few issues to raise.

Treasurer: Okay, what are they?

Michael: First of all, the name on this piece of paper is spelled in all capital letters, and that isn't how my name is spelled. Therefore, this isn't my name.

Treasurer: Do you still want to get your tags and pay your taxes?

Michael: Well, I have another issue to raise before we can go forward.

Treasurer: Okay, what is the next issue?

Michael: On this piece of paper is printed a tax fee of "5.00" and a registration fee of "20.00," for a total fee of "25.00." What is that? (There was no dollar signs, or anything to indicate what I was supposed to pay or owe).

Treasurer: Oh, those are dollars!

Michael: Well I would be more than willing to pay this, because that is why I'm here. If you say I owe you something, then I must render to you a fair and righteous payment. Can you please define what a "dollar" is? (Knowing that federal reserve notes are not dollars and cannot extinguish a debt ).

Treasurer: I will not play this game.

Michael: I assure you I'm not here to play a game.

Treasurer: If you want these things, then you'll have to pay us in dollars.

Michael: Well, I'm here to pay. But until you define what you are asking for, there is no way that I can make payment.

Treasurer: You are harassing me. I'm going to call the sheriff.

Michael: Okay, call the Sheriff, if that's what you're led to do. But I'm here in peace; I'm not here to antagonize anybody. You say I owe you something in order for me to get these things, and if I am to pay you then you must define what it is I owe you.

Treasurer: (Looking at the phone, then looking at me, then looking at the phone, then looking at me). Well, if you want these things you'll have to pay us in dollars.

Michael: Well, until you define what a dollar is, I cannot pay. So, I guess these tags are yours.

...So I left the tags with her.

I had a "drivers license," but since coming to the Truth that if I am to live, move, and have my being in Christ Jesus, I then could no longer have such things because it would attach me to something outside of Him--something unclean. So I went to the Sheriff's house and witnessed to him what had happened at the courthouse, and laid the driver's license at his feet.

After several months, being led by the Spirit, I went to the next county over, Gosper County. When I arrived, their Sheriff was on the courthouse lawn. I explained to him what transpired in the next county over, and told him that if he would like to go into the treasurer's office, and if she would define what a dollar is, then I would be more than happy to acquire the things they said I needed. He said that would not be necessary.

Almost a year had passed without incident, even though the "powers that be" knew I didn't have all of their fictions of idolatry. Then Frontier County must have had a lot of pressure bearing down on them from "good citizens" concerning the fact that I did not have a license or registration. So I was arrested one evening and taken to jail. They tried to talk me into paying bail, and I explained to them that I could not pay them because they wanted dollars and they would not define dollars.

Some friends who were worried about me came and produced the so-called "bail money." I made several mistakes such as signing the release form (which I know not to do now), and that is why I'm giving a testimony to other brothers and sisters; so they will not make the same mistakes.

When I consented to be bailed, which I shouldn't have done, I made a promise to appear in court. So, I decided to appear in court because, due to my ignorance, I gave a signature while in vinculus that sealed my promise to appear. When the date came to appear in court, I kept the promise and appeared. During the court process, I had to suffer and go along with the questions, because I made a mistake by not standing in the Truth. Therefore, I was willing to take the punishment that was going to be prescribed to me.

Since I had already attested that I would be there as a defendant, the judge asked me several different questions. Towards the end of the questioning, the judge asked:

Court: How do you plead?

Michael: No contest.

Court: Very well. For the charge of driving without a drivers license, the penalty is six months in jail and a 2500 dollar fine. For the charge of not having a registration, the penalty is six months in jail and a 2500 dollar fine. For the charge of driving without a license plate, the penalty is six months in jail and a 2500 dollar fine.

(Looking at the prosecuting attorney) How say ye?

Prosecuting Attorney: Due to this being his first offense, your honor, we will reduce the penalty to time served and a 250 dollar fine.

Court: (The judge wrote on a piece of paper, and apparently moved all but 250 "dollars" into the same category as time served. Then, looking at me, he said) "Your fine is 250 dollars. Can you pay?"

(Before we continue with the transcript, I must explain to the readers that, during the time I was in jail, I was witnessing to the officers and jailers that I could not pay their dollars because nobody would define what a dollar is. When I was being released from jail, the Sheriff, in front of his deputies, swore to me that the judge would define what a dollar is. Therefore, I intended to respond to the judge by saying, "I would be more than happy to pay your fine if you would define dollars." But I never got to finish my sentence):

Michael: Your honor, I would be more than happy to pay your fine if...

Prosecuting Attorney: YOUR HONOR!!! (The prosecuting attorney jumped up out of his chair and pointed at me) Due to this man's religious beliefs, he does not know what dollars are. (To the best of my memory, I had never met or talked with this man before. I can only say that "the question" must have made all the "rounds," considering the judge's response):

Court: Okay, we'll take care of this. We will divide the 250 dollars into the 5 days served, which comes to 50 dollars per day. (The judge wrote on a piece of paper, and apparently moved the 250 dollars into the same category as time served) Case is dismissed. You are free to go.

(Looking at Deputy) Take him to the clerk to see if he has anything to sign.

Michael: Wait a minute. Did you not tell me that I was free to go?

Court: Oh, this is just preliminary.

So, I went with the deputy, who brought me to the clerk's desk. After the clerk looked through the papers, he said:

Clerk: You have nothing to sign here, but there's the matter of the bond that was paid for your release from jail.

Michael: I did not pay a bond, and therefore it is not mine to receive. If there was something paid, then you must find the fellow that paid it.

Deputy: Due to this man's religion, he does not know what dollars are (he said this facetiously and sarcastically. This same deputy had said earlier during the booking process that he would be back the next day, saying, "I will take your fingerprints." His threats and demands were never carried out).

Clerk: Okay. There's nothing for you to sign then. Goodbye.

So I left the courthouse and have not heard from them since. They still have not defined for me what a "dollar" is!!

I do not give this account of my comings and goings to you for any malicious intent against police officers, the arresting officers, deputies, the prosecuting attorney, or the judge. My purpose is to shed light upon the deceit that has been brought to us under the Roman Civil law. I give this testimony to other brothers and sisters of like mind who are seeking the Kingdom of heaven, in order to help us rightly discern the Word of Truth and to stand in His righteousness.

I ask that this information be used in righteousness only, and not as a cloak of maliciousness.

There is Only One Lawgiver

Part Two

Continued from Issue the Sixty-sixth

"O Lord, Thou art my strength, and mine help, and my refuge in days of evil: to thee the Gentiles shall come from the end of the earth, and shall say, How vain were the idols which our fathers procured to themselves, and there is no help in them. Will a man make gods for himself, whereas these are no gods? Therefore, behold, I will at this time manifest My hand to them, and will make known to them My power; and they shall know that My name is the Lord." Jeremiah 16:19-21 {LXX)

Some people claim that the "reason" our Brother Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorities" was because he was "preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ." How can this possibly be true, when the Romans worshipped hundreds of different gods? They had a different god for every thing and every occasion. One more "god" would not have mattered to them.

Evidence of this is in Acts 18. When the Jews brought Paul before the tribunal of the Roman government of Achaia (a Greek province under Roman rule) on the charge of "persuading men to worship Jesus" (verse 13), the Roman court (Gallio) refused to judge religious matters (verse 15), and "drave them from the judgment seat" (verse 16). Paul was in prison for "breaking" the Roman government's law (which are in opposition to God's Law), because Jesus commanded His followers to be separate from Caesar.

After all, if Paul was in jail because of preaching the Christ's Glad Tidings, then the governing authorities would never have allowed Paul to write letters (epistles) concerning Christ's Kingdom while in prison, and then allow him to take his writings out of prison to publish and spread them throughout the then known world. This, again, evidences that they did not forbid preaching The Kingdom, and that Paul was in jail, not for preaching the Glad Tidings, but for disobeying the governing authorities in other matters.

It is important to take into consideration that Romans 13 was intended to be prescriptive, not descriptive. In other words, it speaks of what the "rulers" are supposed to be, not what they are intrinsically at all times. As "God's minister," the man or men who govern (the powers that be) are obligated to obey God's Law and to properly apply it to the nation and people which it governs. Conversely, any time the "governors" become "a terror to good works," and reward evil rather than punishing it, they have then begun to "bear the sword in vain." To this extent, he is no longer "a minister of God to thee for good" and it is our duty to resist his unlawful rule as we would the rule of Satan himself.

To say that God may deliver His people over to an oppressive government as chastisement for sin is one thing; to say that we are to deliver ourselves and our consciences to that which is contrary to God's Word is quite another. To say that the laws of a temporal government, whether they be "good or evil" (moral), are unequivocally the "ordinances of God," is not merely naive, but a blasphemous affront to the holiness of God and His Word. The righteous and eternal Judge of the world simply cannot be charged with requiring us to obey contradictory commands.

God never commanded people to obey the kings of Israel when those kings turned their backs on Him. Our Father put those people into captivity for their disobedience towards Him! And He does the same today.

The Nazi's at Nuremberg said, "Well, I was just doing my job. I was obeying the government." It's an error to believe that whatever the State says is okay "because it's ordained of God." For those who are true followers of Christ Jesus, the government is on His shoulder (Isaiah 9:6); He is the King of kings, and the government is the Kingdom of God. It's a government of peace and the only government that will not end:

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end," Isaiah 9:7

All man-made governments come to an end; so again, they are obviously not the "higher power." We have to obey the government that's always been here and always will be here.

In reply to the blind opinion that all kings, princes, and governments are set up and "ordained" by God, we will quote the following passage which is spoken into the ears of Hosea by God Almighty Himself:

"They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Hosea 8:4

We pray that those who have eyes to see will no longer engage in such opinions.

One way to test whether or not a man- made law is godly or not is to test it with the following. Ask yourself, "Does this law punish evil-doers and praise or reward doers of good?" For example, consider the driver's license law. Does the requirement of a driver's license punish evil or reward good? No, it does not. The traffic courts might do this, but not the license itself. Therefore, since God only gave His "governing authorities" the power to punish evil and reward good, this man-made law is outside of God's delegated authority, and no obedience is required if you live, move, and have your being in Him.

Another question you can ask is, "Will this law, being imposed by man, help me walk in God's Truth?" If it is a godly law, it will. But most man-made laws do not bring anyone to the Truth, nor can they.

The facts about Governing Authorities

The purpose of government is clearly defined in our Father's Word. That is, to punish evil and to praise those that do well. From this, the protection of life, liberty, and prosperity (being gifts from God) follows in accordance with His Order.

But when a government falls into idolatry (the love of money is the root of all evil), it collects information from you because it must know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it.

Why is government prone to idolatry? Because governments only exist through law, and law is inherently religious. It's the nature of government to perpetuate itself through its civil religion. Have you ever seen a politician who didn't want to be re-elected, or a political party that did not want to stay in power? Every one of them are willing to do anything to keep themselves in power. (John 11:47-48). They use their civil religion to do this.

Governments of men are temporal power and authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of exercising dominion over God's creation for His sake, desire dominion over men for their own sake. What did the crafty serpent say to Adam and Eve? "Ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Who is it that has control over men? God does!! If mankind is his own god, or they believe they are some kind of god, then mankind will exercise control over men in order to prove it.

A king rules by his law. Likewise, God rules by His Law, and His Law is the Word of God; all Truth. Jews obeyed their king, Caesar, and killed those who did not obey their king (John 19:15). True servants of Christ Jesus honor Him by obeying Him (Luke 6:46, John 14:15), and they do this not by substituting man-made requirements in place of His.

Thus, in law, the human lawmaker becomes a god by determining for himself which of the many theories at his disposal he will apply to his next act on behalf of "the people." Of course, this means that every other law-maker has an equal "right" to apply his theories to the acts he does, and the only answer to the resulting chaos that comes out of the compromise between theories is that one man must impose his will on all others so that one "coherent" view will control the end result. This means, clearly, a dictatorship and nothing less will do.

Taxes

Does the State tax the land? Yes and no!! They only tax "property" and "persons." Note that the word "property" is never used in scripture, and that taxes were laid only by the heathen, upon those that were under their captivity:

"Moreover the prince [*government] shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that My people be not scattered every man from his possession." Ezekiel 46:18

Note that the Word does not say "be not scattered from his property." Why is it that an unwholesome word (1 Timothy 8:3) such as "property" is used by followers of the Lord to describe the blessings He has bestowed upon them. We all should know better.

Scripture also says it is not lawful to impose a tax upon the servants of God (Ezra 7:24). Thus, it is not lawful to impose taxation upon the servants of Christ. But those servants must be true servants. If one seeks to make merchandise of His creation, they will be taxed. Only the slothful are under taxation (Proverbs 12:24). We also see that the Levites were not taxed or conscripted for military purpose (Numbers 1:45-54; Numbers 18. Note especially verse 24).

Abram paid tithes to Melchizdek, King of Salem, and refused the spoils he was offered from the King of Sodom. It is clear that it was the result of a solemn oath that Abram made to God:

"Abram said to the King of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich" Genesis 14:22,23

Abram would not accept the commercial benefits of the heathen, because he knew the resulting duties attaching thereto. Instead, he chose to honor the Lord. The people of God are not to finance the government (through heathen taxation); nor is the government to finance the people of God (through benefits such as social security, etc.). He who accepts a benefit from the heathen is subject to and will serve the heathen.

Jesus Himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial (Luke 23:2). Notice these were not false witnesses who accused Jesus of not paying taxes, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, His Glad Tidings tell us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59). Where did Jesus forbid to pay taxes to Caesar?

In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus was asked if it was lawful to give taxes to Caesar or not. A silver coin, with Caesar's inscription on it, was shown to the Christ. In this example, our Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Who did this silver coin belong to? Since the Scripture says, "The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, saith the LORD of hosts" (Haggai 2:8), the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. However, those who live, move, and have their being in the image of Caesar, as the disciples of the Pharisees did, will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. We are not to be deluded by the image of Caesar, but built-up in the image of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:7; 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:10).

There's only one instance where Jesus paid a tax. Matthew 17:24-27. Let's break this passage down:

Verse 24: The tax collector asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes.
Verse 25: Peter said, "yes." But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying it?
Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why; because we are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness.
Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking, and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it.

Even though Jesus paid this tax, it was to avoid "offending" him, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it; not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations. But:

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8

Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophesy if He was to go to prison, which would happen if He didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for Him. It was not His time to go to prison. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to His rescue, but because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled if He did, He refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17).

Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6), because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers as they honor His Name and do His Will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it.

A license is just another form of taxation. By requiring a license, the State is claiming complete control and ownership over a disciple's life. "Licentious" means "characterized by license, lascivious." These same words describe human governments today. In demanding licensure from true bondmen of Christ, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that scripture requires us to give to God alone.

To partake of men's private systems and pay the taxes due therefrom is to support a government bent on destroying God's dominions. And in case you don't think the governments of men are out to destroy the servants of Christ, the following quote is from an enemy of God responsible for murdering our brothers, sisters, and children at Waco, Texas, and for murdering Randy Weavers' family in cold blood on an isolated mountain:

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these] would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994

According to the above, if you are a follower of Christ, you are an enemy of the government. This quote is in response to the question as to why the killing of the people at Waco was necessary. The answer may shock you. The "reason" for murdering them, said "the government," was because they were "cultists"! And when asked for their definition of a cultist, their definition (Janet Reno being their mouthpiece) can be someone who is a follower of Christ!!!

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked." Proverbs 29:27

Bondmen of Christ

So, what is a bondman of Christ to do when the government rises against him in judgment? We shall condemn them, because this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord (Isaiah 54:17). Do we obey governments that produce unfruitful works? No! We are to reprove and rebuke them (Luke 17:3, Ephesians 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:13; 2:15, Revelation 3:19). We are to cast down the spiritual wickedness of anyone who exalteth himself against the knowledge of God, when our obedience is fulfilled (2 Corinthians 10:5-6). We are to bind the kings of the earth with our mouth (Psalm 149:6-9). To not keep God's commandments is defined as to "go and serve other gods, and worship them" (1 Kings 9:6, 2 Kings 17:37-38, 2 Chronicles 7:19,22, Jeremiah 16:11; 22:9, Deuteronomy 7:4; 8:18; 11:28; 28:14; 30:17; 31:16,20, Joshua 22:22).

For anyone to assume the power of directing our comings and goings, and not leaving us to the Holy Word alone, is declaring the Word of God to be defective and insufficient for that purpose. And therefore to those who walk contrarywise, our Lord Jesus Christ [who has left us the scriptures for that purpose (2 Timothy 3:16-17)] did not know what was sufficient for us. All those that impose their will against a bondman of Christ as the bondman walks in His ways are guilty of rebellion against God, because to reject a servant of God is to reject God Himself (1 Samuel 8:7). If one's walk of peace is under the direction of any man-made authority, they cease to be under the direction and authority of Christ, and the Spirit is quenched (1Thes. 5:19-23).

A minister of the Christ is to receive his directions from Christ alone. No other power or authority may be admitted, and no laws or doctrines may be taught, besides those that He has taught. Everything else is of men only, and no part of The Anointed One. What is taught by any man, and cannot be confirmed in Scripture, is not of God. No man can make laws to oblige the Christ's assembly but Christ Himself. His assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men as it is manifested in their outward acts (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20, Acts 17:24-25, John 4:23-24).

As Law is the basis of all government, the war to be fought will always involve and revolve around the Law of God (Revelation 12:17). Only by a compromise of its unchangeable standards can the followers of Christ Jesus find "social respectability" (John 15:18-20). We must stand firmly for Truth and must not compromise with evil (2 Corinthians 6:14). And what is God's definition of Truth? God's Law and Commandments--His Whole Word is Truth (Psalm 119:142,151, John 17:17). And what is God's Will? His Will is His Law written in our hearts and confirmed in His written Word revealed by His Spirit to His saints for all time by Him (Psalm 40:8, Romans 8:27).

The Christ's assembly is over the State

When our Brother Paul was accused by the Jews of persuading men to worship God contrary to the Law, the courts of law of the Roman Government refused to judge religious matters, because they recognized they had no authority to judge in matters of "religious freedom." (Acts 18:12-16). As did the governments before Christ's coming (Jeremiah 38:4-5).

There is not one time in scripture where the Christ ever submitted to the Roman Imperial law. Period!! He said His true family are not His blood relatives, but only those who "shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 12:50). The Christ, nor any servant of God for that matter, has ever said anything about doing "the will of man on earth," but only "the will of your Father which is in heaven."

Example #1: There were three kings (the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom), marching out to crush one of their enemies, the Moabites. While in the desert, they discovered there was no water for anyone (2 Kings 3:9-12). So they asked a prophet of the LORD, Elisha, to help them out. But at 2 Kings 3:13, when the king of Israel asked Elisha for help, "Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee?"

In other words, Elisha said, "I am a servant of God, you are not! I'm not going to do anything just because you're 'the king'!" Elisha is going to serve God; he's not going to serve even three kings, and one king alone has the power to cut off his head. But Elisha went up against three kings and said "go to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother." Elisha understood that they had a different calling. But the king of Israel pleaded with him and said, "...the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab." In other words, these kings and all their armies are going to die! This is a life and death matter.

This cuts to the heart of Elisha and he decides he will do something. What does he do? At 2 Kings 3:14 Elisha said, "As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand..." This is the key!! It is not because Elisha is of a lesser rank than these three kings, or because he's scared to death that they'll kill him if he doesn't do what they say, but "As the LORD of hosts liveth," before whom he serves. And in this verse Elisha concludes, that if it wasn't for the Lord having brought him into the presence of "king" Jehoshaphat by requesting a prophet of the Lord, he wouldn't even look at them or notice them!

Because they don't follow the laws of God, except Jehoshaphat only (2 Chronicles 17:3-4), he helped all of them, for Jehoshaphat's sake, and they were spared.

Example #2: In 2 Chronicles, chapter 16, the Lord cursed king Asa with wars (verse 9b) because he relied on a "king" (earthly government) and made a mutual agreement (license, contract) with him (verse 3), instead of relying on the Lord. He also trusted physicians (verse 12).

There will be those who may be thinking that we should "obey all government authority." It is agreed that we should obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne. Remember what our Father has told us:

"They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Hosea 8:4

The State is not God

Our Lord taught us to resist evil when He said, "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). Resist evil and it will flee from you (James 4:7). We are not taught to overthrow the government, but to throw the wickedness out of government. We are to overthrow that which is ungodly and wicked by speaking the truth, and thereby establish only that which is godly and holy. The only Lawful government is that which governs according to God's Word.

There is no command in the Word of God to confess the State to the glory of the State:

"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee [*including governing authorities] shall bow to Me [*not to ungodly men, i.e. politicians], and every tongue shall confess to God [*not to legislators, lawyers, and judges]. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God [*not to the State, or men working for an ungodly government]." Romans 14:11-12
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus [*not the President, Governor, or the State] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [*not the State, or men using the artifice of the State] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11
"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him [*not for self-willed men]:" Colossians 1:16
"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Proverbs 17:15
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you [*not on a sheet of paper with man-made codes, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes]." Luke 17:21

The 20th century is the most violent century in recorded human history. Most of the violence has been committed by "governments," or promoted by them. Most of the violence committed by "governments" has been against the innocent, the poor, and non-combatant. Most of that violence has been against "their own" (captive) citizens, not external "enemies."

The true bondman of Christ knows the State is not God and that it must be controlled by laws (the Truth) rigidly defined according to Scripture. Even the heathen knows that all the laws of the State must conform to God's Law:

"Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone
"God alone is the lawgiver of eternity." Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War (1868), pages 428-432.
"The law is from everlasting." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, 'Maxim', page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13).

Libellus

The disciples of Christ of the first century were under the military authority of Rome, a nation which openly proclaimed its rulers, the Caesar's, to be divine. All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is Lord." Upon compliance with this law, the citizens and subjects were given a papyrus document called a "libellus," which they were required to present when either stopped by a Roman soldier or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace, increasing the difficulty of "buying or selling" without this "mark." In this way, Roman society became closed to anyone not willing to adhere himself and his family to the established religion of Caesar-worship (statism). This is the essence of Scripture's warnings to the early followers of Christ against taking upon themselves the "mark of the beast."

It should be remembered that "it was granted to [Caesar] to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7). Our Brothers and Sisters were torn apart by wild animals in the Roman Coliseum and used as living candles in the gardens of Nero because they refused to offer up even a tiny pinch of incense in his name and proclaim that he, not Christ Jesus, was Lord. In essence, they refused to submit to licensure (permission) from the State to live and worship as God had commanded them. They were not put to death because they believed in Christ. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar. Disciples of Christ were put to death not because they believed in Christ, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State.

To a follower of Christ, disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is true treason. Statism is the concept that the State or government is always right, and that the State or government can do no wrong. This is idolatry, because it ascribes to man that which belongs to God alone. Anyone that says, "the government can do no wrong," or "the government is always right," is saying "government takes the place of God." The Word of God does not give the State the power or the authority to go beyond the Word of God. To ascribe power, authority, reverence, submission, or anything else to the State, above the Word of God, is idolatry. Only God Almighty has Infinite Wisdom- the State (a man-made fiction) has none.

Your Possible Questions Answered

Question: "What about Hebrews 13:17, 'Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls'"

Answer: When it speaks of obeying and submitting ourselves to those who have the rule over us, His Word is not talking about heathen governments, but those "rulers" within the Christ's assembly. Notice carefully this verse says these rulers "watch for your souls." Governments of men cannot govern or watch for anyone's souls, for they can only govern outward acts, not the inward being. But true spiritual leaders do watch for our souls.

Those who "have the rule over you" at Hebrews 13:17 is specifically defined a few verses earlier at Hebrews 13:7:

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation."

As we can see, scripture itself defines these "rulers" as "those who speak the Word of God" and have "faith." Secular governments avoid, and often forbid, speaking the Word of God within their system through outlawing prayer in their schools of Tyrannus and replacing it with such unrighteousness as "the theory of evolution," etc. These are not the 'rulers" we are to submit to.

Q: What about 1 Peter 2:13, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake"?

A: Firstly, we must understand that the above partial verse is just that--a partial verse. This is blatant "proof-texting"--quoting the Word of God out of context to create a "private" interpretation. We are instructed:

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:" 2 Peter 3:2

If the whole verse and its continuation is not quoted, our Father's Word becomes perverted. Let's look at what our Brother Peter wrote, in its full context, so that we may avoid the pollutions of others:

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." 1 Peter 2:13-14

Notice that the ordained power that God gave to "governing authorities" is to punish evil-doers and praise those that do well. The only ordinances we should obey are those that conform to this Truth. If an ordinance does not punish evil or reward good, then no obedience is due, for this is the only power that God gave to "governing authorities." Anything beyond these two duties creates only tyranny.

Secondly, the word "ordinance" in this passage does not mean "man's law." The word ordinance here is translated from the Greek word # 2937, ktisis. This is the only place in any bible where this word is translated as "ordinance." In every other passage, it is translated as "creature" or "creation." But, since an "ordinance" is a creation of man, as long as that ordinance punishes evil doers and rewards doers of good, it should be obeyed.

Thirdly, this passage only applies to submitting the flesh, or your self-will, to worldly governments (2 Peter 2:10), because governments regulate and control the works of the flesh, not the renewing of the mind through Christ Jesus. Felix Frankfurter was a justice on the US Supreme Court during the 1940's-1960's, and in a court case titled West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett in 1943, this is what he said:

"(Man-made) law is concerned with external behavior, and not with the inner life of man."

The natural governments of men are concerned with morphosis, not the renewing the inner man at all. They don't have that capability (1 Corinthians 2:14), and they know what their limitations are.

Q: Did not Jesus teach us that we are to submit to even evil governing authorities when he told us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39)?

A: Even Christ Jesus Himself did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:64).

Matthew 5:39 is speaking about the custom of the Romans when a superior would demand obedience from an inferior. The Christ was showing disdain for them when he said to turn the other cheek. When struck by a Roman superior in the first century, you where to drop to one knee or put your forehead in the dirt before them. To turn the other cheek to him would be a very defiant act when you were struck on the face. We are not to resist with violence, of course, but with love. That is truly "resisting evil."

By simply turning the other cheek for him to hit, you are refusing to partake of the evil resulting from bowing to man, and at the same time you are not reverting to violence. We are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). You are showing him, out of love, that you can only bow to One Lord, and no man will you ever bow down to. You show him that you will place God's command above man's command, no matter what the consequences will be. You are willing to take the punishment, and are willing to get "hit again" by your enemies, but you will stand firm in God's Law of love. By taking a stand such as this, the one who hits you may very well flee from you (James 4:7).

Q: Doesn't the Bible say we should agree with our adversary? (Matthew 5:25). Therefore we should obey governments.

A: Again, this verse is taken out of context. If you read verses 22-25, you will see this passage applies only to your "brother" in Christ, who has become your adversary. Jesus stresses to not be "angry with his brother without a cause" (verse 22), and to remember why your brother is angry at you (verse 23), and then to be "reconciled to thy brother" (verse 24). When we come to verse 25, Jesus is stressing to agree with your brother, because He does not want His children to go to court against each other (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). Nowhere the entire scripture, does the term brother ever refer to an enemy. Matthew 5:25 says to agree with "thine" adversary; it does not say to agree with "the" adversary. If the Christ's ekklesia had to obey unlawful government, then the gates of hell would be prevailing against it (Matthew 16:18).

Conclusion

The Law of God is not private law, but universal Law. His Law speaks to offenses that affect the collective body and soul of all mankind. All are part of the whole, and all suffer when the Law is trivialized, ridiculed, and worst of all, replaced with an inevitable inferior invention of man's 'reason.' Jesus said, "He that is not with Me is against Me;" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23). Therefore, any government that is not for Him, or is neutral, is against Him. They, and anyone that follows them, are an enemy of God.

Mention obedience to God's Law (substance), and many "Christians" accuse you of being a 'legalist.' But the very ones who call you a legalist are themselves true legalists to every code, rule, and regulation (form) that Caesar passes. "Legalism" is to adhere to the "form" and not the "substance." They obey Caesar's will without taking any thought as to whether it is right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous. They do it blindly, and that's blind faith in a false savior, because their "conclusion" is to fear man and keep his commandments, for they believe this is their 'duty.' Well, Our Father's conclusion tells us otherwise:

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Ecclesiastes 12:13

Notice, we are to fear God (not man) and keep God's Commandments (not man's commandments), because this is the whole duty of man (we do not have a duty to any other except God). The only thing we owe to man is "to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8).

God will judge those in governments, especially those that act as gods themselves by teaching contrary to His Will:

"Hear therefore, O ye kings, and understand; learn, ye that be judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear, ye that rule the people, and glory in the multitude of nations. For power is given you of the Lord, and sovereignty from the Highest, Who shall try your works, and search out your counsels. Because, being ministers of His kingdom, ye have not judged aright, nor kept the law, nor walked after the counsel of God; Horribly and speedily shall He come upon you: for a sharp judgment shall be to them that be in high places. For mercy will soon pardon the meanest: but mighty men shall be mightily tormented. For He which is Lord over all shall fear no man's person, neither shall He stand in awe of any man's greatness: for He hath made the small and great, and careth for all alike. But a sore trial shall come upon the mighty." Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-8

Do the children of God worship, follow, or obey the men and their idols? Our Brothers tell us true:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." I John 5:18-21

The World

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15-16

The term 'world' and 'earth' have completely different meanings. Our Lord certainly made the distinction between 'world' and 'earth' when he said, "I have overcome the world" in John 16:33. It would be meaningless if he had said, "I have overcome the earth."

When you see the term "world" in scripture, it never refers to the "earth." The "earth" (land, region, territory, country) is translated from Greek word #1093, ge. But "world" does not refer to any physical land.

What Does the world Mean?

The word "world" in the New Testament books is translated from three different Greeks words.

15 times from Greek word #3625, oikoumene which refers to the first century Roman Empire (Luke 2:1; 4:5; 21:26).

128 times from Greek word #165, aion, which means "an age" (Matthew 12:32).

And 187 times from Greek word #2889, kosmos, which means "ungodly."

This article will concern itself with the most common word, kosmos.

In the Greek, you find the word kosmos being used 187 times in the Received Text. It means the world. When was the last time you heard "a pastor" who "practices the Christian religion" tell you about the world? They use the word all the time, but they rarely define what it is. Similar to when so many do a sermon on "love" and never define what "love" is (John 14:15, Romans 13:10).

Well, this is what the world means, according to Strong's Concordance:

"An apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government. The inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race. The ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ. World affairs, the aggregate of things earthly. The whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ."

According to E.W. Bullinger's A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, it additionally means:

"Thus kosmos denotes the order of the world, the ordered universe, the ordered entirety of God's creation, but considered as separated from God. The abode of humanity. That order of things in which humanity moves, or of which man is the center."

According to Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, it additionally means:

"inalienation from and opposition to God."

And, according to Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, kosmos means:

"The order of things which is alienated from God, as manifested in and by the human race: humanity as alienated from God, and acting in opposition to Him. The sum-total of human life in the ordered universe, considered apart from, and alienated from, and hostile to God, and of the earthly things which seduce from God."

So, anything that's ordered or created by man is not of God!

"...the workman made it; therefore it is not God." Hosea 8:6
"At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made" Isaiah 17:7-8

The way out of the world is to shed all of the things of the world.

If you are doing the lawful service of God, but, at the same time, are partaking of the things of the world (which God condemns), even man's law recognizes that the evil will destroy the good:

"Where lawful services are blended with such as are forbidden, the whole being a unit and indivisible, the bad destroys the good." Trist v. child, 21 Wall. 452 (1874).

That's why our Father told Adam and Eve to eat of every tree that is in the garden, except that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! You see, if someone gives you a glass of pure crystal clear sweet water, that's good. But if you put a few drops of poison into it, that's bad. And the bad makes the whole thing bad. And therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is all bad, because poison will kill you, it takes time. Good and evil mixed together is not good, but sin.

You cannot take something unclean and mix it with the clean, and call it clean; it becomes unclean and remains unclean. (Matthew 23:25-26)

What scripture says about the world

"...know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15-16
"...the whole world lieth in wickedness." 1 John 5:19
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith." 1 John 5:4
"And be not conformed to this world:" Romans 12:2
"The worldthe works thereof are evil." John 7:7
"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him:" John 14:17
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:19
"...I pray not for the world." John 17:9
"...and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." John 17:14
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." 1 Corinthians 3:19
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:14,17
"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." 1 Corinthians 10:21
"If any manconsent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godlinessfrom such withdraw thyself." 1 Timothy 6:3-5
"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:2-5
"Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away." Proverbs 4:14-15
"...that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
"...man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." 1 Samuel 16:7
"Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." Matthew 4:8-10
"...Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins," Revelation 18:4
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27
"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world" 1 Corinthians 2:6
"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world" 1 John 4:5
"These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Conclusion

It is God's Will that His children be not mingled among the heathen and unbelievers. When His children look to the authority of "human beings" to do the things they do; and when they look to ungodly human governments for their welfare, safety and authority; and when they salute the flags, monuments, leaders (dead or alive) of those governments (patriolatry), then God will make those ungodly leaders to rule over His children; He will give them over to their hands, and they will be subject to them, and their enemies will oppress them:

"They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them...Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against His people, insomuch that He abhorred His own inheritance. And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. Many times did He deliver them; but they provoked Him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, when He heard their cry:" Psalms 106:34-44

Our Father is a forgiving Father, when we repent:

"Blessed be the LORD, that hath given rest unto His people Israel, according to all that He promised: there hath not failed one word of all His good promise, which He promised by the hand of Moses His servant. The LORD our God be with us, as He was with our fathers: let Him not leave us, nor forsake us: That He may incline our hearts unto Him, to walk in all His ways, and to keep His commandments, and His statutes, and His judgments, which He commanded our fathers." I King 8:56-58

The all-mighty State?

The very creation around us groans and travails, waiting for the children of God to take dominion of it (Romans 8:19-23). Because of the slumber of His children, creation remains under the dominion of sinful man and is being laid waste by his perverted use of power.

Truth and justice, which stands at the very center of God's Law and the reaffirmation through Christ Jesus, is today warped and perverted by the self-proclaimed all-mighty State into any action or policy that may be considered to serve the interest of the State and "its people," however subversive it may be of Divine truth and justice. The love, kindness, mercy, tenderness, and humility mandated by the Word in order to be a true ordained government of God, are denounced by the State as the decadent virtues of the inferior and deluded, and a sign of weakness unworthy of a super-State that is destined to dominate the future through its "new world order."

Instead of following Divine righteousness, the all-mighty State has designed and redesigned a system called "morality" in which the State becomes the master of the universe for those who have lost their way in the confusion. It has not only fallen short of, but has gone beyond, its God ordained duties, as "a ruler," of punishing evil and praising those that do well.

If it seems advantageous, then "Thou shalt serve other gods," "Thou shalt murder", "Thou shalt steal", "Thou shalt covet", and "Thou shalt bear false witness" now serves the purpose of the State if it does not interfere with the agenda of the State. So runs the evolutionary "moral code" of "moral law" given to the world not from the heights of Sinai, but from the disobedient and philosophical heights of men's vain imaginations; not to the accompaniment of awesome thunder and lightning, but to that of the tank and the "smart bomb"; not from the mouth of God, but from the torpedo, the mouth of the cannon and the barrel of the gun.

The all-assuming, all-mighty State has attempted to tear down God's Law which the true servants of the Christ have been laboriously establishing, by faith, throughout the ages. All attempts will fail!!

Every method of sadistic violence has been made legitimate and acclaimed as desirable by the autocratic power-State if it subserves the end of concentrating power in the leaders of the State and eradication of every focus of difference or opposition to it. Every lie is justified, every promise forsworn, every solemn treaty and covenant torn up, all to serve what is declared to be the interests of the man or men heading the State, and "the people."

Every form of liberty for which the servants of God have struggled since the days of the exodus from Egypt are again denied to them. The physical freedom is persuaded to yield to the physical or economic device of men. His freedom of thought, speech and spirit yields to ruthless propaganda or fear of economic ruin, prison or the bloody purge. But, only the "human personality" is deliberately enslaved to the soulless State. It cannot and will not happen to the remnant of God.

The misery and suffering which have been heaped on untold millions of people are the direct and inevitable outcome of all these violations of God's Law. To perpetuate the evil, "religion" is used as the opiate of the people, whereas Truth is not welcome.

When Divine righteousness is no longer important to a nation, and is replaced with "morals and dogma," the misuse of power by its rulers become a terrible danger. The evolution of State morality now becomes the compass for the wayward ship of State. The State is now a law unto itself, and is responsible unto no one but itself. That is morality. The State which so considers itself, feels free to assume control of the whole life of a people. It does not hesitate to seize power regardless of means. Amenable to no law, since it is a law unto itself, it employs force, deceit, slander and even murder to achieve its goals. Usurping the sovereignty of God, it now arrogates unto itself the prerogatives of God's people; indeed, it dismisses God Himself and then takes complete control on the assumption that there is no God, or that if there is, they are equal to God. In the alleged or assumed absence of, or partnership with God, the State becomes a god in the eyes of "its people"!

The self-proclaimed all-mighty and secularist State, now "sovereign" in the minds of "the clergy" and in the minds of "their sheep," creates a self-fulfilling system of "schools" in which the State determines what is to be taught and what is not to be taught; what the people can and cannot eat; what the people can use for healing and what they cannot use; what the scientific researchers are to find and not find; and what the preachers are to preach and not preach. Taught by the State-approved seminaries to incorporate under the State, the pulpit now must preach what the State dictates.

But, however, the State and the men who make up the State are ultimately answerable to God. That is why He always reserves a remnant who are kept free to make articulate the voice of God and His Truth. No pulpit or Church can be a vessel of truth if it is compelled to mouth over prefabricated platitudes authored by the very men who need most to hear some voice other than their own. Nothing can be more important to freely, courageously, and honestly make known to a people the errors of their ways and their sins from which they must repent.

A state or nation which attempts to usurp the prerogatives of God and His remnant, depriving itself of an unbiased diagnosis of ills (and not knowing precisely what ails it), that state or nation cannot expect to find its way back to health. It then comes under God's judgement and digs its own grave.

When the disobedient men of the secular State presume to be ordained by God, and thereby assume to be high priests to the disparagement of His Royal Priests (1 Peter 2:9) and Holy Temple (Ephesians 2:21), they will ultimately suffer the same consequences as "the strong" king Uzziah:

"But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the LORD his God, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD, that were valiant men: And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD God. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land." 2 Chronicles 26:16-21

The Gospel of Self

We must always remember that the crafty serpent never sleeps; and it never ceases to speak its gospel of self in our ears--"You; yes you, can be as gods." But we must also remember we are given instructions of wisdom from The Word to overcome the spirit of the crafty one. Apply thine ear to our Father's Proverbs, at 5:1-14:

"My son, attend to my wisdom, and apply thine ear to my words; that thou mayest keep good understanding, and the discretion of my lips gives thee a charge. Give no heed to a worthless woman; for honey drops from the lips of a harlot, who for a season pleases thy palate: but afterwards thou wilt find her more bitter than gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword. For the feet of folly lead those who deal with her down to the grave with death; and her steps are not established. For she goes not upon the paths of life; but her ways are slippery, and not easily known. Now then, my son, hear me, and make not my words of none effect. Remove thy way far from her; draw not near to the doors of her house: lest thou give away thy life to others, and thy substance to the merciless: lest strangers be filled with thy strength, and thy labours come into the houses of strangers; And thou repent at last, when the flesh of thy body is consumed, and thou shalt say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart avoided reproofs! I heard not the voice of him that instructed me, and taught me, neither did I apply mine ear. I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly." Septuagint

The sweet words of the harlot are the subtle and crafty words of the serpent. "Self, self, self."

The newest honey dropping from the lips of the humanist "pulpiteers" these days is "self-esteem."

Do the children of God really need self-esteem? Does low self-esteem lead to serious life problems? Should parents attempt to build self-esteem in their children? Does the Word of Holiness encourage self-esteem? Many "Christians" have assumptions about self-esteem. But, what does the Word of God say, and what does experience show us?

The Genesis of Self-Esteem

The self-esteem movement has its most recent roots in clinical psychology, namely in the personality theories of such psyco-philosophers as William James, Alfred Adler, Erich Fromm, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. It became further popularized by their many "followers," some of whom preach it fervently from "their" pulpits today. Nevertheless, the roots of the self-esteem movement reach further back into "human" history.

The self-esteem movement began in the third chapter of Genesis. In the Garden of Delight, Adam and Eve were conscious and aware of one another and their surroundings directly from the Father rather than being "self-conscious." Their awareness of themselves was incidental and peripheral to their focus on God and one another. Adam knew that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, but he was not self-aware in the same sense that his descendants would be. Self was not a consideration until the Fall.

Learning (partaking) of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought "the wisdom of the world" into play. That "wisdom" is called "philosophy," from which the "concept" of self-esteem is derived. That "wisdom" brought delusion, guilt, fear, and separation from God. Thus, when Adam and Eve heard God approaching, they hid in the bushes. But God saw them and asked:

"Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

But because the wisdom of the world (the spirit of the crafty serpent) had now entered in, they both "believed" that they could cover-up their disobedience by shifting the blame to someone or something else, and God would excuse them. Genesis 3:11-12:

"And the man said, The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."
"And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

And we know the resulting sorrows that befell Adam and Eve and their offspring; and the sorrows that befall all of those today who do not obey the Father's voice, but listen instead to "some new thing" (Acts 17:21), one of them being the philosophy of the "new thing" called "self-esteem," which is not new at all:

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

Sinful Self

Adam and Eve answered with the first example of self-justification. First Adam blamed Eve and God, and then Eve blamed the serpent. The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil spawned the sinful self with all of its self-love, self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-justification, self-righteousness, self-actualization, self-denigration, self-pity and other forms of self-focus and self-centeredness.

The present Self-Etc. movement is thus rooted in Adam and Eve's sin. Through the centuries mankind has continued to feast at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which has spread its branches of worldly wisdom. It has branched out into the vain philosophies of men and, more recently, the "scientized" philosophies and metaphysics of modern psychology.

Religious incantations for self-worth, self-love, and self-acceptance ooze out of the TV tube, drift across radio waves, and entice through advertising. From the cradle to the grave, self-promoters promise to cure all of society's ills through doses of self-esteem, self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-love. And everyone, or nearly everyone echoes the refrain: "You just need to love and accept yourself the way you are. You just need to forgive yourself" and "I just have to accept myself the way I am. I'm worth it. I am a lovable, valuable, forgivable person."

Christian Response to the World

How is the sincere follower of Christ to combat the wisdom of the world, which glorifies the self and places self at the center as the be-all and end-all of existence? How is the sincere follower of Christ to be faithful to His command to be in the world, but not of the world? Can he adopt the popular philosophy/psychology of the world's "culture," or must he stand apart as one who has been set apart by God and gauge his walk and way of life only by the light of the Word? Jesus said:

"Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

Note that he did not say, "come unto Me and I will give you self-esteem." Here is a call to give up one's own way and to come under the yoke of humility and service - an emphasis on yoking - a shedding of the self and becoming one with Him. Jesus described His call for His followers in different words, but to the same relationship and with the same intent, when He said:

"If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it." Matthew 16:24-25

No Self-Love Commandment

Jesus does not command self-love, but rather love for God and love for one another. The Word presents an entirely different basis for love than the humanistic psychology preached so prevalently from the State's Church pulpits of today. Rather than promoting self-love as the basis for loving others, the Word of God says that His love is the True source. Human love is mixed with self-love and is ultimately self-serving. But God's love is self-giving. Therefore, when Jesus calls His disciples to deny self and to take up His yoke and His cross, He is calling them to a self-sacrificing love, not a self-satisfying love. Until the advent of humanistic psychology and its heavy influence in the church, true followers of Christ generally thought of self-esteem as a sinful attitude.

The Psychology of Self-Esteem

Even though the Word does not teach self-love, self-esteem, self-worth, or self-actualization as virtues, helps, or goals, a vast number of present-day "Christians" have been deceived by the self-teachings of humanistic psychology. Rather than resisting the enticement of the world, they become "culture-bound." Not only do they not resist the tidal wave of selfism; they are riding the crest of self-esteem, self- acceptance, and self-love. In these synagogues of Satan that preach such drivel concerning self, one cannot tell the difference between the "Christian minister" and the "heathen priests of the grove," except that the "Christian minister" adds God as the main source for his self-esteem, self-acceptance, self-worth, and self-love. He does this through "logic" and "reason."

Through slogans, one-liners, and twisted Scripture, many of the Christian sheep jump on the existential bandwagon of humanistic psychology and set up their own cheering section. Thus, any criticism voiced against the teachings of self-worth, self-love, and self-esteem is regarded as ipso facto proof that the critic wants people to be "miserable," and has no "feelings" for anybody. Moreover, any criticism against the self-esteem movement is seen as dangerous to society, since self-esteem is considered to be the panacea for its ills. Then, in the church, if one does not wholly endorse a "self-esteem theology," he is accused of being a "fundamentalist" and asked to shut his mouth, or leave and not come back.

If there is one thing the world and many in the church have in common these days, it's the psychology of self-esteem. Although "Christians" may disagree about some of the nuances of self-esteem, self-worth, and self-acceptance, and even on some of the finer points of definition and how it is attained, too many have joined forces against what they believe is a formidable enemy - low self-esteem. Yet, even the world cannot justify promoting high self-esteem through its own methods of research.

No Research Justification for Self-Esteem

A few years ago the California legislature passed a bill creating The California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. The legislature funded the bill with $245,000 a year for three years, for a total of $735,000. The twofold title of the Task Force was quite an assumption. No one has ever demonstrated that promoting self-esteem is in any way related to "personal and social responsibility." Nor has anyone proved that all those who exhibit "personal and social responsibility" have high self-esteem. Self-esteem and social and personal responsibility actually appear to be negatively rather than positively related.

The Mission Statement of the Task Force is as follows:

"Seek to determine whether self-esteem, and personal and social responsibility are the keys to unlocking the secrets of healthy human development so that we can get to the roots of and develop effective solutions for major social problems and to develop and provide for every Californian the latest knowledge and practices regarding the significance of self-esteem, and personal and social responsibility." California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility. "1987 Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature," page V.

The Task Force believed that esteeming oneself and growing in self-esteem would reduce "dramatically the epidemic levels of social problems we currently face." (Andrew M. Mecca, "Chairman Report." Esteem, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1988, page 1).

Relationship between High/Low Self-Esteem & Personal/Social Responsibility

In order to investigate this relationship, the State Task Force hired eight professors from the University of California to look at the research on self-esteem as it relates to the six following areas:

2. Alcohol and drug abuse.

3. Welfare dependency.

4. Teenage pregnancy.

5. Child and spousal abuse.

6. Children failing to learn in school.

Seven of the professors researched the above areas and the eighth professor summarized the results. The results were then published in a book titled The Social Importance of Self-Esteem (Andrew M. Mecca, Neil J. Smelser, and John Vasconcellos, eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).

Has the relationship been established between self-esteem and social problems? David L. Kirk, syndicated writer for the San Francisco Examiner, said it bluntly:

"That . . . scholarly tome, The Social Importance of Self-Esteem, summarizes all the research on the subject in the stultifyingly boring prose of wannabe scientists. Save yourself the 40 bucks the book costs and head straight for the conclusion: There is precious little evidence that self-esteem is the cause of our social ills.
Even though they searched for a connection between low self-esteem and problematic behavior, they could not find a cause and effect link. However, more recent studies indicate a definite relationship between violent behavior and high self-esteem. Nevertheless, faith in self-esteem dies hard and schools continue to work on building high self-esteem." Lack of Self Esteem is Not the Root of All Ills, from the Santa Barbara News-Press, 15 January 1990.

Worse than the continuance of self-esteem teachings in the world is the faith that Christians continue to place in self-esteem and self-worth teachings. Thus, the secular self-esteem movement is a frontal attack against Truth, with the battle-lines clearly displayed, and is a skillfully subversive tool and is truly the work, not of flesh and blood, but of principalities, powers, the rulers of darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places, just as delineated by Paul near the end of Ephesians. The sad thing is that many Christians are not alert to the dangers. Countless sheep are being subtly deceived into another gospel: the gospel of self.

Scriptural Love

Self-esteem has nothing whatsoever to do with regeneration and salvation. Jesus calls His own into a love relationship with Himself and with one another. Their joy is to be found in Him, not in self. Their love comes from His love for them. Thus, their love for one another does not come from self-love or self-esteem, nor does it enhance self-esteem. The emphasis is on relationship, fruitfulness, and readiness to be rejected by the world, not accepted by the world. A true believer's walk is in Jesus the Christ to the point of suffering and following Him to the cross. Only through strained semantics, labored logic and exploited exegesis can one even attempt to demonstrate that self-esteem is scriptural or even a part of church tradition.

The focus of love in the Word of God is upward and outward instead of inward. Love is both an attitude and action to one another. And while love may include sentiment and emotional affection, it is primarily self-sacrifice for the glory of God and the good of others, by keeping His Law; not through seeking self-esteem. Thus when Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength" (Mark 12:30), He was saying that all of our being is to be committed to loving and, therefore, pleasing God. Love for God is expressed with a thankful heart committed to doing what pleases Him according to what He has revealed in His Word. It is not a grudging kind of obedience, but an eagerness to conform to His gracious will and to agree with God that He is the source, standard, and compass for all that is right and good.

His second commandment is an extension or expression of the first: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mark 12:31). John elaborates on this. He describes the sequence of love. In contrast to the teachers of self-love, who say that people cannot love God and others until they love themselves, John says that love originates with God and then extends to others:

"We love Him because He first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his brother also." 1 John 4:19-21

God loved us first, which enables us to love Him, which then expresses itself in love for one another.

From Adam's first breath, mankind was created to live in relationship with God, not as autonomous selves. The entire Word rests on that relationship, for after Jesus answered the Pharisee by saying that the Greatest Commandment is to love God and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself, He said: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Jesus the Christ came to save us from self and to reestablish that love relationship for which we were created.

Through the centuries books have been written about loving God and loving one another. However, today the church is increasingly inundated with books telling us how to love ourselves better, esteem ourselves more, accept ourselves no matter what, and build our own self-worth.

That crafty serpent never sleeps.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Why I Believe in Slavery

by Christopher Warren

"The whole concept of slavery is written not only into the Old Testament but into the New, but perhaps not in quite the way most people suppose. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a Gospel of Slavery. The apostle Paul understood that we were "slaves of Christ" and that this was a most glorious and happy state to be in (Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6). So why, then, are we revolted by slavery? Why do we exalt Wilberforce and the abolitionists who fought to undo slavery and give every man his dignity? Because the kind of slavery they fought against was evil and God's slavery is righteous. The Gospel of Christ does not put us in fetters but frees us from them. So how can such be regarded as "slavery"?

When I tell people that I believe in slavery they either think I am mad or plain evil. But usually they don't know what I am talking about because the meaning of words has changed. I consider myself to be a gay person but I am absolutely not a homosexual. Originally, "gay" meant "happy and carefree" -- today it does not. I consider myself to be a slave -- a slave to my God. I do not, I assure you, walk around in chains, nor do I seek to escape from His authority at the slightest opportunity. I am happy to be His slave because I am free. Slavery, in the Scriptural sense, is servanthood, or, in New Testament jargon, discipleship. I am a servant of the Lord, of my leaders in the Christ's assembly, and under discipline -- or discipleship.

Taking people prisoner and putting them into physical bondage is certainly described in the Old Testament. God permitted the Israelites to take prisoners of their enemies. His purpose in doing this was to enable them to be converted to the Way of Holiness, of the Covenant of Moses, which was the only thing that could save them. Those who were killed lost their lives because (a) they were utterly depraved, and (b) God knew they would not repent and would instead corrupt Israel. The Law required that these slaves be freed after a period of time. They were to be taken into bondage for their own good, something we don't necessarily appreciate always. Yet do not parents "enslave" their children, bringing them under discipline ("Old Covenant"), for their own good until they are responsible enough to act freely with their own conscience ("New Covenant")? So God has behaved with nations.

Under the New Covenant, which requires that the Law be written on the heart by the Holy Spirit coming to a freely repentant soul, the Old Covenant Law of slavery has been lifted to a higher level of consciousness. Whereas the Old Covenant Law was administered by a special Priesthood -- the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood -- the New Covenant is to be administered by a higher Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood, of whom Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Hebrews 7:11-12, 24). According to this Law, slavery comes "naturally" by the Holy Spirit. All true Christians make themselves slaves of Christ voluntarily because they have tasted the wonderful fruits of that slavery. True, that slavery can sometimes be unpleasant as the spiritual self wages war with the carnal self -- the carnal wishes to enslave the spiritual (in the classical sense of "slavery") whilst the spiritual wishes to enslave the carnal (in the sense that I am trying to convey here). During such warfare, true slavery can sometimes appear to be classical (oppressive) slavery. Indeed, do we not, as Christians, give God full permission to do to us whatever He, as Sovereign, wishes, even if that is uncomfortable or painful? And do we not do so in faith, because we trust Him when He tells us it is for our good and salvation?

Jesus Christ has upgraded marriage and slavery in the New Covenant by making them "natural" and from the heart. He never abolished either. Let us, therefore, be wise in not judging the Word but in understanding it in its great and glorious historical context. The Scripture must not be twisted to fit our pre-conceived doctrines and ideas. These days Christians move between denominations when it suits them and show little in the way of commitment. Churches continue to schismatize exponentially. The problem is the "I" culture which demands that every individual be free to do whatever he wants. Not so with true Christianity.

I believe, that with these keys of understanding, you will come to appreciate the glory and beauty of the Law of Moses in light of the New Covenant. Before the truth, supposed contradictions evaporate. However, if you are to see the truth, you must be totally honest and accept all of God's Word, and not just that which you like or which supports the prevalent gentile culture. Without that honest approach, the Scripture will remain a sealed book, full of imagined contradictions and horror stories. The truth truly sets you free.

In the meantime, let all Christians live by pure consciences (Acts 24:16), remembering also that sometimes a clear conscience does not necessarily make a man innocent (1 Corinthians 4:4). The matters you raise are not simple ones and require, for their resolution, total honesty, and an in-depth knowledge of the Scripture and history, and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. It is most unlikely -- I would even say impossible -- that all Christians will be agreed about them. Whatever our point-of-view we must feel free to be disciples of Christ according to the degree of our spiritual development and be allowed to choose to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). It is the Lord who judges in the end (1 Corinthians 4:4).

We have often said that we believe everything in the Scripture, even what we don't like. Most of us have trepidations and fears about doctrines and practices which aren't the "norm" -- the Jews certainly did and preferred to remain with what was "old and familiar" (Luke 5:39).

Bits and Pieces

Two Brothers And A Carpenter

Once upon a time, two brothers who lived on adjoining farms fell into conflict. It was the first serious rift in 40 years of farming side by side, sharing machinery, and trading labor and goods as needed, without a hitch. Then the long collaboration fell apart. It began with a small misunderstanding and it grew into a major difference, and finally it exploded into an exchange of bitter words followed by weeks of silence.

One morning there was a knock on the door of one of the brother's. He opened it to find a man with a carpenter's toolbox. "I'm looking for a few days work" he said. "Perhaps you would have a few small jobs here and there. Could I help you?" "Yes," said the brother. "I do have a job for you. Look across the creek at that farm. That's my neighbor, in fact, it's my brother's place. Last week there was a meadow between us, and he took his bulldozer to the river levee and now there is a creek between us. Well, he may have done this to spite me, but I'll go him one better. See that pile of lumber curing by the barn? I want you to build me a fence -- an 8-foot fence -- so I won't need to see his place anymore. Maybe it'll cool him down, anyhow." The carpenter said, "I think I understand the situation. Show me the nails and the post-hole digger and I'll be able to do a job that I hope will please you."

The brother had to go to town for supplies, so he helped the carpenter get the materials ready, and then he was off for the day. The carpenter worked hard all that day measuring, sawing, and nailing. About sunset when the farmer returned, the carpenter had just finished the job.

The farmer's eyes opened wide; then his jaw dropped. There was no fence there at all. It was a bridge--a bridge stretching from one side of the creek to the other! A fine piece of work--handrails and all--and his neighbor, his brother, was coming across, his hand outstretched. "You are quite a fellow to build this bridge after all I've said and done." The two brothers stood at each end of the bridge, and then they met in the middle, embracing one another.

They turned to see the carpenter hoist his toolbox on his shoulder. "No, wait! Stay a few days. I've a lot of other projects for you," said the one brother. "I'd love to stay on," the carpenter said, "but, I have many more bridges to build."

I Asked God

I asked God for all things that I might enjoy life...
He said, "I am with you. Rather, I will give you life so that you may enjoy all things."

I asked God to give me wisdom
He said, "Rather, I will teach you wisdom as you walk in My ways."

I asked God to give me strength
He said, "Rather, I will give you difficulties to make you strong."

I asked God to give me courage
He said, "Rather, I will give you danger to overcome fear."

I asked God to give me prosperity
He said, "Rather, I will reward you with the fruits of your labor."

I asked God to take away my pain
He said, "Rather, it is not for me to take it away, but for you to give it up."

I asked God to spare me pain...
He said, "Rather, tribulation cleanses you of worldly cares & draws you closer to Me."

I asked God to make my handicapped child whole
He said, "Rather, the child's spirit is whole already; it's body is only temporary."

I asked God to grant me patience
He said, "Rather, patience isn't granted; it is learned through tribulation."

I asked God to give me happiness...
He said, "Rather, I give you blessings. Happy you are when you righteously endure."

I asked God to give me favors
He said, "Rather, I will give you choices."

I asked God to make my spirit grow...
He said, "Rather, your faith will give you growth & I will prune to make you fruitful."

I asked God to give me love
He said, "Rather, I will send to you those in need for you to give your love to."

I asked God to help me love others, as much as He loves me
And He said, "I am with you, and finally, you know it.
Your love will shine through as you fulfill My Law."

Issue the Sixty-eighth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

Let Me See Your Papers, please!...

The Soldier of God...

Discipline in Christ's Army

Faith and Suffering ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

Let Me See Your Papers, please!

by Richard Anthony

Last month, I was to take a trip from Canoga Park to Anaheim, California, some 50 miles distance. Metrolink is the name of the county train system here. The same train track is also used by Amtrak. I called "Metrolink Information" by phone, and the "computer-assistant" said it would cost twelve "dollars" one-way. When we went to the local Metrolink Station, the only way to acquire the tickets was through a vending machine. However, to go between the two cities, the machine only required $6.25 for the ticket. We wondered why it was almost half the price quoted, vended the ticket, and inquired no further.

Shortly thereafter, a double-deck train pulled up to the station (Metrolink has double-deck), and I waited outside for a while before boarding. From inside of the station, Randy Lee got a current train schedule for me. The train was supposed to depart at 11:13 A.M. I boarded the train shortly before this time. After I sat down, in front of me was a digital sign that displayed the next stop. I looked at the train schedule to verify that was the next stop. And sure enough, it was the same. The train departed at 11:13 A.M., and according to the schedule, it was supposed to depart at 11:13 AM. There was no other train in the station, so I was confident I was on the right train. I laid back in the chair and relaxed. There were a few people sleeping in their chairs next to mine.

Little did I know that God was going to tap me on the shoulder and remind me that things are not always as they appear, but that no matter what happens, all things work together for good to them who love Him.

Soon after departure, the train conductor approached me. The following is a paraphrase of what happened.

Conductor: Where ya headed?

Richard: Anaheim! (I said this with a smile. The conductor took out the Anaheim colored strip of paper and inserted it into the slot above my seat. Then I handed him my ticket).

Conductor: You're on the wrong train!

Richard: Pardon? (I thought he was jesting. A visual checklist ran through my head...)

#2 - This is a double-deck train. Metrolink is a double-deck train.

#3 - The next stop for this train was the same stop as stated on the Metrolink schedule.

#4 - Train departed on time, and was the same departure time as stated on the Metrolink schedule, and the same departure time as the previous phone call to Metrolink confirmed.

#5 - There was no other train in the station for me to board!

(I thought I heard that too familiar voice from the 1950's"You have just entered the Twilight Zone")

Conductor: Your ticket is for the Metrolink.

Richard: Yes.

Conductor: This is Amtrak.

Richard: (I was dumbfounded. But then I realized that there must be a purpose for this. So I put my faith in God and just went with the flow.) What do I do?

Conductor: (He took out an Amtrak book from his pocket and flipped through the pages. This train had the same stops as Metrolink, and ended up at the same destination). How much did you pay for your ticket?

Richard: (I looked at the ticket) It says six-twenty-five.

Conductor: Amtrak charges twelve dollars....

Richard: (My thoughts were--Well, this explains why the telephone call to Metrolink said it would cost twelve dollars. But there is no explanation why there is such a large difference in the price. Metrolink and Amtrak must be merged somehow. Before I could answer, he said:).

Conductor: Let me see your I.D.

Richard: Oh. I don't have any.

Conductor: You don't?!?!? (As he raised his voice with this question, he woke up those on the train who were sleeping. Now all eyes were on us).

Richard: No. Why?

Conductor: You must have I.D.! You cannot be on this train unless you have I.D. You can't even buy an Amtrak ticket without I.D. (He was looking at seated passengers as he spoke, as if to warn others that there was "a possible criminal" in their midst).

Richard: Well, I'm a minister for Christ Jesus. I don't have any I.D. I go from place to place doing the Lord's Will. (I grabbed my bible cover, which had my bible in it).

Conductor: Well, let me see what you have there.

Richard: (He was expecting to see some kind of identification papers, but when I opened it up, there was only my bible)

Conductor: (He scoffed and turned his head away). The Bible! (Shaking his head, as if to say, "Poor fella. That won't do you any good.")

Richard: The scripture "identifies" me as a Minister for Christ. That is who I am.

Conductor: You must have I.D. It's the law!

Richard: Well, yes, it might be the law for residents, but I am not a resident. The government will only give I.D. to residents. If I were to try to get California I.D., and they asked me if I'm a resident, I would have to say, 'No, I'm just passing through,' they would then say, 'Oh, we can't give you I.D. unless you're a resident.' (I could have additionally pointed out to him that they also require a Social Security Number, which I don't have, in order to get an I.D. card).

Conductor: Well, things have changed since 9-11.

Richard: Hmmm. I'll have to look into that. Is there someone higher-up here that I can talk to?

Conductor: (He pointed to himself, implying that he is the one who will determine my "fate." Then he showed me his walkie-talkie). If I contact Amtrak, they'll tell me to kick you off the train.

Richard: So, what do you want me to do? Do you want me to get off at the next stop? (Which I was willing to do without any argument).

Conductor: (After a long pause, and with a squinty-eyed stare looking deep into my eyes, as if to see if my eyes will suddenly yell "I'm a terrorist!" he said) Naaaa. I'll let you stay on.

Richard: Thank you. What do I owe you for the ticket?

Conductor: Don't worry about that (he didn't even charge me!).

Richard: Well, thank you.

Conductor: But look into getting some kind of I.D. (Then he walked off down the isle).

Richard: God Bless you! (He acted like he didn't hear me).

God has blessed me in similar situations previously, since the September 11th terrorist attacks.

About a month after the "attacks," my mother and I took a train from North Carolina to New Jersey for a family reunion. We were told that we needed I.D. to buy the tickets and I.D. to get on the train. However, Mom bought two tickets through a travel agent, and the agent just warned my Mom that her son (me) needed to show I.D. when I boarded the train.

Well, when we got to the train station, we checked-in our luggage and showed them our train tickets. The clerk did not ask for I.D. I can only presume that he thought we must have showed I.D. when we bought the tickets. None asked for I.D. during boarding and the entire train ride, either. Not even when we picked up our baggage at the final destination.

And in November of 2001, I left North Carolina to sojourn with Randy Lee in California. I took a Greyhound bus. Since the bus ticket was half-price if purchased a week in advance, I bought the ticket in advance. I was told by Greyhound that I.D. would need to be presented when using this advanced ticket ("to avoid people buying tickets for somebody else"), and that I would also need to show I.D. to pick up my baggage at my final destination.

Well, I was never asked for I.D. at the bus station when I left North Carolina, during the bus ride, nor at my final destination to claim the baggage.

An interesting thing happened while I was changing buses in Houston, Texas. After exiting the bus, and going into the bus station to re-board another bus, there was a very, very long line for that bus. I was waiting towards the end of the line, when several local policemen went to the front of the line, and were physically searching everybody's "person" and "belongings," and asking for I.D., before boarding the bus. The police had a cart with them, which was full of people's confiscated items, such as Swiss army knives, files, tools, and anything else that they thought could be used as "a weapon."

However, somebody behind me noticed an unguarded door further past where the police were, with a bus parked in that space. He walked to the door, and onto the bus, and asked the driver something, and then walked back towards me (he left his luggage and friend behind me). I heard him say that that bus was heading to the same place we were going! It must have been a bus in reserve since the one we were boarding was so overcrowded. So, we all casually walked past the police, to the unguarded door, and walked onto the empty bus, and avoided the Gestapo search to get onto the other bus!

The Lord works in mysterious, but always wonderful, ways.

Identification Card and Residency Requirements

(from the California Motor Vehicle Code):

516. 'Resident' means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.

The following are evidence of residency within this state:

(b) Location of employment or place of business.

(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.

(e) Filing a homeowner's property tax exemption

(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.

(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a non-resident.

(h) Possession of a California driver's license (or identification card).

(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

12505. (a) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person's state of domicile. "State of domicile" means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home or principle residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.

13005. (a) The identification card shall resemble in appearance, so far as is practicable, a driver's license issued pursuant to this code.

12800. Every application for an original or a renewal of, a driver's license (or identification card) shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The applicant's true full name, age, sex, mailing address, residence address, and social security number.

The Soldier of God

"Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please Him Who hath chosen him to be a soldier." 2 Timothy 2:3-4

The Lord knoweth them that are His, and His soldiers first and foremost live to please Him, not themselves, by not entangling themselves with the affairs of this life (bios, 979, "the means of livelihood"). In the Greek, entangleth is translated from empleko (Strong's 1707); "to entwine, i.e. involve with." And affairs is translated from pragmateia (4230); from pragmateuomai (4231); "to busy oneself with, i.e. to trade."

From the above, we see that His true soldiers cannot "entwine themselves with the business of the world for their livelihood." (An extended study of this prohibition can be found on Page sixteen, Etymologicum Anglicanum).

And, when He said, "...I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34) He did not mean a literal sword upon which they were to take revenge, as those of the world do:

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." Matthew 10:16

And the Spirit of God instructed our Brother Paul what is wise and harmless:

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:19-21
"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:17-18
"See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." 1Thessolonians 5:15

Our Lord came to set His soldiers striving for a better world for all men in accordance with His power, authority and force of spirit; not through physical force, as those of the world do. We are shown what our weapon is and "who" the enemy is. The Spirit saith:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." 2 Corinthians 10:3-6

Successful warfare cannot be attained without first having obedient soldiers who listen to and live by His instructions.

Again listen to what His Spirit tells us through our Brother Paul:

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might [*not the might of a carnal sword]. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:10-12

And our Brother goes on to tell us what the whole armour of God (our weapon and shield) consists of:

"Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;" Ephesians 6:14-18

Note that in the above, there is not one carnal weapon contained in the weapons of the warfare of His soldiers.

Now, when we consider the above, we find the following:

The mission of His soldiers, when their obedience is fulfilled is:

2. Standing against the wiles of the devil and the fiery darts of the wicked.

3. To wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places

The weapons of their warfare are not carnal, but they are:

2. Faith, truth and righteousness.

3. The Glad Tidings of Peace.

4. The Sword of the Spirit.

5. Prayer and supplication in the Spirit.

6. Vigilance

Review

His soldiers are baptized into His army, Jesus the Christ being their Commander, not men (John 15:14-17). The weapons of their warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God (2 Corinthians 10:4).

Faith, prayer and the Sword of the Word are their weapons of warfare. They are taught by the Holy Spirit, tried by adversity and tested by fire.

They are volunteers in His army, and are enlisted for eternity. They do not retire to receive an earthly pension, nor do they sell out, nor can they be talked out or pushed out. They are faithful, reliable, capable and dependable. If their Master needs them, they are there.

They are His obedient soldiers. They are born anew, but they are not babies. They do not need to be pampered, petted, primed up, pumped up, picked up, or pepped up.

They are His obedient soldiers. No one has to call them, remind them, entice them or lure them.

They are His obedient soldiers. They are not wimps. They are in place, saluting their King and Commander, obeying His orders, praising His name and building-up His kingdom! No one has to send them flowers, cards or candy, or give them beggarly handouts. They do not need to be cuddled, cradled, cared for or catered to. They are committed. They cannot have their "feelings" hurt as to turn them back. They cannot be discouraged as to turn them aside. They cannot lose enough worldly goods to cause them to quit or be tempted with desertion.

When Jesus the Christ called them into His army, they had nothing. If they end up with nothing, they will still come out ahead. They will ultimately win. Their God has and will continue to supply all of their needs. They are more than conquerors through Him. They will always triumph. And they can do all things through Him as He commands. That old serpent, which is called the Devil, and Satan, cannot deceive or defeat them, and the people of that spirit cannot disillusion them. Weather cannot weary them. Sickness cannot stop them. Battles cannot beat them. Filthy lucre cannot buy them. Governments of men cannot silence them, and hell cannot handle them.

They are His obedient soldiers. Even death cannot destroy them. For when their Commander calls them from His battlefield, He will promote them in rank, allowing them to rule with Him.

They are His obedient soldiers in His army, marching to claim victory. They will not give up, nor will they turn around.

They are His obedient soldiers, marching heaven-bound. There they stand! Will you stand with them?

The army of the Lord is a force through faith. No one is forced or drafted, and those who serve will do so eagerly rather than grudgingly, through that faith. That army is "the body of Christ":

"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." 1 Corinthians 12:25-27

They are to be "a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3-4), and they are to "put on the whole armour of God" (Ephesians 6:10-11).

"...let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light." Romans 13:12

Know your enemy: The "wiles of the devil" and "the fiery darts of the wicked" is the enemy, "for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:11-12, 2 Corinthians 10:3). The physical flesh of the people are not the enemy, but the spirit of the wicked one which they cling to. It is not a "physical" fight.

The things of the world are the enemy:

"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." I John 2:15-17
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Roman 12:2
"Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
"Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luke 10:19

A good soldier knows his weapon. He is to take the "helmet of salvation" and "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:17). Know your weapon: "study to show thyself approved unto God" (2 Timothy 2:15). Know your weapon: "search the scriptures" (Acts 17:11, Luke 16:29, Isaiah 8:20; 34:16), and compare scripture with scripture (Isaiah 28:10) to come to the Truth. "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him" (Proverbs 30:5, Ephesians 6:16). His soldiers are to put on the "breastplate of righteousness" (Ephesians 6:14), and have their "feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace" (Ephesians 6:15).

His good soldiers stay in step. They are to walk in the "same steps as the Christ":

"For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: Who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously: Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by Whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." 1 Peter 2:19-25

And most important, His soldiers "secret weapon" is: "praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:18), so that you may "open your mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel" (Ephesians 6:19).

We are "fellowsoldiers" (Philippians 2:25, Philemon 1:2), and:

"We are more than conquerors through Him that loved us." Romans 8:37

Discipline in Christ's Army

A Sermon Delivered by Charles Spurgeon

at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington (1879)

"Pass through the host, and command the people." Joshua 1:11

Believers are called to be good soldiers of Jesus Christ. As many of us as believe in Him, and have obtained eternal life through Him, are now enlisted beneath His banner to fight the battles of holiness against sin and truth against error. We war not, however, with flesh and blood, but with spiritual enemies. We slay lust and lying, drunkenness and blasphemy, and we wage a never-ending warfare against everything which is dishonest, unkind, selfish, or ungodly. He who died upon the cross out of love to the undeserving has taught us how to endure hardness for His sake as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Our ambition is to fight a good fight and keep the faith; and by the power of the Holy Spirit we hope to do so, and to receive from our great Commander's mouth the blessed commendation, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matthew 25:23).

Being soldiers, we come under discipline and it is well for all who are about to be enjoined to know what the discipline is, for our glorious Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, says to all who wish to join this army, "Count the cost." We too would say to all who propose to be soldiers of the cross, and followers of the Lamb, -- Count the cost. Do not join the ranks blindly, and then repent of it, and desert. Enlist with your eyes open, and stop in the service till you are veterans. There's nothing like knowing what you are at, and choosing Christ's service deliberately. It is to that end that I shall speak upon the discipline of Christ's army, for perhaps some who are in the army of Christ in name but not in truth may find out their mistake, and endeavour, by sincere repentance, to make sure work of the matter so that they may not be deceived. It will be an awful thing to be found out to be a hypocrite, and to be drummed out of the Lord's army at the last.

I have here a copy of the "Army Discipline and Regulation Bill," sent to me by a member of the House of Commons, with this written in the corner of it, "May not the Christian soldier derive some profit from this?" I feel sure he may. May the Holy Spirit enable us to do so!

This Bill contains a list of offences for which a soldier on active service is liable to death, and those offences are excellent figures of certain spiritual offences which must not be committed by the soldiers of Christ. If they fall into them, and continue in them, it will prove that they are already under sentence of death, and are not Christ's servants at all. If any complain that the discipline of our Lord Jesus is strict, it will be of benefit to them to see how severe is the discipline of every army. Nothing can make Christ's service sweet except love to Him; His service appears hardest to those who have hard hearts, and just as men grin right and true they find the Lord's yoke to be easy and His burden light. Judging Christianity from the outside, it will always seem to unregenerate men a very strict Puritanical system; but, judging it from inside, when the heart is renewed, and the soul is charmed with the blessed person of the Divine Redeemer, we love our Lord's service, and find intense delight in it. We consent to His Law that it is good, and we long with all our hearts to keep His statutes even to the end. We are glad to know what offences are that we may pray to be kept from them for we would not willingly offend so good a Lord.

In this Bill, we read that:

"A Person subject to Military Law, when on Active Service, is punishable with Death, if he commits any of the following offences":

(1) "Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, or uses any means to compel or induce any governor, commanding officer, or other person, shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison, place, post, or guard, which it was the duty of such governor, officer, or person to defend."

This is a grievous offence in the Church of God, and I am sorry to say that it has often been committed. We are put in trust with the gospel of Jesus Christ; that is the citadel which we are to defend at all hazards, so what a sad thing it is when professed Christian ministers give up truth after truth in order to please the public! "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon" (2 Samuel 1:20), that professed servants of Christ have betrayed the gospel itself to the enemy. O you who follow the banner of Jesus, never do this! Defend it with your lives; die in the defense of it, as the martyrs did; but never be ashamed of it in any company. You may not be an officer, and therefore you cannot give up a garrison or castle to the enemy; but you have your own post to guard, and take care that you do guard it. Never give up the Bible; no, not a leaf of it. Never give up prayer; stand sentry there, and let no man laugh you out of it. Whatever post the Lord Jesus commits to you, take care that you hold it till He comes, or till you, yourself, are called home to the heavenly head-quarters. Hold fast, as with a grip of steel, every doctrine which the Lord has taught you whether others approve of it or not. Hold fast also, and endeavour, by the aid of God's Spirit, to put into practice, every precept of the Lord. Value the practical part of Christianity as well as the doctrinal, and prize them both beyond gold. Be not of the mind of those who say of Christ's rules, "These are of little consequence." No; your Master's command cannot be a trifle, and the spirit which thinks little of anything which Jesus commands is an evil spirit, and we must pray against it, and strive against it. Make it a matter of conscience to follow Jesus at all hazards whithersoever he goeth. Stand up for the Scriptures, and the true gospel, and "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Do not give up a hair of the head of truth, nor let her enemies take away so much as the latchet of her shoes.

I believe in the invincibility of truth. Only give truth time, and, God being with her, she must prevail. I believe also in the invincibility of the Church which is built upon the rock Christ Jesus, and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail. I am quite willing to be in a minority upon a great many questions. I should not believe any more than I do even if everybody else believed it, and I should not be any the less confident of its truthfulness if it was accepted by only a hundredth or a thousandth part of those who now believe it. Get hold of a truth, my dear brother or sister, and you have laid hold of that in which God dwells. Know your Bible thoroughly, and believe what the Bible reveals; and then, if there are arrayed against Biblical truth all the powers of Christendom, all the kings and princes and prelates and priests joined together, you may rest assured that they will only be as so much chaff driven before the wind. If they believe error, and advocate error, all their pomp and power will be but as the wind, and the earthquake, and the fire, in which God was not; but in your calm, quiet adherence to the truth of God with a tenacity that would brave even martyrdom rather than renounce what God has revealed to you in His Word, and by His Spirit, there is a power that must win in the long run; so hold to it, and be not afraid.

(2) "Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy."

This is a terrible crime, indeed, in a Christian soldier. "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward" (Hebrews 10:35). Never let go your shield of faith. Under ridicule and persecution, buckle it to your arm. Grip firmly that blessed sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; let no man take from you a single text of it. Speak up for the blessed truth, and stand to your gun; this will gall the enemy, and protect yourself. Rally to the colours, and wrap them around your heart when they seem to be in peril; -- I mean, the blood-red colours of the cross of Christ.

Dear young brethren who love the Lord, I know you have a hard fight of it when you get among your fellow-men who are so mean as to ridicule you; but never say "Die"; never give up your faith, never yield to their sins, nor give them countenance by so much as joining in their laughter. Do not be misled by false teachers, but obey the Word of God, and follow that alone. Read it for yourselves, and what you see there lay hold upon, and let it be your religion. I have often said to myself:

"Should all the forms that men devise
Assault my faith with treacherous art,
I'd call them vanity and lies,
And bind the gospel to my heart."

Let us, dear brethren and sisters in Christ, still hold without wavering to our confidence in the gospel as God's great battle-axe and weapon of war. Let us be fully persuaded that this is the chosen instrument by which the Lord will glorify Himself, and subdue the nations of the earth. We may take it for granted that God's providential dispensations will always tend in that direction, and that the ponderous wheels full of eyes are always revolving in such a way as to work out the eternal purposes of grace in the salvation of those whom Christ has redeemed; but, for all that, the power which God mostly blesses is the energy of the Holy Ghost exerted through the preaching of the gospel of Christ, not by kings and princes, or learned doctors or eloquent men, but through the gospel as preached by humble and earnest believers, illustrated by gracious and holy lives, and supported by fervent and unceasing prayers. So, beloved, have faith in the gospel; do not put your confidence in anything that is not authorized by the New Testament, do not be so foolish as to use any means which are not in accordance with God's Word, and do not enter into any alliance with the world under the delusion that you will, by so doing, help the gospel. Be satisfied that God is in the still small voice; and as He is there, give good heed to the message that He utters, and gad not about to seek any other ground of confidence, but be content with "Thus saith the Lord."

(3) "Treacherously holds correspondence with or gives intelligence to the enemy, or treacherously or through cowardice sends a flag of truce to the enemy."

This is another thing that Christian soldiers must never do. Their orders are clear: "Come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing" (2 Corinthians 6:17). This battle of ours against sin admits of no truce whatever, -- no terms of compromise, -- no going a certain way with sinners in the hope of inducing them to come a little way with us. No; there must be nothing of the kind. Let the word "compromise" with regard to evil never even cross your thoughts. Our Lord and Master made no compromises. He told us that it would be better to pluck out our right eye and cut off our right hand rather than that they should cause us to offend. Give your heart so fully up to Jesus, my beloved brother, that you are altogether separated from this world. Let the world know where you are, and what you are, and take care that you know where it is, and what it is. Be not, I pray you, conformed to this world; and, on the other hand, never hide your religion. Do not ask for a truce with the enemy, for that would be treachery to your Lord. Remember that solemn warning, "Whosoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). That is no saying of mine; it is one of the faithful and true declarations of this inspired Book.

I must not stay to say more about this matter, though it is a most suggestive point.

(4) "Assists the enemy with arms, ammunition, or supplies, or knowingly harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner."

Now, every professor who leads an inconsistent life furnishes Christ's enemies with "arms, ammunition, or supplies," for they say, "Ah, that is one of your Christians!" They fire that as a most deadly shot against us. They point to the ways of inconsistent professors, and they turn to us, and say, "That is what you Christians are." If they take one bad sovereign, they never think of saying that all the sovereigns in circulation are counterfeit; yet they might as well say that as declare that, because here and there a professor is a hypocrite or inconsistent, therefore we are all so. That is not true, yet it gives the enemy encouragement, and supplies him with ammunition when any of you who profess to be Christ's walk as you ought not to walk.

And then, dear friends, if we conceal any sin within our bosoms, this is knowingly harbouring an enemy. If you who are supposed to be Christian people drink too much in secret, -- and there are some, not only men, but women who make a profession of Christianity, who sin in this way, and we must speak very plainly when this evil becomes so common as it is, -- you are knowingly harbouring an enemy. If, in your trade, you follow unrighteous customs, -- and there are plenty of tradesmen who do that, -- and if you adopt their schemes though you profess to be a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are knowingly harbouring His enemy, and you are not worthy to be called a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

The enemy will get in if he can, but we must do all we can, and also cry to God to keep him out. You know that, on a cold winter's day, a man shuts the door, and lights a fire, and draws the curtains, and lists up the door, yet even then the cold gets in. So is it with sin; you may watch and guard against it as much as you like; but, still, the cold will get in, but it is a very different kind of cold from that which would come in if you were to open the windows and doors, and let it in. That is what some do concerning sin. They keep no watch, no guard against it. They tempt the devil to tempt them; and those who do this, and thus knowingly harbour the enemy, are no true soldiers of Jesus Christ.

(5) "Having been made a prisoner of war, voluntarily serves with or voluntarily aids the enemy."

Now, young men, especially you who are members of this church or some other church, there are times when you get into a great fix. There are all round you persons who are opposed to true religion, and they begin by inviting you to do this, and that, and the other, and then they try to compel you to do as they wish. They make you, as it were, a prisoner of war, and they say, "You shall do so-and-so and so-and- so; we will make you do it." Or, possibly, they suppose that, if they use ridicule enough, or taunts and jeers enough, they will get the mastery over you. Now is your time to play the man. You are taken, as it were, a prisoner of war; but do not forfeit your honour by voluntarily serving with or aiding the enemy. They want a song from you, do they? Well then, sing them one of the songs about Jesus, and they will soon want you to stop; but do not yield to their desire by singing the song of the worldling even if you know one. If you are Christ's true soldier, you will be most staunch in the hour of the greatest trial. But you will need to cry to the Strong for strength, and ask God to give you grace sufficient for every time of need.

Christian tradesmen are sometimes taken prisoners of war in this sense. They get into financial difficulties, and then it is suggested to them by Satan, "You must do so-and-so; you cannot help doing it. Of course, you would rather not do it; but, under the circumstances, you cannot help yourself." Do not do wrong, my brother, whatever the circumstances may be. Become a bankrupt, lose all that you have, and go to the workhouse rather than do the least wrong. It would be better to die in a ditch, than to live and be rich with a guilty conscience. As you love your Lord, I beseech you, by that precious blood of His that has redeemed you from all iniquity, do not "crucify the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6); but stand fast, and having done all, still stand. God help any of you who are thus taken prisoners of war to avoid doing anything willingly against your Prince, and thus aiding His enemy!

(6) "Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of Her Majesty's forces or any part thereof."

That is rather a strong clause, because it takes a very wide sweep; but, brethren and sisters in Christ, we must not knowingly do anything calculated to imperil the success of our Master's cause. Will you try to think what a comprehensive clause this is? It may be that what you do will not actually imperil the success of Christ's cause. You may be too insignificant for your act to have any very great result; but, still, if it is even calculated to have that effect, it is forbidden by the articles of war of Prince Emmanuel.

I will tell you of some things that I think are calculated to imperil the success of our Master's cause. There are some of you who have never been baptized, and who are not members of any Christian church. "Well," someone says, "I believe that I am a Christian, and that I can go to heaven without being baptized, or joining a church, or going to the communion table." Yes, I know that is what you think, but that course of conduct of yours is, in my opinion, calculated to imperil the success of Christ's cause. If it is right for you to act thus, then every other Christian has as much right to act thus as you have; and suppose that everybody were to do as you are doing, there would be an end to the visible church of Christ, and to the maintenance of the visible ordinances of Christ, and this would be most perilous to the success of Christ's cause. Just think of that, I pray you; and if you are leaving undone that which you ought to do, or are doing anything which has a tendency to imperil the success of Christ's cause, repent of it, and forsake it, lest it should turn out that, after all, you are not a loyal subject and soldier in the army of King Jesus.

"Put on the gospel armour,
And watching unto prayer,
Where duty calls, or danger,
Be never wanting there."

(7) "Misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy."

I do not quite know what "misbehaviour" of a soldier may mean, but I know that a Christian man should never misbehave himself, because he is always in the presence of the enemy. You must never say, "Oh, now, you know, I may do what I like for there is nobody looking." Is there not? Your great Captain is certainly looking, and it is frequently when men think they are least seen that they are the most observed. The world has an eagle's eye for a Christian's faults. It tries to see faults where there are none; and where there are small faults, it is sure to magnify them. For my part, I am very glad it is so, and I say, let the world watch us, it will help us to be the more exact in our conduct. If we are ashamed to be seen anywhere, it must be because we have good reason to be ashamed; let us endeavour so to live that we need not be ashamed.

"Lord, I desire to live as one
Who bears a blood-bought name,
As one who fears but grieving Thee,
And knows no other shame.
As one by whom thy walk below
Should never be forgot;
As one who fain would keep apart
From all thou lovest not."

When I was pastor at Waterbeach, there was a young man who joined the church, and who seemed to run well for a time, but the village feast came round, and there was a good deal of drunkenness, and all sorts of low merriment. The young man went into the dancing-room, but he had not been there many minutes before someone came to him, and said, "Don't you belong to Spurgeon?" He tried to deny it, but there were many others who knew it was true, and before long he was thrown out of the window. The world pitched him out as a hypocrite; and, shortly afterwards, the church also turned him out as a hypocrite; so that he was disowned both by the church and the world, and I think that by the grace of God, this led him to a hearty and true repentance. I was thankful that the worldlings kept such a watch over the members of my church that they would not see them acting wrongly without making them suffer for it, and I hope they will serve you in the same way if any of you try to act as that young man did. You must be one thing or the other, either wholly for Christ or wholly for his enemies. If you are not prepared to be out-and-out for Jesus Christ, do not pretend to enlist in His army. If you want to "hold with the hare, and run with the hounds," we shall certainly not ask you to join our ranks. There must be nothing of this kind of spirit among good soldiers of Jesus Christ. May God keep us free from it!

(8) "Leaves his commanding officer to go in search of plunder."

Oh, dear! have I not known some who professed to be soldiers in Christ's army who have done this? They thought there was something to be gained elsewhere, so they left Christ "in search of plunder." There was one who did this in Paul's day, of whom, apostle wrote, "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world" (2 Tim 4:10). "Oh, but!" says one, "would you not have me marry when there was money to be had, even though it was to a worldly man?" or "an ungodly woman?" You can do so if you want to leave Christ "to go in search of plunder." "Would you not have me take a situation where I could get several hundreds of pounds a year even though I had to mix with ungodly men, and to do unrighteous things?" O you mean-spirited wretch, how little are you worthy to be numbered among those who are descended from the martyrs for the truth! How little are you worthy to be amongst those who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth! The Lord teaches those who are really His people that "godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Timothy 6:6); and, therefore, for Christ's sake, they can afford to despise and lose all other so-called "gain."

"But," says one, "I don't know where we should be if we were so scrupulous and exact as that." I can tell you where you would be, you would be walking in the light as God is in the light, and you would have fellowship with Him; and you would be no loser by acting thus, but you would be a gainer all round, for Christ has assured you that no one shall leave houses, or lands, or husband, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. If you cannot lose for Christ, you have already lost Christ, for He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after Me, cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:27). He who loves the world better than Christ loves not Christ at all. God save us from being of that character!

Time would fail me if I mentioned all the offences specified in this list, so I will pass on to number fifteen in the Act:

(15) "By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatever intentionally occasions false alarms in actions, on the march, in the field, or elsewhere."

It is a very great sin, on the part of Christian soldiers, to make false alarms to discourage and dispirit their fellow-soldiers. There are some professors who seem to delight to tell us of a new discovery in science which is supposed to destroy our faith. Science makes a wonderful discovery, and straightway we are expected to doubt what is plainly revealed in the Word of God. Considering that the so-called "science" is continually changing, and that it seems to be the rule for scientific men to contradict all who have gone before them, and that, if you take up a book upon almost any science, you will find that it largely consists of repudiations of all former theories, I think we can afford to wait until the scientific men have made up their minds as to what science really is. At all events, we have no cause to be distressed concerning science, so let no Christian man's heart fail him, and let him not raise any alarm in the camp of Christ.

Some raise these alarms by slandering their fellow-Christians. I will say very few words about this matter, but they must be very strong ones. That man is grossly guilty who makes up a lie or who reports a lie against one who is his brother in Christ. We are all faulty enough, but do let us go with the mantle of charity, and cover up the faults of others, and never expose them. Those who raise false alarms of this sort deserve to be tried by court martial, and to receive some very exemplary punishment for such a grave offence.

(16) "Treacherously makes known the parole or watchword to any person not entitled to receive it; or, without good and sufficient cause, gives a parole or watchword different from what he received."

It is a great crime to give the wrong watchword to Christ's army. Our watchword is "blood." It is an offensive word to many people, but we know that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. I pray God that every stone of this Tabernacle may tumble to its ruin, and every timber be shivered to atoms, before there should stand on this platform a man to preach who denies the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ or who even keeps it in the background, for this is our watchword. You shall know us among all professors by the emphasis which we lay upon atonement by the blood of Jesus Christ. Of the redeemed in glory we read, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14); and the saints on earth join in John's Doxology, "Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Revelation 1:5). "The precious blood of Jesus" is our watchword in life, and the password with which we hope to enter though the gates of death into eternal glory and blessedness.

"Dear dying Lamb, thy precious blood
Shall never lose its power,
Till all the ransom'd church of God
Be saved to sin no more."

Further on in this list, I notice another suggestive crime:

(18) "Being a sentinel, commits any of the following offences; that is to say, sleeps or is drunk on his post; or leaves his post before he is regularly relieved."

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, "Let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober" (1 Thessalonians 5:6); and this is one of the duties of every Christian, for all Christ's soldiers are sentinels, watchmen on the walls of Zion. Then, again, it is our duty not to leave our post till we are regularly relieved. Do you not think that some teachers leave the Sunday-school before they are regularly relieved? I think they do. There are some who get tired of the work, and leave it. I do not think you can truthfully say that you are regularly relieved of any work until you find a suitable successor; and I hope that some of us will never be regularly relieved until we close our eyes in death. Our prayer is that we may die in harness:

"Our body with our charge lay down.
And cease at once to work and live."

Who wishes to be regularly relieved from Christ's service except it be by receiving His crown, and entering into His rest?

"The land of triumph lies on high,
There are no fields of battle there;
Lord, I would conquer till I die,
And finish all the glorious war.
Let every flying hour confess
I gain thy gospel fresh-renown;
And when my life and labours cease,
May I possess the promised crown!"

Still further on, I notice that this is put down:

(23) "Disobeys any lawful command given by his superior officer in the execution of his office."

I know of only one superior Officer in Christ's army, and that is our blessed Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, the Captain of our salvation. He said to His disciples, "One is your Master; even Christ, and all ye are brethren" (Matthew 23:8); and He also said to them, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13:34; 15:12). Mind that you do not disobey that command of your superior Officer: "Love one another." Be true brethren to one another. You know that, when Jesus had washed His disciples' feet, He said to them, "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet" (John 13:14). Imitate this action of your Captain by rendering any service that you can to those who are your brethren in Christ. Seek their good for edification; and be not easily provoked, but abound in that charity which "thinketh no evil; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things" (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Keep every command of your Master. I put the question to the conscience of every one of you who profess to be Christ's soldiers, -- Is there any one of His commands that you know of that you have not kept? I will not mention a case even if I could do so; but I ask you whether there is one command of Christ, which you know is His command, which you have not kept? You may think that the command is only a little one, but the spirit which thinks it is little is not a little evil, but a very great evil. If you get a small stone in your boot, you know how it affects you in walking; and a little thing on the conscience, no matter how little it is, causes great trouble in a Christian's life. Blisters, and very painful ones, will be upon the spiritual foot if there be either an omission or a commission that is knowingly indulged in contrary to the command of Christ. We are not saved by our works; but when we are saved, we are saved from sin, saved from disobedience, saved from unholiness, saved from selfishness, saved in order that we may live no longer unto ourselves, but unto Him that loved us, and gave Himself for us.

The last two articles in the list are these:

(25) (26) "Deserts or attempts to desert from Her Majesty's Service; persuades, endeavours to persuade, procures, or attempts to procure, any person subject to military law to desert from Her Majesty's Service."

Brothers and sisters, you and I, when we enlisted into Christ's army, entered it for life; did we not? I never believed in any system of salvation which comes to an end. There are some who believe that you may be saved today and lost tomorrow. Well, if they like that sort of salvation, they are welcome to it. I do not want it, I would not have it as a gift. But the salvation that I received, when I believed in Jesus Christ, was everlasting salvation; that salvation of which the apostle writes to the Hebrews, "that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us" (Hebrews 6:18). Many of us, like Paul, bear in our body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Does anyone ask, "Where are those marks?" Well, some of us have the watermark, for we have been buried with Christ by baptism into death. That is the outside mark, and then in our hearts we have another mark, which the Spirit put upon us in that day when we passed from death unto life by His regenerating power. If these marks are really on us, and in us, we shall never desert from our Lord's service, but shall be faithful even unto death.

Possibly, there is someone here who has turned back in the day of battle, and became a deserter. Where are you, my friend? I am glad to see you once more, for it is a long while since you were last here. You used to be a member of the Church, and you made a great profession; but you know where you have been lately, you have been serving Satan. May God help you to desert from the devil's service, and may you never go back to it again! If you ever were the servant of God, return, O backslider, and return at once!

"Return, O wanderer, to thy home,
Thy Father calls for thee;
No longer now an exile roam
In guilt and misery;
Return, return."

He that has been a mere professor, and has turned back, must be branded "Deserter." Nay, not on his flesh; but on his conscience, seared as with a hot iron. Some desert because they have grown rich, and can no longer associate with poor Christian people. Some desert because they have become poor, and they say they have not clothes fit to come in, as if any sort of clothes were needed beyond such as might cover a man decently. Any clothes, if they are paid for, are fit to wear to this place of worship. But let those who they are too poor to come recollect that it is in poverty and in sickness that a man most needs the gospel; and, therefore, the lower he gets in the world, the more closely he ought to cling to Christ. Yet, alas! there are some who desert because of poverty, and some because of wealth. O you deserters, may the Lord have mercy upon you, and grant that you may not be real deserters, but may come back to the colours! Our great Captain is ready to receive you, and to forgive you, for He says, "Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6:37). Ay, even though you are a deserter, if you do but come to Christ, He will receive you graciously, and love you freely, and His anger shall be turned away from you. God bless you, for Jesus Christ's sake! Amen.

Faith and Suffering

Some of the most inspiring accounts in Scripture of our loving Father's faithfulness are revealed in the meteoric rise of Elijah the prophet. Like a shooting star, our Father brought him out of obscurity and changed the character of a whole nation in a very short time.

Little is known about the background of this blessed vessel of the Lord as His reformer of Israel. Called of God from the rugged mountains of Gilead, he walked into the palace of King Ahab while apostasy was at its darkest point. Fired by a holy indignation, he confronted the wicked ruler of Israel with words of judgment as a servant of the Living Word, "There shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word." (1 Kings 17:1).

After delivering his inspired message, the courageous prophet was commanded by God to hide himself in the eastern wilderness by the brook Cherith. There, Almighty God arranged providentially for ravens to deliver food to the isolated fugitive during the predicted years of famine.

As the land baked and cracked under the withering heat of the sun, every green plant died for lack of water. But Elijah was well supplied, morning and evening, by the miraculous ministry of the ravens. In addition to the bread and flesh brought by the birds, the Father provided plenty of refreshing water from the splashing brook which flowed nearby.

What a true witness of Almighty God's power and faithfulness to care for the physical needs of His faithful servant at a time of utter devastation in the land! With great joy we contemplate that scene of restful abundance and deliverance from a wicked nation. The prophet had no problems. Everywhere else the disobedient were suffering from the terror of the draught, but God would not let His obedient child lack for anything. Without fail, the ravens flew in twice a day with their fare of food and the brook was always yielding its life-giving supply of water.

Haven't we seen the same kind of providence in our own day? The God of Elijah still takes care of the needs of His faithful children. The prophet was walking in the center of God's Will, and the promised blessings never failed. Or did they?

Let's read on in the biblical account:

"And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook. And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up." 1 Kings 17:6, 7.

Oh, the shock and disappointment Elijah must have experienced when he walked out to the brook to get his daily water supply? Not a drop of water remained. A terrible thing had overtaken him - the brook had dried up!

We have no way of knowing how long God tested His prophet by the barren brook. For a time, at least, Elijah had to wait in faith. It probably seemed that all the promises were failing. God had abandoned him to an agonizing death in the parched wilderness. But as he lingered and listened, God spoke these words:

"Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee." 1 Kings 17:9

In this, we see how God closed one door so that He could open another one. Elijah had been there long enough. God had another mission waiting for him in Zarephath. He provided the brook, and He dried it up. It would have been error for the prophet to have remained longer in the wilderness. Life was moving on. Under the divine providence of his loving Father, it was ordained that another miracle was to be revealed through Elijah in another place. Had the brook not dried up, he would have stayed there. He would have relaxed in the satisfying fullness of material blessing. But he would have missed the witness of the widow's cruse and God's healing of her son, the faithful challenge at Carmel, etc., etc.

Remember that God's earthly brooks always dry up. He doesn't desire us to stay in the same place all the time. That is our great problematic tendency. Too many set by their comfortable brook, surrounded by peaceful plenty, and want to rest there the remainder of their days. Then when God allows the brook to dry up, we too often weep and blame God for afflicting us. Our Brother Paul made it quite clear that there is no worldly rest for the Lord's chosen:

"Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day. I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you." 1 Corinthians 4:11-14

Did Paul backslide because of this? No!! Was Elijah backsliding when the brook dried up on him? No, he was growing spiritually. Zarephath was many times more wonderful than Cherith. But take note that God closed up Cherith before He revealed Zarephath. Faith had to be tested. There is always a time in everyone's life when everything looks absolutely hopeless. It happened with Elijah and it has and will happen to us.

The Eternal 'Why?'

How many times do we stand with people beside their dried-up brooks trying to help them see that the world has not come to an end? One of the hardest questions for the Christ's servants to answer is "Why?" Why did my baby die? Why did I lose my job? Why are my children so unconcerned about spiritual things? Why did my companion abandon me for another?

Under the "emotional stress" of loss many tend to blame God for making some "terrible mistake" in dealing with their lives. It is so "human" to do this because "human nature" is blinding to those who refuse complete submission to the Will of the Father.

Did you mourn when you read the story of Joseph for the first time? He had been so happy and carefree. Then, suddenly, his brook dried up. He was on the way to Egypt as a slave. And how much Jacob grieved for that lost boy! We can hear him moaning, "Simeon is not and Joseph is gone. Now you want to take Benjamin from me. Everything is against me." (Genesis 42:36).

How familiar it sounds. Poor Jacob couldn't see through the "whys" any more than we can. But a little while later we see him on his camel, hurrying toward Egypt. His heart was overflowing with joy. Another brook had sprung forth in his life. And then we hear Joseph saying to his brothers, "Ye thought evil against me: but God meant it unto good" (Genesis 50:20).

It is so easy to look back as Joseph did that day and confess that the disappointments have really been our Father's appointments. Why can't we have the faith to stand by our dried-up brooks and make that confession? Someday in the future every redeemed soul will do it in retrospect. Our Heavenly Father delights in those who will take Him at His word and claim the promise of Romans 8:28 even while the heart is breaking with sorrow:

"All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose."

The Fires of Affliction

Scripture is laced with texts about the spiritual blessings of suffering. Peter said to "think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you." (1 Peter 4:12). Paul assures us that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12). And James makes the "incredible" statement, "Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience" (James 1:2, 3).

In the light of these and many more similar truths in His written Word, we must confess that there are mysterious blessings associated with trials and suffering. James witnesses to us that tribulations build up the very faith required to enter into the Kingdom. In Revelation, the saints are described in these words: "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Revelation 14:12).

Obviously, patience is a requirement for those who are redeemed out of this world. And James witnesses to us that patience is developed by tests and trials. This clearly teaches us that suffering for the Lord's sake is a preparatory blessing.

David, who also suffered much, came to this truth: "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn Thy statutes" (Psalms 119:71). Again, he wrote, "Before I was afflicted I went astray" (Psalm 119:67).

Until a professed servant of the Lord learns this simple truth, he will live in a ferment of doubt and uncertainty. Every "experience of disappointment" will raise fresh questions concerning God's justice and love. Too many "Christians" hold the childish view that because they have accepted Jesus and because He loves them, therefore, He will use His mighty power to preserve them from every pain and trial. That worldly view is not found in the Word of God.

The inspired record reveals that because He loves us, He will often permit us to pass through the fires of affliction. Why does He do it? Because He sees that this is the only way to prepare us to be with Him for eternity. He is actually answering the prayers of those who have asked for purification of life. When we pray for Him to eradicate sin from our life, we must be ready to accept His ordained "method" of accomplishing that work. It is not for us to question it, for when we do, doubt enters in.

It is quite possible that more "Christians" have lost their faith over this issue than any other. Every faithful teacher, preacher, and pastor have watched and prayed with His suffering people as they struggled with the "why" of their dried-up brook.

Not even the most consecrated believer can be insulated from shock and grief when loved ones are taken by death. But they can be prepared ahead of time so that their faith will not give way under the stress of loss.

We must rest upon the assurance that God will not permit any circumstance that is not for our best good. This requires faith, and that faith gives us the ability to trust the One who died for us who are so undeserving. We must continually remind ourselves that God may allow many occurrences in our lives which may seem like "terrible tragedies" at the time. We will not be able to discern any "logic or reason" behind the events. That is because there is none!! "Human faculties," which "rebel" at the very thought that any "reasonable" good could ever result from such circumstances, is that which separates one from the knowledge of God.

Here is where we must cling to the Word of God and nothing else. This is the dividing place between the mature and immature follower of Christ Jesus. The loss will either drive us closer to Him, or cause us to turn from Him. At this point, everything depends upon the relationship which has been developed prior to "the crisis." Only those who have understood and accepted, through faith, the eternal truth that God's love will not allow any trial or tribulation which is not for their best good--only those will truly trust in and remain in the Lord.

Purposes for Trusting

We know that faith alone will hold us in times of trial and tribulation. Nevertheless, our faith is not blind. We have a more than a sufficient record of His unfailing love and concern for all of His children, not only in our Father's written Word, but those tests which we have already been through. Why should the next test be any different? Even though we may not understand it, we know that we can trust Him Who has promised. If His Word has never failed before, how could it fail the next time? Then, like Job, we can say, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." (Job 13:15).

Here we may learn a lesson from the trustful manner in which some parents surrender their children into the hands of a surgeon. How can they submit that beloved child to the cutting of a knife and the throbbing pain which inevitably follows? Two factors make it easy for them to place such confidence in a "human" doctor. They trust his skill and ability to operate successfully, and they have faith in his "wisdom" to do the right thing at the right time for the good of their child. They also have hope that after the temporary suffering is past that the child will be better off than it was before the pain.

If so many are able to trust a human physician who often fails, why do they find it so difficult to trust a divine One Who never fails?

Now, children would never choose to be operated on, no matter how serious the condition. It is only because of the greater knowledge of the case that the parents submit them to the surgery. In the same manner, who would choose to experience the trials and afflictions which our Heavenly Father often allows to come upon us. It is because we know that He understands the case completely and knows that after the temporary pain, we will be better prepared for what he has in store for us, all to His glory.

And here is a beautiful parallel in that illustration: Even though a parent believes that his child will be greatly improved as a result of the cutting, he still suffers right along with his child. He sits up during the long hours of the night, holding his child's hand and ministering to every possible need.

Don't believe for one moment that our wonderful Father in heaven doesn't do the same thing for us. Like a small child, we may cry over the pain, and blame Him for allowing the cutting to be done. But, we are equally unable to understand His decision for our lives as it is for a child to comprehend the decisions of their parents.

Would it not be an overwhelming revelation to see ourselves without God's mysterious permissions, painful though they be. Only when we see Jesus the Christ face to face in immortality will we be able to fully praise Him for allowing things to be just exactly as He would have them.

Can you look back upon certain "shattering experiences" in your past and recognize how they altered the entire direction of your life? In them, it can be easily seen that any significant change in those "disappointing events" could have sent you in a totally opposite direction. We should tremble to think what our lives might now be had God not measured out to us those bitter lessons.

Chosen from Eternity

If indeed the hardships are required to prepare us for entrance into His eternal Kingdom, then they should be looked upon as a part of His great election for our salvation. It was revealed to Isaiah that, "Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction" (Isaiah 48:10).

What a difference it makes in our spiritual walk if we can see suffering as a sign of God's special choice for us to spend eternity with Him. And remember, He loved us first. Our Brother Paul has taught us that, "He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:4).

Can anyone fully appreciate that truth? You are one upon whom the eyes of God have rested from eternity. Through all of those eons of time, His divine Wisdom has been perfecting a detailed plan for your sanctification and ultimate salvation. As you submit to Him, He will certainly perform only what has been determined as absolutely essential to carry out His plan for your life. If that plan allows for heartaches here and there, and even apparent "disasters" from time to time, He will never permit more than we can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). He will be there to measure and temper the furnace according to our strength and according to our need.

Does that sound like a "contrived explanation" for the "problem" of pain and affliction? It will, no doubt, to "persons" who believe in themselves and their world, and not Almighty God. They scoff at the idea that a loving, omnipotent Creator would not intervene to spare His children from all trouble and pain. They continue to attempt to "save themselves," thereby forsaking the fountain of living waters, having hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water (Jeremiah 2:13).

Often the believer is hard-pressed to justify the apparent "arbitrary" manner in which some suffer and some are spared. How can we respond to the accusation that a just God would protect all His people from all trouble at all times?

First of all, let us concede that He could do that very thing. He has the power to prevent "accidents." He could commission angels and the Holy Spirit to override what the natural man calls "the law of cause and effect." No one would get bad colds, stub their toes, or contract cancer.

What would be the effect of such a "program"? The answer is obvious. Everyone would rush into "God's camp," without tried and true faith, in order to be protected from trouble in the flesh. The world would literally be compelled to follow Christ for purely "physical reasons." Our Father doesn't build His Kingdom upon appeals to such "human" motives.

He reveals no partiality in the way He permits His Order to affect general mankind. Any difference which enters in is based upon each of His vessel's response to Him rather than any difference that He makes between "persons" or "classes." This is another way of saying that no one in the world can prevent troubles coming into his life, but he can decide what those troubles do to his life after they happen.

Like our Brother Paul, the true servants of Christ meet troubled times by surrendering to the Will of God and praising Him for whatever life He has in store for them. Such a trusting faith can not only bring power to bear the suffering with less pain, but also, in chosen cases, to be healed of the affliction as well. This response of God to the faith of each one of His children has nothing to do with favoring "a class of people." His Law is not specially limited or extended to any nationality, race, or religion. Only those who approach Him in faith come within His divine favor. Even though His love is unconditional, His healing power is not. Nevertheless, the conditions are the same for all, and He delights to set the spiritual laws of asking, believing, and receiving into operation for anyone and everyone.

Is there, then, an "understandable" explanation for the mysterious way some are afflicted and others are not? We must bring to remembrance:

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Whom be glory for ever. Amen." Romans 11:33-36

Some are delivered and healed, while others suffer and die. We are shown in His Word that He must deal with each on the basis of their faith and the "kind" of prayer offered. If his greatest concern is for God to mold him and prepare him for His heavenly Kingdom, his prayer will be for God to shape all the circumstances of his life to that end. In order to answer such a prayer of faith, God may have to permit pain or affliction in the process. Only the One who has true foreknowledge and has seen the consequence of every act can safely be trusted in such matters.

Is it hard to submit to a God who does not always explain His omniscient actions? Indeed, it would be impossible to trust Him if we had no other evidences and witnesses of His commitment to our happiness. But anyone who truly believes that Jesus the Christ was willing to die in our place would have to believe also that He would always work for our best good.

This is the assurance that sustains those who suffer under unexplainable circumstances. Even though they can't understand why God allows their condition, they know it would be totally contrary to His ways to permit anything that would strive against His eternal purpose. Their faith dares to believe that if they could see from the beginning to the end, as God has, they themselves would choose no other way than He chooses.

Is there evidence that obstacles and hardships are sometimes necessary for the highest end? His creation itself bears witness that it is so. Certain migratory birds must wait for strong, opposing winds before they can achieve the heights necessary for their long-distance flights. There are some fruits which cannot ripen until they have been nipped by the frost.

Can Hardships Help Us?

Are there souls who cannot mature until they have been buffeted by hardships and opposition? Undoubtedly!! We see Moses spending forty years in the wilderness before God could use him to fully lead Israel out of bondage. We marvel at the years John was isolated and imprisoned on Patmos before he could become the writer of Revelation. And Paul experienced torture and imprisonment before he could write, "Godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Timothy 6:6).

These saints were "ripened" for the Kingdom during those seasons of "solitary confinement."

Only our Heavenly Father truly understands why pain is often the only thing which can get the attention of "human beings." Never should anyone blame God for utilizing His ways which will ultimately draw us to Him. Because of the sin nature of man, prosperity, good health, and smooth sailing do not attract the soul to God.

A wealthy man was falsely imprisoned in a tower and was trying to alert passersby of his dilemma. They could not hear his cries, so he began to drop gold coins from his pocket to attract their attention. But although they scrambled about to recover all the falling money, not one of them looked up to see the plight of the prisoner. Finally, he managed to break off a chunk of mortar from the crumbling wall and dropped it out the window. It struck a man on the head, injuring him. Only then did the man look up and get the message from above.

In the same way all manner of blessings are taken for granted. Instead of looking to the Source, too many are busily gathering more from the world around them. It is only when they are hurt that they look up and begin to listen to the message God has been trying to communicate to them.

Looking for Answers

After a period of test, will God always reveal the "reasons" for His divine permissions in our lives - His dried-up brooks? Eventually, yes. But not necessarily in this life. Our faith may have to hold us steady until He can reveal to us, face to face, why it had to be. Paul finally came to know why God allowed his thorn in the flesh. It was to keep him from "feeling" exalted over the abundance of revelations granted him.

Christ's servants should look for God's purpose when trials appear. Usually, a new door will open when one brook dries up. But if the years bring no satisfactory explanation of pain or loss, then we are to trust Him still. Someday He will make it clear to us. In the meantime, we are sustained by the comfort of the One who fully understands our griefs and sorrows. Jesus became one of us so that He could experience every pain and be a faithful Intercessor for us. Only those who have passed through the same suffering can truly sympathize and communicate with our hearts. When one grief-stricken father cried out, "Where was God when my son was killed in that car accident?", the answer quietly came back, "He was exactly where He was when His Son was falsely accused, tortured and nailed to the cross."

Isn't there a tremendous lesson in that answer? If God would not intervene to save His own Son's life because He saw that great good would result, then He must have seen some future good when He allowed that father's son to die also. And is that not why that father could feel the sweet touch of the Father upon his life during those dark hours of grief? He knew exactly how he felt. He could minister to him as no earthly friend could. And his own ability to provide healing comfort has been greatly strengthened because he has shared a similar sorrow with those who have lost children.

Christ's servants should have no illusions about the source of afflictions. Sin is the cause of all suffering in the world today. God is often blamed for doing the devil's work. Not one cancer has ever been caused by Him. In the experience of Job we have a perfect picture of Satan's mischievous program to afflict God's faithful children. Up to certain limits God allowed Job to be tested by the great adversary, and the triumphant conclusion of the epic reveals why God permitted things to go as far as they did. Job emerged from the devastating trials with a stronger faith and greater prosperity than he had before.

There may be many different purposes why God allows the spirit of Satan limited access to His chosen followers, but one of the chief positive effects is to keep them constantly on guard against sin. Through the exercise of a wide-awake conscience, the first approach of His cunning enemy can be recognized and repulsed. The knowledge that that spirit is apt to attack at any moment or place develops a healthy spirit of alert defensiveness.

The story is told of one old Cape Cod fisherman who always hauled in the most sought-after catch of the entire fleet. Because his fish were so lively and healthy, they invariably commanded the highest prices in the marketplace. In vain did the other fishermen try to uncover "the secret of his success." Only after his death was the formula revealed by his son, and it was as simple as it was effective. After securing his load of fish safely in the holding tank, the old fisherman would loose several pugnacious catfish into the tank. The constant fear of attack kept all the commercial fish in agitated motion, preserving them from the normal lethargic state brought on by prolonged captivity. Their obvious alertness made them the most desirable in the eyes of the buyers.

Can we not see in this story a the purpose for our own harassment by that old crafty serpent? Does God allow it to threaten us so that we might be constantly in a protective stance? Perhaps this provocation is exactly what we need to develop the proper attitude of vigilance.

In the days of the Napoleonic wars, before radio or telegraph had been invented, messages had to be sent by semaphore signals. Even from a long distance the flags could be deciphered as they slowly spelled out words letter by letter. It was by this method that the Battle of Waterloo was reported to the anxious people of London.

For years Napoleon had struggled to bring Europe to his feet. Finally his goal was in sight and only the thin, red line of Highlanders stood in his way at Waterloo. The banks of England had poured every available pound into government loans to defeat Napoleon. If the Battle of Waterloo was lost, Britain would be lost.

On the coasts of Dover the people of London gathered to watch for news of the battle. Suddenly they saw across the channel the big semaphore begin to move. Painfully slow, the letters began to form into the first words of a message: "W-E-L-L-I-N-G-T-O-N D-E-F-E-A-T-E-D." Then suddenly, a dense fog settled over the scene and blotted out the signals. But the people had seen enough to convince them that their General had been put to rout. In despair they fled the city. Raw militia rushed to the coast prepared to die in desperate hand-to-hand combat with the expected invasion force. Road blocks were erected and houses hastily fortified.

For two days London resigned itself to destruction. Then the storm abated and the fog began to lift. Watchers saw the semaphore flags begin to move once more, and the message was slowly spelled out: "W-E-L-L-I-N-G-T-O-N D-E-F-E-A-T-E-D N-A-P-O-L-E-O-N A-T W-A-T-E-R-L-O-O." The joy of the people knew no bounds as the full import of the news struck home.

Living in a world that is often obscured by tears and earthly misunderstanding, we do not always have access to the whole truth. Like the despairing Londoners, we are not able to see past the apparent "tragedies" of His interrupted message. When the fog of unbelief is lifted and the veil is completely taken away, we will recognize for the first time that there was no defeat at all. It had been victory from the very beginning, but we just didn't have the rest of the message. The whole message will be understood only when Jesus the Christ Himself speaks to us beyond the mist of our limited earthly view.

In the meantime, what is the "solution"? The "solution" is simply to trust the promise of the One who has never failed anyone:

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

Christ Jesus said His disciples would be hated, persecuted, and suffer for His name's sake (Matthew 10:21-22, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 21:12, John 15:18-19; 16:33, Acts 9:16, Revelation 2:10).

He said His disciples are blessed when other men hate them for His sake (Matthew 5:10-12, Luke 6:22).

The apostles said it was worthy and righteous to suffer (Acts 5:41, 2 Thessalonians 1:4-7, 2 Timothy 2:9, 1 Peter 4:14-16,19).

The apostles said God's people must go through tribulations (Acts 14:22, Hebrews 11:25,33-40, 1 John 3:13).

We learn obedience, patience, and become complete in Him through suffering (Hebrews 5:8; 10:33-36, 1 Peter 5:8-11).

For instruction on how to deal with adversaries, see Matthew 5:25; 19:17-20, Luke 12:11-12,58, and Ephesians 6:13-20.

"Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all." Psalms 34:19
"Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:" Job 5:17
"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;" Philippians 1:29
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:" 2 Timothy 2:12

If Christ Jesus suffered for us when we didn't deserve it, how can we refuse to suffer for Him when He does deserve it?

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Romans 8:22-23

Remember, trials prove, and improve us!!

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Entangling affairs, of this life

Empleko Pragmateia, Bios

Concerning 2 Timothy 2:4

"Entangle. 2. empleko ^1707^, "to weave in" (en, "in," pleko, "to weave"), hence, metaphorically, to be involved, entangled in, is used in the passive voice in <2 Timothy 2:4>, "entangleth himself"; <2 Peter 2:20>, "are entangled." In the Sept., <Proverbs 28:18>." Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

"Entangle. Empleko, to braid in, interweave. Mid., to entangle or mix one's self up with." Ethelbert William Bullanger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p. 252.

"Affair(s) (4230), pragmateia; gen. pragmateias, fem. noun from pragmateuomai (4231); to transact business. An affair, business, negotiation (2 Timothy 2:4; Septuagint:1 Chronicles 28:21)." Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, page 1207.

"Affair(s) (4230), pragmateia; prosecution of any affair; business, occupation: plur. with the addition of Bios, pursuits and occupations pertaining to civil life, as opposed to [*spiritual] warfare [K.J.V. and A.V. the affairs of this life] 2 Timothy 2:4." Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 534.

Life, bios, "means of living." Zoe is life as the gift of God, and therefore is applied to everything which has life. Bios is applied only to men, who not only live, but lead lives; hence, the difference between the words zoology and biography. Bios is used only of the lower life, and has no such worthy use as zoe." Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p. 453.

"Life (979) bios, a. life extensively, i.e., the period or course of life. b. that by which life is sustained, resourses, wealth, [A.V. living]: Luke 8:14; 1 Timothy 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:4; 1 John 2:16; 1 Peter 4:3." Joseph Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 102.

2 Timothy 2:3-5 -- "The soldiers of Jesus Christ must approve themselves good soldiers, faithful to their Captain, resolute in His cause, and must not give over fighting till they are made more than conquerors, through Him that loved them, (Romans 8:37). Those who would approve themselves good soldiers of Jesus Christ must endure hardness; that is, we must expect it and count upon it in this world, must endure and accustom ourselves to it, and bear it patiently when it comes, and not be moved by it from our integrity. He must not entangle himself in the affairs of this world, v. 4. A soldier, when he has enlisted, leaves his calling, and all the business of it, that he may attend his captain's orders. If we have given up ourselves to be Christ's soldiers, we must sit loose to this world; and though there is no remedy, but we must employ ourselves in the affairs of this life while we are here (we have something to do here), we must not entangle ourselves with those affairs, so as by them to be diverted and drawn aside from our duty to God and the great concerns of our holy warfare. Those who will war the good warfare must sit loose to this world. That we may please Him Who hath chosen us to be soldiers.

The great care of a soldier should be to please his general; so the great care of a Christian soldier should be to please Christ, to approve ourselves to Him. The way to please Him Who hath chosen us to be soldiers is not to entangle ourselves with the affairs of this life, but to be free from such entanglements as would hinder us in our holy warfare.

He must see to it that in carrying on the spiritual warfare he went by rule, that he observed the laws of war (v. 5): If a man strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. We are striving for mastery, to get the mastery of our lusts and corruptions, to excel in that which is good, but we cannot expect the prize unless we observe the laws. In doing that which is good we must take care that we do it in a right manner, that our good may not be evil spoken of." Matthew Henry's Commentary

Bits and Pieces

The Rock

A man was sleeping at night in his cabin when, suddenly, his room filled with light and the Saviour appeared. The Lord told the man He had work for him to do, and showed him a large rock in front of his cabin. The Lord explained that the man was to push against the rock with all his might. This the man did, day after day. For many years he toiled from sunrise to sunset, his shoulders set squarely against the cold, massive surface of the unmoving rock, pushing with all his might. Each night, the man returned to his cabin sore, and worn out, feeling that his whole day had been spent in vain.

Seeing that the man was showing signs of discouragement, that old crafty serpent decided to enter the picture by placing thoughts into the man's mind: "You have been pushing against that rock for a long time, and it hasn't budged. Why kill yourself over this? You are never going to move it." The man began to believe that the task was impossible and that he was a failure, and he felt discouraged and disheartened. "Why kill myself over this? I'll just put in my time, giving just the minimum effort and that will be good enough," he thought to himself. But then he stopped, and was moved to make it a matter of prayer and take his troubled thoughts to the Lord.

"Lord", he said, "I have laboured long and hard in your service, putting all my strength to do that which you have asked. Yet, after all this time, I have not even budged that rock by half a millimeter. What is wrong? Why am I failing?" Jesus responded with His love, "My friend, when I asked you to serve Me and you accepted, I told you that your task was to push against that rock with all your strength, which you have done. Never once did I mention to you that I expected you to move it. Your task was to push. And now you come to Me, with your strength spent, thinking that you have failed; but is that really so? Look at yourself. Your arms are strong and muscled; your back sinewy and brown; your hands are callused from constant pressure, and your legs have become massive and hard. Through perseverance, you have grown much, and your abilities now surpass that which you used to have, yet you haven't moved the rock. Your calling was to be obedient and to push and to exercise your faith and trust in My wisdom. This you have done. I, my friend, will now move the rock."

At times, when we hear a word from God, we mistakenly look to logic, reasoning and intellect to decipher what He wants, when actually what He desires is just simple obedience and faith in Him. By all means, exercise the faith that moves mountains; but remember, it is still God who actually moves them. And also remember; "success" does not make one righteous; obedience through faith does.

From the Depths of Darkness

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do. Finally, he decided the animal was old and the well needed to be covered up. It just wasn't worth the effort to retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him.

They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well. At first, the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement, he quieted down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well and was astonished at what he saw. With every shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something extraordinary. He would shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and trotted off!

The message? The world is going to shovel dirt on you; all kinds of dirt. The only way of getting out of that well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of our troubles is a stepping stone. We can get out of the deepest wells by not stopping, never giving up, remaining in the Truth!

Shake it off and take a step up!

Don't Help the Butterfly

A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared. He sat and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to force its body through that little hole. Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could, and it could go no further.

So the man decided to "help" the butterfly. He took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bit of the cocoon. The butterfly then emerged easily. But it had a swollen body and small, shriveled wings. The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time. Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.

What the man, in his kindness and haste, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening were God's way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.

Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our lives. If God allowed us to go through our lives without any obstacles or tribulations, it would cripple us. We would not be as strong as what we could have been. We could never fly!

Your Cross

A young man was at the end of his rope. Seeing no way out, he dropped to his knees in prayer. "Lord, I can't go on," he said. "I have too heavy a cross to bear." The Lord replied, "My son, if you can't bear its weight, just place your cross inside this room. Then, open that other door and pick out any cross you desire."

The man was filled with relief and said, "Thank you Lord," and he did as he was told. Upon entering the other room, he saw many crosses; some so large the tops were not visible. Then, he spotted a tiny cross leaning against a far wall. "I'd like that one, Lord," he whispered. The Lord replied, "My son, that is the cross you just brought in."

The message? When life's problems seem overwhelming, it helps to look around and see what kind of crosses other people are bearing. In that, you will avoid those, and find that when you remain in the Will of God, His yoke is truly easy and His burden is very, very, light.

Zero plus Zero still equals Zero

The following 1984 court decision is a typical example of the fruitlessness of describing oneself in the terms of the world, as distinguished from who and what our Heavenly Father has already told us we are.

It was rendered by JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge:

"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with precisely the same degree of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Cavalry--ZERO." 599 F.Supp. 126, MCKINNEY v. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et. al., Civ. A. No. 84-470-A, U. S. District Court, M.D. Louisiana, Nov. 19, 1984.

Issue the Sixty-nineth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Forked-tongue Gospel of that old serpent ...

There is Only One Deliverer...

The Unforgiving

Offense and Forgiveness

Rejection and Revenge ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Forked-tongue Gospel

of that old serpent

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve through his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity which is as to the Christ. For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus whom we did not proclaim, or receive a different spirit which ye did not receive, or different glad tidings which ye did not accept, well were ye bearing with it." 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (Berry)

In the course set before us of diligently testing the spirits and patiently learning to discern between that which is of our Heavenly Father (truth and righteousness), and that which is nothing more than the mischievous vain imaginations of men (Babylonian confusion), He, in time, reveals to His obedient children through His loving correction how to truly honor and serve Him.

The Christ's assembly at Las Vegas recently sent a copy of a ninety page book to us. The title of it is:

"Defending and Legally Establishing

the Good News"

The "credits" on the inside cover read as follows:

"Copyright, 1950, and published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, U. S. A. Written by HAYDEN C. COVINGTON, Lawyer; General Counsel for Jehovah's witnesses and Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

After reading just the first six pages of this book, and considering who wrote it, the following verses came to mind:

"A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord." Proverbs 6:12-19

And:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

It is fully revealed to us by the Author and Finisher of our faith that one of the major tools of death used by the forked- tongue of the crafty serpent is, "the lawyer":

"And He said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres." Luke 11:46-48
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. And as He said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently, and to provoke Him to speak of many things: Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him." Luke 11:52-54

Note that there was no opposition or "accusation" that the serpent's ministers brought against Him when speaking the truth about lawyers and other "naughty persons" that attempt to lead others into the pit with them.

It is not surprising, since there is nothing new under the sun, that the lawyers of today continue that same ministry of death. After all, to "practice" their "craft," they must join a private brotherhood known as The American Bar Association (the Sanhedrin of today). An example of this ministry of death is seen in the above mentioned "legal" book.

The overall "purpose" of the book purports to instruct members of the Jehovah's witnesses on how to stay out of trouble when preaching door-to-door, on the street, etc.; and when and if they are arrested, how to "defend" themselves in court.

Firstly, we must look at the words used in the title, "Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News."

1. Defending. The "Good News" that this lawyer proposes to "defend" cannot possibly be the Glad Tidings of Christ Jesus, because no man can, or needs to, "defend" them. Note that in the Old Testament ganan (1598) and sagab (7682), (the Hebrew words meaning to "defend, protect") are used a total of nine times and are attributed to Almighty God alone--never to man. And the word "defend" is never used in the New Testament at all. The Truth needs no defense:

"For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." 2 Corinthians 13:8

2. Legally Establishing. Again, the "Good News" that this lawyer proposes to "legally establish" cannot possibly be the Glad Tidings of Christ Jesus, for His "good news" has been established from the beginning, and certainly not through "legality."

It is quite clear that the "Good News" that the Jehovah's witnesses propose to "defend and legally establish" is a "product" of their own contrivances.

Secondly, we must remember that this evolutionary organization was "created" in 1879 by the 33rd-degree Mason, Charles Taze Russell, as Zion's Watch Tower Society. The "tradition" of no windows in the Masonic Lodges has been applied to their "Kingdom Hall" meeting places. And note that this "spirit of secrecy" is followed in much the same manner as with mortuaries, courtrooms, and most modern Roman Catholic and Protestant church buildings. It, in spirit, becomes their private "Secret Inner-Sanctum," and artificial light therefrom is "produced" to be able to "see."

Thirdly, this "religious" organization operates in much the same manner, in many other areas, as most of the so-called "accepted" Christian denominations, because of their "love" of Statism.

On page 1 and 2 of this "legal" book, "the lawyer" (COVINGTON) gives us a look at how "the lawyers" have set up "the company," in order to pitch their product. And again, note how most of the "worldwide" Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations "systematically" operate in much the same manner:

A BRIEF PICTURE OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

"We are an international society of ministers engaged in preaching the gospel of God's kingdom in the above-described manner under direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which is a religious-charitable, non-profit corporation organized for that purpose.
The world (of Jehovah's witnesses) is divided into geographical divisions according to countries. Branch offices are established in principle countries to care for the work in those lands. Each country is divided into districts; each district is divided into circuits; each circuit is composed of several "companies", a term used to designate the local congregations. Each congregation of ministers systematically preaches to the people in its assigned territory."

Note how their "direction" comes not from Almighty God, but from a dead corporation and its "Board of Directors." Where is the approval from the Word of God found to "justify" how they have organized themselves? If we read "THE PICTURE" closely, we see that their justification and approval is only found through man's "law." And, of course, it is all quite "legal," because it is designed by the lawyers, not Jesus the Christ.

Now, after we are dragged through all of the humanistic rhetoric on pages 1-3, then the "REAL PICTURE" begins to emerge on page 4, where the following appears. We will examine this "other" gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4) paragraph by paragraph:

RIGHT TO CLAIM CITIZENSHIP

"We have the right and responsibility of insisting on our citizenship rights accorded by the nations. We must assert and rely upon such citizenship rights which guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom to worship Almighty God, in order to protect our field of preaching."

Where is "the consecrated new and living way" in this teaching. Pitifully, the above humanistic approach to "reliance" and "freedom" through man-made "law" is also fervently espoused in most, if not all, of the incorporated-under-the-State denominations of "the Christian Church," and also in too many of those that are "unincorporated." It is simply a "natural" by-product of the entrenched humanism within "the Christian Church." The best way to confirm this is to ask any "pastor" what he "thinks" about citizenship.

And it is constantly seen that the following false-justification of it is also found in those same ranks[from the book]:

"The apostle Paul claimed his Roman citizenship as a refuge against mobsters (Acts 16:37). When he made his defense at an army barracks in Jerusalem, he claimed his right to freedom of speech to preach publicly to the people. He relied upon his fundamental rights under the Roman law as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:3, 25, 26)."

This is an absolute distortion of the Word. Paul's only "claim" (declaration) in the above cited verses was that the Romans had whipped and bound him "uncondemned" and "privily." When these verses are read and diligently studied in truth, and "comparing the spiritual with spiritual," it is found that Paul never "claimed" or "relied upon" any "rights of Roman citizenship" and certainly never looked for "refuge" through anything "produced" from the teachings of man's wisdom. That would be blasphemy, for he knew Who and where his only refuge is, Jesus the Christ.

The only time Paul used the word "citizen" to describe himself is at Acts 21:39:

"But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."

The original word in the Greek translated "citizen" is polites (4177), which simply means "a townsman." It is derived from Strong's #4172, polis; "a town (properly, with walls, of greater or less size)." This original Greek word (polites) never denoted the modern "conception" of citizen or citizenship, but simply "an inhabitant of a town."

To believe that our Brother Paul looked to any protection of the Roman law for his ability to do anything in the Lord completely flies in the face of the truth. Note that COVINGTON "conveniently" avoided Ephesians 2:19:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"

Note that, to claim worldly citizenship would absolutely nullify the above. That claim would in fact reverse one's standing, for the original Greek word translated "saints" in the above verse is hagios (40), meaning "that which is holy, sacred, pure, separate, and consecrated." Claiming worldly citizenship joins one with the world; it nullifies separation.

Our Master gave us clear warning of the emptiness of "joining" oneself to such "citizenship," in His parable at Luke 15:11-32. But He also shows us that our Father is merciful to those who abandon those ways of death, and return to Him.

COVINGTON also "conveniently" avoided our Brother Peter's instruction at 1 Peter 1:17, to:

"pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:"

And he also "conveniently" avoided our Brother Peter's plea at 1 Peter 2:11:

"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims"

Note again, that the original Greek word translated "sojourning here" in 1 Peter 1:17 is paroikia (3940), meaning "foreign, stranger" (Strong) and "to reside in a foreign land without the rights of citizenship" (Bullinger). And in 1 Peter 2:11 "pilgrim" is from parepidemos (3927) meaning "a sojourner in a strange place" (Bullinger). See also Hebrews 11:13-16.

Now, to further "defend" his Masonic "other" gospel, COVINGTON then resorts to quoting one of his "brethren" of the Supreme Court:

"The Supreme Court of the United States commended the claim of citizenship made by Paul. In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 182; 62 S. Ct. 164, 171; 86 L. Ed. 119, that court said:

"The power of citizenship as a shield against oppression was widely known from the example of Paul's Roman citizenship which sent the centurion scurrying to his higher-ups with the message: 'Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.' I suppose none of us doubts that the hope of imparting to American citizenship some of this vitality was the purpose of the . . . Fourteenth Amendment."

Paul's thus fighting faithfully shows clearly that we should never hesitate to claim citizenship rights that may be ours in the country where we preach the gospel (1 Tim. 6:12)."

What better way of bringing the "deceivable" into captivity under the State than by convincing them that Fourteenth Amendment citizenship provides some type of "protection," and then on top of that, attaching Paul's "blessing" to it.

The court and COVINGTON seem to have again "conveniently" avoided the fact that their contrived "shield against oppression" they say was afforded to Paul didn't "shield" any of the apostles and disciples of the Christ from being beheaded, stoned, or fed to the lions by the Romans--including Paul, for both he and Peter were eventually beheaded in Rome.

Now, to finish off his section on "claiming citizenship," COVINGTON concludes with this:

"Jehovah's witnesses are good and law-abiding persons of whatever country they inhabit and they expend their time, energies and money in helping their fellow countrymen to gain a further appreciation of the Word of the Most High. This is a very real contribution which they make wherever they are, and it is eminently proper and just that they should claim and receive all the rights and protection accorded to citizens of any nation."

Again, where is the "justification" for this convoluted egalitarianism; it becomes clearer and clearer that it comes from the vain philosophies of men, not from God--especially when we consider that when Peter and the other apostles were condemned for doing the same thing, they did not say, "We have our rights as citizens." No, they said, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), and then continued to preach as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

When we begin to look at the "true" implications of such worldly claims, we know that they are not of God:

"PAGAN. heathen. XIV--L. paganus rustic, peasant, citizen, civilian; eccl.) (Christian and Jewish, f. pagus (rural) district, the country, orig. landmark fixed in the earth, f. *pag-, p g-, as in pangere fix, parallel to *pak- (see PACT); see -AN. The sense 'heathen' (Tertullian) of paganus derived from that of 'civilian' (Tacitus), the Christians calling themselves enrolled soldiers of Christ (members of his militant church) and regarding non-Christians as not of the army so enrolled. Represented earlier (XIII-XVI) by paien, payen--OF. paien (mod. paien)=Pr. paien, pagan, Sp., It. pagano; cf. PAYNIM. Hence paganISM. XV." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), pp. 640-641.

And again, let's take a look at what the claim of citizenship "truly" offers to those who seek membership with, and protection from, the world:

"A member of a State may be either a citizen, occupying the status entitled 'citizenship,' or he may be a resident alien, occupying the status designated by the title 'residence.' A citizen is a permanent member of the State, owes it allegiance [*"No man can serve two masters."] at all times, and is entitled to its permanent protection whether he is at home or abroad. The status of his membership ('citizenship') is distinguished by its permanent and personal nature and may be determined by the place of his birth (jus soli), by the nationality of his parents (jus sanguinis), by his election, or by some form of naturalization [*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside."--Fourteenth Amendment, section one.]." Smith, Handbook of Elementary Law (1939), pp. 12-13. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

Under U.S. citizenship, allegiance is a requirement, but note that under Roman citizenship, there was no allegiance required. (see Black's Law Dictionary (3rd Edition) under Citizen).

Remember that the Christ's obedient servant's are not citizens of any earthly nation. They are fellow citizens with the saints, and sojourners and strangers together, all for the glory of the Father.

Do not let the forked-tongue ministers of the crafty serpent convince you otherwise:

"While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:19-22

There is Only One Deliverer

"The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; The God of my rock; in Him will I trust: He is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence. I will call on the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies." 2 Samuel 22:2-4

There are many places in His Holy Word that reveal to us the delivering power of our loving Father. One of these places is the book of Esther.

The Background of Esther

The events that are described in the book of Esther happened when the people of Israel were captivated by Babylon. The place of the story is Shushan, the city where the king of Persia and Media, king Ahasuerus, lived. This king after putting away his first wife, queen Vashti, was searching for a new wife to become the queen. To find a new wife for the king, a "competition" was organized where women from all over the kingdom came to Shushan with the purpose of being chosen to fill the empty place of the queen (Esther 1). Among those women was also Esther, a Hebrew girl that was brought up by Mordecai, one of the captives that had been carried away from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Esther 2:5-7). Finally, this girl, after she obtained first the favour of "Hegai the custodian of the women" (Esther 2:9), and second the favour "of all who saw her" (Esther 2:15) and finally, and most importantly, the favour of the king himself (Esther 2:17), gained the "competition." So Esther became the new queen. However, after she was commanded accordingly by Mordecai, she didn't reveal to anyone that she was a Jew. So no one, not even the king, knew Esther's nationality.

The Problem Begins

Though thus far everything seems to be "fine," Esther 3:1-6 announces someone whose coming brought "big problems":

"After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him. And all the king's servants, that were in the king's gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. Then the king's servants, which were in the king's gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king's commandment? Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai's matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew. And when Haman saw that Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence, then was Haman full of wrath. And he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone; for they had shewed him the people of Mordecai: wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai."

Starting from the end of the passage, it would appear that "a really big problem" is about to begin . Haman, the man whom the king had advanced "above all the princes that were with him", i.e., the man that was essentially second in command, was angry with Mordecai, because the latter didn't bow to him. For this "reason" he wanted to destroy the whole nation of Mordecai (i.e. all the Jews). Though it is evident depravity that Haman wanted to destroy a whole nation because one man didn't bow to him, there are more spiritual insights into his actions than what a first glance reveals.

Since this great kingdom to which Haman was second in command extended from India to Ethiopia (Esther 1:1), we can understand that no Jew would survive if Haman realized his intentions. Now if this happened, then the question is of whom Christ Jesus would be born? God had promised initially to Abraham (Genesis 17:7 and Galatians 3:16) and later to David (Psalms 132:11-12 and Acts 2:30) that of them He would raise up the Christ. However, if Haman's intentions were given the ability to be realized, then no promise regarding Jesus the Christ could be fulfilled and the whole plan of God regarding salvation would fail. Haman's intentions therefore were not simply depraved but absolutely devilish. It was the spirit of Satan who was moving Haman, attempting to "cancel" the coming of the Christ by destroying the whole nation, and again attempting some centuries later through Herod to kill Him before it was possible to accomplish His mission.

To summarize therefore, the first problem concerns the promises of God regarding the Messiah. Here we have a man who has put in his mind to frustrate those promises by killing all the Jews. The question is: will God be able to defend His promises? Generally: are the promises of God unbreakable or can they be broken by the will of man, even if this man is second in command in the largest kingdom of his time?

Though in the above we consider the problem, we haven't yet said anything about the cause of the problem. Some of us may wonder why Mordecai didn't bow to Haman, showing respect to him. At the end of the day, Haman was second in command, the man next to the king. Why then didn't Mordecai pay homage to him as the king had commanded (Esther 3:21)? Was he that proud? The answer is, no. The reason that Mordecai didn't pay homage to Haman will be understood if we pay attention to the fact that the text says that Haman was an Agagite. This means that he came from Agag, a king of the Amalekites (I Samuel 15), which in turn means that he himself was an Amalekite (Josephus also in his Antiquities, calls him Amalekite). What's wrong with this? The wrong is that because the Amalekites fought with Israel when the latter was in its way to the promised land (Exodus 17), they were pronounced by God as enemies to Him:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovahnissi: For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." Exodus 17:14-16

Haman, therefore, being an Amalekite, was one with whom God was at war. Thus Mordecai had two choices: 1) to honour Haman, the enemy of God, thus dishonouring the Word of God or; 2) to honour the Word of God and deny to pay homage to Haman. No one can say that he stands for God when he is ready in the first occasion to compromise with the Word of God. The only way to know God is through His Word and the only way to stand for God is to stand on what His Word says. Mordecai made up his mind not to compromise with the Word of God; he would not pay homage by bowing to an enemy of God. In other words, he chose to stand for God, trusting that God would deliver him as His Word promised (II Chronicles 16:9, Psalms 18:2-3, 30-31, 22:4-5, 25:2-3, 32:10, 35:9-10, 119:170 etc.).

The second question that seeks an answer is: will God be able to deliver Mordecai, a man that stood for Him? More pointedly: is God able to deliver us out of any danger when we decide to trust in Him and to stand boldly on His Word, or are we just exposed to men's desires and "power"? To answer these questions, we need to read the remainder of Esther.

Esther and Mordecai

After Haman made up his mind to destroy all the Jews, he needed to fix a date for it, and to obtain the permission of the king. Esther 3 tells us that he fixed the date on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month (Esther 3:13) and that, after he pretended that the Jews didn't keep the king's laws [they had God's law] and offered to the king a large amount of money [10,000 talants of silver] he finally obtained the approval of his plans (Esther 3:8-10). The command regarding the destruction of the Jews was written under the guidance of Haman himself, and was sent out into all the king's provinces causing great sorrow to all the Jews (Esther 3:12-15, 4:3). Mordocai himself was so sorrowful that "he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city" crying "with a loud and bitter cry" (Esther 4:1).

Esther, who still didn't know anything about the decree, was very sad when she was told that Mordecai, her adopted father, was very sorrowful, and sent one of her servants to him to learn why (Esther 4:4-6). Through this servant, Mordecai made known to her what had happened, asking her also to go to the king and plead to him for her people (Esther 4:7-9). As we may remember Esther, being the queen, had no small position in the kingdom. However, she was initially reluctant to do what Mordecai asked her since it was not permitted for anyone to go to the king uninvited (Esther 4:10-12).

One would expect that since Esther, the queen, was reluctant to help, there was not even the slightest possibility for Mordecai and the remaining Jews to escape from Haman's wrath. However, with God being in full control of all things at all times, things are not always what they "appear" at the time. For though Esther was reluctant, the promises of God, on which Mordecai stood, didn't depend on Esther, but on God alone. It was for Him to determine the way out. He is the Way. Certainly Esther was a very good possibility, and that's why Mordecai asked her. But, just because Mordecai asked her to help does not mean that his trust was in her and not in God. We know this when we see his reply to Esther's reluctance:

"Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" Esther 4:13-14

Mordecai trusted in God. The question in the latter part of his reply shows that he was aware that Almighty God brought Esther to the kingdom for this difficult time. That's why he asked her to help. However, when he saw that she was reluctant, he told her that even without her help, God was able to deliver the Jews "from another place." It is a sure witness to us how much Mordecai trusted in God.

Following his example, we should also fully trust in God, and not in men. Jeremiah 17:5-8 makes known in advance what will happen if we put our trust in men and what blessings we receive when we put our full trust in God:

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit." Jeremiah 17:5-8

From the one side we have the man that trusts in men and whose heart departs from the Lord, and from the other side we have the man that fully trusts in God. The one is like a shrub in the desert and the other like a tree planted by the waters. The one inhabits a place that is not sustainable (a place of death), while the other by the river (a place teeming with life).

Returning now to Mordecai--his reply changed Esther's mind, who now decided to help:

"Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer, Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him." Esther 4:15-17

On the third of those days Esther finally went to the king. According to Esther 4:11, she could have died having gone there uninvited, except if the king held out to her his golden sceptre. Verse 2 tell us what finally happened:

"And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight: and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre." Esther 5:2

God, during the competition, brought Esther into the favour of the king and made her a queen (Esther 2:17), just for this difficult time ("for such a time as this"). Now, when the time arrived for Esther to be God's appointed vessel for His purposes, He again brought her into the favour of the same man, and she was not put to death having gone into his court uninvited. In this visit to the king, Esther invited him and Haman to a banquet that she would prepare for them that afternoon. When they went there, another banquet was arranged for the next afternoon (Esther 5:3-8). As we will see, the time from the one banquet to the other, was on God's time, and was very "critical."

The Time from the one Banquet to the Other

The invitation of the queen to another banquet the next day made Haman very joyful (Esther 5:9) since it was a great honour to be feasting with royalty. However, his joyfulness turned to wrath when, at the entrance to the palace, he saw Mordecai, "that he stood not up, nor moved for him" (Esther 5:9). As it is clear, despite the "deadly" situation, Mordecai was not willing to give up and pay homage to Haman. He continued trusting in God and His Word. He continued to believe, through undying faith, that God would deliver him and his nation. However, Haman's wrath drove him even further. When he returned to his house, apart from his joy regarding the invitation of the queen, he also confessed to his wife and friends his wrath for Mordecai. Then, his wife and friends made a suggestion to him:

"Then said Zeresh his wife and all his friends unto him, Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and to morrow speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged thereon: then go thou in merrily with the king unto the banquet. And the thing pleased Haman; and he caused the gallows to be made." Esther 5:14

As it "seems," the situation became even worse for Mordecai. Haman was not going to wait until the day that was humanly "predetermined" for the destruction of the Jews, to see him dead; he wanted this to happen much earlier and, in fact, the next morning!! Evidently, if God was to bring deliverance to Mordecai he had to do it that night. And that's what He did:

"On that night could not the king sleep, and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles; and they were read before the king. And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king's chamberlains, the keepers of the door, who sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. And the king said, What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this? Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him, There is nothing done for him." Esther 6:1-3

Sometime after Esther became a queen, and before Haman's "evolution" to second in command, Mordecai had protected the king against a conspiracy, planned by two of his doorkeepers, Bigthans and Teresh (Esther 2:21-23). Though this was written in the chronicles (in the official diary), nothing was done as an honour to Mordecai. However, this was not accidental since it was through this "not honoured" act that God would bring deliverance to him, exactly at the time that he needed it most.

So, in the night that was supposed to be the last night of Mordecai, "the king could not sleep." Though it is not said explicitly, the results will show that this was divinely planned so that he could stay awake and do the things that followed. The first of these things was to ask for the book of the chronicles to be brought to him. As we already know, this book contained also the record of Mordecai's act. However, this was certainly not the only record in this book. In contrast, a diary like this might very well have hundreds of entries. Nevertheless, in that night there was one "particular" entry absolutely necessary to be read, and finally it was this entry that was read. This entry was no other than the entry regarding Mordecai and the good that he did to the king, and for which he was not yet honoured!! After the king heard this record, and realized that Mordecai wasn't yet honoured, guess what happened? He decided to honour Mordecai the next day!! So when the morning came and Haman arrived to ask the king to hang Mordecai, an unpleasant surprise was awaiting him:

"And the king said, Who is in the court? Now Haman was come into the outward court of the king's house, to speak unto the king to hang Mordecai on the gallows that he had prepared for him. And the king's servants said unto him, Behold, Haman standeth in the court. And the king said, Let him come in. So Haman came in. And the king said unto him, What shall be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour? Now Haman thought in his heart, To whom would the king delight to do honour more than to myself? And Haman answered the king, For the man whom the king delighteth to honour, Let the royal apparel be brought which the king useth to wear, and the horse that the king rideth upon, and the crown royal which is set upon his head: And let this apparel and horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king's most noble princes, that they may array the man withal whom the king delighteth to honour, and bring him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour." Esther 6:4-9

Haman said all these things, thinking that it was he that the king wanted to honour. But...

"Then the king said to Haman, Make haste, and take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do even so to Mordecai the Jew, that sitteth at the king's gate: let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken. Then took Haman the apparel and the horse, and arrayed Mordecai, and brought him on horseback through the street of the city, and proclaimed before him, Thus shall it be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour. And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered." Esther 6:10-12

Do you remember how it started? It started with Mordecai in the king's gate and mourning for the evil that Haman planned against him and his nation. But see how it ended up: it ended up with Mordecai, the man that trusted in God, riding the king's horse and wearing the king's robe, and with Haman, until then second in command, proclaiming before him and returning to his home "mourning"!!

However, this is not the end of our heavenly instruction. There is more that happened during the banquet with the queen. During this banquet Esther revealed to the king her nationality and that Haman planned to destroy her whole nation. When the king heard this, he became very angry (Esther 7:7-8). Now, when the kings in those days became angry with someone then, except if he had God in his sight, the prospects for his life were very unpleasant! This was true for Haman as well, whose "stately" gallows were put to their pre-ordained use:

"And Harbonah, one of the chamberlains, said before the king, Behold also, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman had made for Mordecai, who had spoken good for the king, standeth in the house of Haman. Then the king said, Hang him [Haman] thereon. So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath pacified." Esther 7:9-10

We can clearly see that the "roles" of Mordecai and Haman were reversed. Haman, the second in command and the man that planned to destroy the whole Jewish nation and to hang Mordecai, ended up hanged in the very gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai!! Moreover, as the last verse of the book of Esther (Esther 10:3) tells us, Mordecai, the man that trusted in God, was made "next unto king Ahasueres". In other words, he was made second in command, taking the place of Haman!! Finally though the thirteenth of the twelfth month was defined as the day that the Jews were to be utterly destroyed, the king not only cancelled this command but also reversed it. Under the new command:

"Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey, Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar." Esther 8:11-12

What a loving deliverer He is! Mordecai, the man that trusted in God, started mourning, and under the threat to be hanged by Haman; but he ended up glorified by his very enemy, and taking his position as second in command. Similarly, the Jews started "weeping and wailing" (Esther 4:3) and they ended up feasting (Esther 8:17) and with their enemies destroyed (Esther 9:1).

On the contrary, Haman, the man that trusted in his own false power, started as second in command, joyful, and preparing to hang Mordecai; but he ended up mourning and eventually hanged in the very gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai!

Conclusion

To conclude for now this brief study of the book of Esther, we can say that its delivering message is much the same message that is given to us by many other portions of the Word of God, i.e., that the Word of God is a steadfast Word, a Word that cannot be broken despite the human and devilish power that may be exercised to the contrary. Indeed, those that, as Mordecai, trust in Him "shall not be ashamed" (Isaiah 49:23) but they "shall be like a tree planted by the waters, which spreads out its roots by the river, and will not fear when heat comes; but its leaf will be green, and will not be anxious in the year of draught, nor will cease from yielding fruit" (Jeremiah 17:8). To conclude therefore:

"Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and He shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass. And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Psalms 37:3-11

The Unforgiving

"Then said He unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith." Luke 17:1-5

The immediate response of the apostles, after their Master told them to forgive their brother, was, "Lord, increase our faith!" In this, we can be assured that when we answer the "simple" command by Jesus the Christ to forgive those who have wronged us, we will receive the blessings of an increase of faith.

Too often, those who are offended without extending forgiveness do not understand the trap they become ensnared in. They are oblivious to their condition because they are so focused on the "personal" wrong that was done to them. They deny forgiveness because of the lust of their flesh. The most effective way for the crafty serpent to bind us within his coils is to cause us to focus on self.

Pride draws us away from truth. It distorts our vision. It hardens the heart and dims the eyes of understanding. It keeps one from the change of heart and repentance which will set us free. But a change is not sought when one thinks everything is "fine" in and of themselves. Self-righteous is death.

For the unforgiving man, the flesh and its pride "creates" the "feeling" that he's been "victimized" when an offence against him occurs. The unforgiving attitude becomes, "I was mistreated and misjudged; therefore I am justified in my worldly behavior." Because he believes he is innocent and falsely accused, he holds back forgiveness.

If we do not handle an offense honestly, it will produce more fruit of sin, such as bitterness, anger, and resentment, which are signs of unbelief. These additions harden us just as alloys harden gold (Hebrews 3:13). This reduces or removes tenderness, creating a loss of true love. We are thereby hindered in our ability to hear God's voice. Our accuracy to truly see is darkened. It becomes the "perfect" setting for being drawn away from Him through our own deception.

Our Father refines His children with afflictions, fiery trials, and tribulations, the heat of which separates the impurities (dross) from them; such as unforgiveness, strife, bitterness, anger, envy, etc. (Isaiah 48:10, 1 Peter 1:6-7). Sin easily hides where there is no heat of trials and afflictions. In times of material prosperity and success, even a wicked man will seem kind and generous. But under the heat of trials, however, the impurities "surface." He may ask where all the anger is coming from. It is no different than when gold is liquefied in fire and the impurities show up. The impurities in gold can't be seen until it's put in the fire, but that doesn't mean they were not there. When the fire of trials hit us, these impurities surface.

To paraphrase our Lord, "In my greatest hour of need, My closest friends deserted Me: Judas betrayed Me, Peter denied Me, and the rest fled for their lives. Only John followed from afar. I had cared for them for over three years, feeding them and teaching them. Yet as I died for the sins of the world, I forgave. I released all of them, from my friends who had deserted Me to the Roman guard who had crucified Me. They didn't ask for forgiveness, yet I freely gave it. I had faith in the Father's love. I knew that, because I had sown love, I would reap love from many sons and daughters of the Kingdom. Because of My sacrifice of love, they would love Me." (Read Matthew 5:44-47).

An offended brother or sister is harder to win than a fortified city (Proverbs 18:19). The strong cities had walls around them for protection. The unforgiving construct walls when they are hurt to safeguard their hearts and prevent any future wounds. They become selective, denying entry to all those they fear will hurt them. They filter out anyone they "think" owes them something. They withhold access until these people have paid their debts in full. They open their lives only to those they believe are on their side. Yet often these people who are "on our side" are offended as well. So, instead of helping, the unforgiving stack additional stones on their existing walls. Without their knowing when it happens, these "walls of protection" become a "personal" prison. At that point, the unforgiving are not only cautious about who comes in, but in terror they cannot venture outside their prideful fortress.

Love does not seek its own, and the unforgiving offended become more and more self-seeking and self-contained. In this climate, the love of God waxes cold and death follows.

An example of this can be found in our Father's creation, when we look at the two seas (lakes) in the old holy land. The Sea of Galilee freely receives and gives out water into the Jordan River. It has an abundance of life, nurturing many different kinds of fish and plant life. The water of the Sea of Galilee is carried by way of the Jordan to the Dead Sea. But the Dead Sea only takes water in and does not give it out. There are no living plants or fish in it. The living waters from the Sea of Galilee become dead when mixed with the hoarded waters of the Dead Sea. In this, we can see that life cannot be sustained if coveted (self-contained): it must be given and received freely.

When the natural man filters everything through past hurts, rejections, and experiences, he finds it impossible to believe God. The human being cannot believe God means what He says. The natural man doubts His goodness and faithfulness since he judges Him by the standards set by man. But God is not a man (John 4:24). He cannot lie (Numbers 23:19). His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9. See also 1 Corinthians 6:7, Matthew 5:44, and Philippians 2:3). When Jesus was wronged, He did not wrong in return, but committed His soul to the Father, Who would judge righteously. We are admonished to always follow His steps (1 Peter 2:21-23). Whatever wrong may come our way, we are already healed by Him.

How many "leaders" have cut off men under them because of suspicion? Why are those so-called leaders suspicious? Because they are not serving God. They are serving their own vision, their own "personal" god.. Like Saul, they are insecure in their calling, and that breeds jealousy and pride. They recognize qualities in people that they know are godly, and they are willing to use those people as long as it benefits them. For example, Saul enjoyed the success of David until he saw it as a threat to him. He then demoted David and looked for a "reason" to destroy him.

The offended and unforgiving react to a situation in a way that only appears "right" because they are not truly inspired by Almighty God. You cannot "suppose" that you are inspired by God when you are not walking in His Ways.

We are called to act, not react

We can learn from examples in our Father's creation concerning His order of things. For instance, plants and trees. When a fruit tree is put in the ground, it has to face rainstorms, hot sun, and wind. If a young tree could talk, it would "react" in this situation much like the faithless natural man "reacts." It would say, "Please get me out of here! Put me in a place where there is no sweltering heat or windy storms!" If the gardener listened to the "human" tree, he would actually harm it. Trees endure the hot sun and rainstorms by sending their roots down deeper. The "adversary" they face is actually the source of great stability. The harshness of the elements surrounding them causes them to seek another source of life. This is the Father's desire; that through fiery trials, all souls seek Him.

Most Floridians and Californians know that the colder the winter is for trees, the sweeter the oranges. If the offended did not run so fast from the Father's trials, their root systems would have a chance to become stronger and deeper, and their fruit would be more plentiful and sweeter in the eyes of God and more palatable to His people. They would be mature trees that the Lord delights in, rather than ones uprooted because of their lack of fruit (Luke 13:6-9). We should not resist the very thing God sends to mature us.

Read Psalm 1:1-3 and 119:165. A true believer who chooses to delight in the Word of God in the midst of adversity will avoid being offended. That true believer will be like a tree whose roots search deep to where the Spirit provides strength and nourishment. This will mature him to the point where adversity will now be the catalyst for fruit. Then he is enabled as to gain further insight into the Lord's parable of the sower (Mark 4:16-17).

A believer who is truly resting in the Lord, and has therefore ceased from the works of darkness, is the completed child of God. He is mature. He chooses the ways of the Father and His Light, not his own ways. Just as Jesus learned perfect obedience by the things He suffered (Hebrews 5:8), we learn obedience by difficult trials and tribulations we face. When we obey the Word, we will grow and mature in the times of conflict and suffering. Our "academic" knowledge of scripture is not the key. Obedience through faith is.

Considering the "condition" of the unforgiving offended, we can then understand one "reason" why there are many in "the Church" who have been "Christians" for twenty years; who can quote verses and chapters of the Bible; have heard a thousand sermons, and read many books, but still lack the understanding requisite "to live, move and have your being in Christ Jesus." When confronted with difficult situations, rather than responding in accordance with the Law, Spirit, and promises of God, they too often seek to protect themselves in their own way. When this occurs, "they are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of Truth (2 Timothy 3:7). Why? Because they resist and reject the full power thereof. It becomes "uncomfortable." This is nothing more than "lip service."

Truth must be allowed to have its way in our lives if we are going to grow and mature in the Lord. It cannot be held back. It is not enough to give "mental" assent to it without obeying it through true faith. Even though we continue to learn, we can never mature through fear, disobedience and unbelief. It will profit nothing.

There is an old proverb which states, "Once a dog has been scalded with boiling water he will even fear cold water." How many today are afraid of the cold water, which will bring refreshment; but because they have been "burned" once, they cannot forgive?

Jesus the Christ desires to heal our wounds, but we too often do not let Him heal because it is "believed" that it is not the easiest road to take. It is the path of humility and self-denial that leads to healing and spiritual maturity. It is the decision to make another's well being more important than our own, even when that "person" has brought you great sorrow. Pride cannot travel this path, but only those who desire peace at the "risk" of rejection. It is a trial which leads to humiliation and abasement. It is the road that leads to life.

For a pastor or teacher to "hold on to" (covet) everyone who comes through "his" door, he will eventually have to compromise the truth. But, if he preaches uncompromising truth, the "lip servants" will be offended, and they will be uprooted and leave. Do not grieve over them, but rather continue to feed and nurture those who seek and love the Truth.

Some "leaders" avoid confrontation, afraid of losing "their people," especially the "big givers" and "influential" people of their corporate Church. Others are afraid of hurting the "feelings" of someone who has been "a follower" of them a long time. As a result, this "breed" of pastors and teachers lose the ordained authority from God to protect and feed the sheep entrusted to them, because they deceive, and become deceived.

Scripture does not record that our Master reacted to any of the men who deserted Him. His only delight was to do the Will of the Father. In so doing, the greatest number of His people would receive His blessings.

Our Lord would not be controlled by others. He spoke the truth even if it meant confrontation and offense. If you desire the approval of men, God's anointing cannot fall upon you. You must purpose in your heart to speak the Word in truth and honor His Will even at the "risk" of offending others.

The Rock of Offense

Christ Jesus offended those of His own country (Matthew 13:55-57). He had come to His own "homeland" to minister. But He was unable, because of the hardness of their hearts, to bring them the liberty and healing He had brought to so many others. These men and women were saying, "Who does He think He is teaching us with authority? We know who He is. He grew up here in our midst. We are His elders. He is but a carpenter's son. He has had no 'formal training'."

And Jesus did not compromise the truth in order to keep them from being offended. The people there were so angry that they desired to kill Him by pushing Him off a cliff (Luke 4:28-30). Even when His life was in danger He continued to speak the truth.

He offended His own family members (Mark 3:21,31-35). Even those of His own house were offended by Him. They were not pleased with the pressure that was being put on them by what He was doing. They found it hard to believe He was "behaving" the way He was. His own family thought that He was "out of His mind" (beside Himself). Notice that scripture says His family went out to take Him into "custody" (lay hold of). Mark identifies those relatives as Jesus' own mother and brothers who later found Him preaching in someone's house. Even John's Gospel says His brother's did not believe Him (John 7:5).

Many have not realized that Jesus was rejected by those who were the closest to Him. But it was not the acceptance of His household He was concerned with. He would not be controlled by their "desires." He would fulfill the Father's plan whether they approved or not. His own mother and brothers may have thought He had "lost His mind," but because of His uncompromising obedience to the Father, they were all in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. And James, His half-brother, became the leading apostle of the Lord's assembly at Jerusalem and the inspired writer of the blessed epistle.

If we compromise what the Father tells us in order to please our family members, we will lose the fresh oil in our lives, and we will hinder them from being set free.

Our Lord offended His own disciples (John 6:60-61,66). Things were already beginning to "unravel." The "religious leaders" were plotting His death. His own house rejected Him. His own family thought He was out of His mind. To add more "pressure," many of His own disciples left because they were offended. But He still did not compromise. He just told those who were left that they were also free to go if that was their desire. The only thing that mattered to Him was fulfilling the Father's Will. If He had been left standing alone that day, it would not have changed His heart. He knew that He was to obey His Father.

He offended some of His closest friends (John 11:1-3). He loved Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. They were very close to Him. He knew by revelation that Lazarus's sickness would lead to death. It was a very serious matter. But He stayed where He was for two additional days (John 11:6). When He finally came to Bethany, Lazarus was already dead. Martha and Mary each said to Him, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:21,32). In other words, "Why didn't you come immediately? You could have saved him!"

Both sisters were offended. They sent a messenger to tell Him, and He delayed for two days. Their Lord did not respond as they expected. He didn't drop everything; instead He followed the leading of the Holy Spirit. As always, this was best for everyone. However, at the time, it looked "as if" He was a Lord that did not care. What an offence, in the eyes of man!!

In the same manner, ministers of the Word are often tempted to allow their listeners to control them. They think they have to do everything "the people" ask of them. At times they are afraid that if they do not fulfill "their people's" expectations they will "hurt their feelings" and lose their support. They are trapped by the fear of offending others. They are controlled by "their own" people, not God. As a result, little of eternal value can be accomplished within the congregation through that "breed" of minister.

Jesus offended John the Baptist (Luke 7:18-20). Why does John ask Jesus if he is the coming One, the Messiah? John was the one who prepared His way and announced His arrival: "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (Luke 1:29). He was the one who said, "This is He Who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33). He even said, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (Luke 3:30). John was the only one who really knew who Jesus was at that time (it had not yet been revealed to Simon Peter).

So why is he asking, "Is Jesus the Messiah, or do we look for another?" Put yourself in his place. You have been the man on the "cutting edge" of what God is doing. Multitudes upon multitudes of people have received ministry from you. You have the most talked about ministry in the nation. You have lived a life of self-denial. You have not even married in order to maximize the full potential of your call. You have lived in the desert eating locusts and wild honey and fasted often. You have fought the Pharisees and been accused of demon possession. Your whole life is spent preparing the way for this coming Messiah.

Now you're in prison. You have been locked up for quite some time. Very few people are coming to visit you because the attention of the people you prepared are now turned to Jesus of Nazareth. Even your own disciples have joined this man. Only a few are left to serve you. When they come to see you, they bring stories of how this Man and His disciples live a very different life from yours. They eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners. You say to yourself, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove on Him, but is this the behaviour of a Messiah?"

The temptation to become offended grows greater the longer you're in prison. "This Man for whom I have spent my life preparing the way has not even come and visited me in jail! How can this be? If He is the Messiah, why doesn't He get me out of this prison? I've done no wrong." So you send two of your faithful disciples to question Jesus. "Are you the coming One, or do we look for another?"

The response of Jesus is prophetic (Luke 7:21-23). He quotes Isaiah, a book very familiar to John. The passages in Isaiah 29:18; 35:4-6; 6:1 apply to all that John's disciples had observed while they waited to question Jesus. They bore witness of Him as Messiah. But He does not end it there. He adds, "And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me." He was saying, "John, I know you don't understand all that is happening with you and many of My ways, but do not be offended with Me because I do not "appear" as you expected." He was urging John not to judge by his own understanding of God's ways in the past and in his own life and ministry. John didn't know the whole "picture" or plan of God, just as we do not know the complete "picture" today.

Offense without apology

Even if you are trained-up in the ways of the Lord, as John was, you will still be presented with the task of not being offended with Him. If you truly love and believe on Him, you will fight to stay free from offense, realizing that His ways are always higher than yours (Isaiah 55:8-9). Also, if you are going to obey the Spirit of God, people will be offended by you. Some will not understand you as you move with the Spirit (John 3:8). Don't allow their unpleasant response to deter you from what you know in your heart is true. Don't quench the Spirit to please the fleshly desires of men (1 Peter 4:1-2).

When you truly live, move and have your being in Christ Jesus, you will not fulfill the fleshly desires of men. As a result, you will suffer in the flesh. Jesus suffered His greatest opposition from the "religious leaders." Religious people believe God operates only within the confines of their parameters. Many of them believe they are the only ones who have an "in" with God. If Jesus offended religious people as He was led by the Spirit two thousand years ago, those who truly follow Him today will surely offend them.

If anyone challenges the truth of His Glad Tidings, offense without apology cannot be avoided. We must determine in our hearts that we will obey the Spirit of God and His Word no matter what the cost. Then we will not have to make the choice under pressure, because it will already have been made.

Some may say, "God never did anything for me! I tried Christianity, but my life only became more miserable. I prayed and asked God to do this, and He ignored me!" They never laid down their lives for their "proposed" Lord, but instead, tried to align themselves with Him for their own "personal benefit." They served Him for what He could give them. They were easily offended. Our Lord's description of them is in Mark 4:16-17. Notice that He said they were quickly offended because they had no foundation. In what are we to be rooted? We find the answer in Ephesians 3:16-18. We are to be rooted and grounded in love. Our love for God is our foundation. But we must always remember that "Love is the fulfilling of the Law," and He said, "If you love Me keep My commandments." Love is not a "feeling"; it is sacrifice.

In Hebrews 11:35-39, we find the record of those who never saw the fulfillment of their promises from God and still never wavered. They had decided God was all they needed, no matter what the cost. They believed Him even when they died without seeing the promises fulfilled. They could not be offended! This is undying faith.

We are rooted and grounded when we bear this sacrificial love and trust in God. No storm, no matter how intense, can ever move us. This does not come by "strong will" or "personality." It is a gift of grace to all who place their confidence in God, throwing away the confidence of self. But to give yourself in total abandonment to Him, you must truly know the One Who holds your life in His loving arms.

"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful." Luke 6:26-36

Offense and Forgiveness

When we consider the early life of Jacob's favorite son, Joseph (how he was sold into slavery by his own brothers at the age of seventeen), and then read that his many trials and tribulations were seen by Jacob to be all blessings, a question arises--Do we have "the right" to be offended when we merely "feel" or "believe" we've been mistreated?:

"Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall: The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him: But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel:) Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb: The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren." Genesis 49:22-26

To answer the above question, in truth, we must go to the full record at Genesis, chapters 37-48.

Joseph was despised by his older brothers because his earthly father favored him and set him apart with a coat of many colors. God gave Joseph two dreams, which told him that he would be a ruler some day. When he told these dreams to his brothers, they hated him even more. Shortly afterwards, they conspired against him saying, "Here comes that dreamer. Let's kill him! Then we shall see what becomes of his dreams! He says he is going to be a leader over us. Let him try to lead us when he is dead!" So they took his coat away, tore it, stained it with animal's blood, and threw him in a pit to die (but Ruben desired to rescue him and return him to Jacob). They then deceitfully bore false witness to Ruben and their father that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast.

After they threw him into the pit, however, they saw a company of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt. Then Judah said, "If we let him rot in the pit it will not profit us. Let's make some money and sell him as a slave. He will be as good as dead and will never bother us again, and we'll all share the spoils!" So, they sold him into slavery. Joseph had offended them so they betrayed him, taking away his inheritance and family.

Keep in mind these are brothers who did this; they had the same father, therefore flesh and blood kinship.

All that was familiar to Joseph was gone. In biblical times, when someone was sold as a slave to another country, he remained a slave until he died. The woman he married would be a slave, and all his children would be slaves! It would have been hard to be born a slave, but it was indescribably worse to be born an heir of wealth with a promising future only to have it stripped away. It was as if Joseph were a living dead man. From these activities of Joseph's brothers, we see clearly that what they did was evil and cruel.

It looked "as if" he would never see his father or his God-given dream fulfilled. He was a slave in a foreign nation, couldn't leave Egypt, and was the property of another man "for life."

Joseph was sold to a man named Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard. He served him for about ten years. As time went on, Joseph found favor with his master and was treated well. Potiphar set Joseph over his household and all he had. But just as things were looking up for Joseph, something happened. Potiphar's wife cast longing eyes on Joseph and wanted to commit adultery with him. She tried daily to seduce him, and he refused. One day she was alone with him in the house and cornered him and insisted that he lay down with her. He refused and ran out, leaving his robe in her clutched hands. When he did this she was shamed and screamed, "Rape!" Potiphar had Joseph thrown into Pharaoh's prison. Again, the offense of false witness was committed against Joseph.

Now, Pharaoh's prison was nothing like the prisons of today. There was no sunlight or exercise yards; only a sunken room void of light and warmth. The conditions of such a place left little room for hope. Prisoners were put there to rot as they survived on the bread and water "of affliction" (1 Kings 22:27). They were given just enough food to survive so they could suffer and eventually waste away. According to Psalm 105:18, Joseph's feet were hurt with fetters, and he was laid in irons. He was put in this dungeon to die.

Things couldn't have "appeared" more hopeless. Joseph had gone as low as a man could go without being dead. But, we must remember that Joseph was a man of faith. If he had not been, the spirit of the world would have given him such self-righteous and doubting thoughts as, "I served my master with honesty and with integrity for over ten years. I'm more faithful than his wife! I stayed loyal to God and my master, daily fleeing the advances of an adulteress who would have me trespass against Almighty God. What is my reward? A dungeon! It seems the more I try to do that which is righteous, the worse it gets! How could God allow this? Could my brothers steal my promise from God too? Why hasn't this mighty God intervened on my behalf? Is this how a loving, faithful God cares for His servants? Why me? What have I done to deserve this? Perhaps I only "believed" I had heard from God."

He had very limited freedom in his present situation, but he still had the ability to choose his response to all that had happened to him. Would he become offended and bitter toward his brothers, and eventually toward God? Would he give up all hope of the promise's fulfillment, robbing himself of his final desire to live?

When we read of Joseph's faith and patience and his willingness to be a servant at all times, we can certainly know that it was God's process to prepare him to rule. How would he use his ordained authority over these brothers who betrayed him? Joseph was learning obedience by what he suffered (Hebrews 5:8). He had learned by trial that authority is given by God to serve Him and others for His purposes, not to set you above them or apart from them. Often in such trying times when we are being trained-up to serve His purposes, we focus on the "perceived impossibility" of our circumstances, instead of the greatness of God. As a result we are discouraged and need to blame someone, so we look for "the one" we "feel" is responsible for our despair. When we face the fact that God could have prevented our whole mess, and didn't, we often blame God. There is no record that faithful Joseph ever entertained such thoughts.

Joseph could have lost hope and said, "I have lived in accordance to what I know of God. I've not transgressed His Laws. I was only repeating a dream God Himself gave me. And what's the result? My brother's betrayed me, and I'm sold as a slave! My dad thinks I'm dead and will never come to Egypt to find me. And the wife of my master, who I served faithfully, has falsely accused me." To him, he could "easily" have blamed his brothers for everything. If he had not lived by faith, he could have easily "reasoned" that they were "the force" that were responsible for him being eventually thrown into this dungeon.

How often do we hear our brothers and sisters fall into the trap of assigning blame? "If it weren't for my wife", "If it weren't for my parents", "If it wasn't for my pastor repressing this gift in me", "If it weren't for my former husband and my kids", "If it weren't for that woman at Church" It is easy to blame everyone else for the problems you "believe" you have and to "imagine" how much "better off" you would be if it had not been for all those around you. In your vain imaginations, you "know" that your disappointment and hurt are their fault. But in truth, with such a spirit of blame, we truly "know" nothing.

The following point must be emphasized: Absolutely no man, woman, child or Satan "himself" can ever force you out of the Will of God! No one but God Himself controls such things.

Contrary to the Word of Truth, the spirit of the world would lead you to "believe" that when they sold Joseph as a slave, God in heaven somehow looked at the Son and the Holy Spirit and said, "What are We going to do now? Look at what his brothers have done. They have ruined our plan for Joseph! We had better think of something quick! Do we have an alternate plan?"

Contrary to the Word of Truth, the spirit of the flesh and its vain imaginations would have you "believe" that what transpires in heaven between the Father and His Son would be, "Jesus, Jim just got fired because a fellow-believer lied about him. What are we going to do? Do you have any positions open down there?" Or, "Jesus, Sally is thirty-four and not marries yet. Do you have any available guys down there for her? The man I wanted her to marry got married to her best friend, who gossiped about her and turned his heart away." We must remember that His ways are not our ways, and that He has declared and established the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).

The faith that was displayed by Joseph is rarely found in the "commercial Church world" of today? Instead, the spirit of revenge is, "When I get my hands on them, I'll get even! I'll sue 'em because they ruined my commercial opportunities. They will surely pay (my will be done)." If Joseph had actually had this spirit, God would surely have left him in that dungeon to rot! For if he had been released from prison with such a spirit of vengeance, he would have killed the heads of ten of the twelve tribes of Israel. This would include Judah (Judas), from whose lineage Jesus of Nazareth would descend. Joseph stayed free of offense, and the Will of God was established in his life and in the lives of his brothers. It is God's established Will that "we can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth" (2 Corinthians 13:8). The evil that men engage in does not change God's Order and Will; it only leads to self-condemnation when not repented of.

Prison was a time of tested patience for Joseph. As he sat patiently in faith, there were with him two prisoners who both had vivid and disturbing dreams. Joseph interpreted both of their dreams, giving full acknowledgement to the Lord for the interpretation. One man was to be restored while the other was to be executed. Joseph's only request was to the one about to be restored; that he remember him when he regained Pharaoh's favor. The man returned to Pharaoh's service, but two years passed with no word from him. It was yet another opportunity for Joseph to become offended. But he continued to patiently wait on the Lord, never complaining; never wavering. He was content to be an obedient servant.

The time came when Pharaoh had a very alarming dream. None of his magi or wise men could give him the explanation. It was then that the restored servant remembered Joseph. He shared how Joseph had interpreted his and his companion's dreams in prison. Joseph was then brought before Pharaoh, and he told him what the dream meant: a famine was coming, and Joseph wisely instructed him on how to prepare for the crisis. Pharaoh immediately promoted Joseph to second in command over all of Egypt.

Later, when this famine came to all the known nations, Joseph's brothers had to come to Egypt for aid. If Joseph had held anything in his heart against his brothers, that would have been the time to carry it out. He could have thrown them in prison for life or tortured them and even killed them and would be blameless in the eyes of the Egyptians because he was in command in Egypt. But Joseph ended up giving them grain for no charge. Then they were given the best land of Egypt for their families, and they ate the fat of the land. The best of all the land of Egypt was given to them. In this, Joseph ended up blessing those who had cursed him and doing good to those who hated him (Matthew 5:44). And as we know that Joseph was walking with God, we can be assured that he also prayed for those who despitefully used and persecuted him.

And to go one step further ("go the extra mile" Matthew 5:41), look at what Joseph said to his brothers even before they had an opportunity to ask for forgiveness:

"Now be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve lifeAnd God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God:" Genesis 45:5, 7-8

And look at what our brother David said:

"Moreover He [*God] called for a famine upon the land: He brake the whole staff of bread. He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant. Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: Until the time that His word came: the word of the LORD tried him." Psalm 105:16-19

Who sent Joseph? His brothers or God? Out of the mouth of two witnesses we see that it was God who sent him. No mortal man or devil can supersede the order and plan of God for your life. If you lay hold of this truth it will set you free. But there is only one who can persuade you to ignore the Will of God, and that is you!

Rejection and Revenge

"Then Achish called David, and said unto him, Surely, as the LORD liveth, thou hast been upright, and thy going out and thy coming in with me in the host is good in my sight: for I have not found evil in thee since the day of thy coming unto me unto this day: nevertheless the lords favour thee not." 1 Samuel 29:6

Some people who have been rejected by a family member, friend, or "superior" tend to take all the blame themselves. They can be imprisoned by tormenting thoughts of "What did I do?" or "Was my heart impure?" They sometimes wonder, "Who turned the heart of them against me?" Then they constantly try to prove their innocence to the one they have been rejected by. They "think" that if they can only show their loyalty and value, they will be "accepted." Oftentimes, the more they try, the more rejected "they feel," and that "feeling" can sometimes turn to "feelings" of vengeance.

An example of the "eternal danger" of falling into such a trap can be seen in the book of 1 Samuel when we consider the relationship between Saul and David. Saul acknowledged David's goodness when he saw David could have killed him and did not. So he and his men left. If you were David, would your thoughts be, "Now the king will restore me. Now the prophesy will come to pass. Surely he sees my heart and will treat me better now." Only a short time later, men reported to Saul that David was in the hills of Hachilah. Saul went after him again with the same three thousand soldiers. Was David "devastated"? He realized it wasn't a misunderstanding but that Saul was intentionally, without provocation, seeking to take his life. Saul knew David's heart and still moved against him. Let's see how David reacted to such an affront. Did he listen to God or did he listen to his "feelings" and self-will?

David, along with Abishai, slipped into Saul's camp. Not one guard saw them because God had put them all into a deep sleep. These two men sneaked through the entire army to where Saul was sleeping. Abishai pleaded with David:

"God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time." 1 Samuel 26:8

Abishai had very good "reasons" why he thought David should allow him to kill Saul. First, Saul had murdered eighty-five innocent priests and their families, in cold blood. Second, he was out with an army of three thousand to kill David and his followers. If you don't kill the enemy first, Abishai "reasoned," he will surely kill you. It is "self-defense." Third, God through Samuel had anointed David as the next king of Israel. David should claim his inheritance if he didn't want to end up a dead man without the prophecies ever being fulfilled. Fourth, God put this entire army into a deep sleep so that David and Abishai could walk right up to Saul. Why else would God do this? To Abishai it seemed David would never get another "chance" like this.

All these "reasons" sounded good. They made "sense," and David was receiving the encouragement from another brother. So if David was the least bit offended, he would have "felt" totally justified and allowed Abishai to put a spear through Saul. But David would not kill Saul even though Saul had murdered innocent people and wanted to murder David as well. David would not avenge himself but left it in the hands of God:

"And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore, As the LORD liveth, the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD's anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go." 1 Samuel 26:9-11

David had proven his purity of heart when he spared Saul the first time. Yet even when David had a second opportunity to kill Saul, he would not touch him. How many people today have a heart like David's? No, they may no longer kill with a physical sword but instead ravage each other with a sword of another kind, the tongue:

"Life and death are in the power of the tongue, and they that rule it shall eat the fruits thereof." Proverbs 18:21 (LXX)

Congregations split, families divide, marriages shatter, and love dies, crushed by an onslaught of words launched in hurt and frustration. Offended by friends, family, and leaders, too many take aim with words sharpened by bitterness and anger. When this spirit of the world is indulged in, even if the "information" is factual and accurate, the motives are impure. Evil cannot be overcome with evil.

Proverbs 6:16-19 warns us that sowing discord or separation among brethren is an abomination to the Lord. When something is spread amongst God's anointed with the intention of separating or damaging their relationships, even when that "something" is true, it is still an affront to God.

After Saul died, David then composed a song for the people of Judah to sing in honor of Saul and his sons. He charged the people not to proclaim it in the streets of the Philistine cities lest the enemy rejoice. He proclaimed that there be no rain or crops in the place where Saul was slain. He called for all of Israel to weep over Saul.

This is not the heart of an offended and vengeful man. An offended man would have said, "He got what he deserved!"

Our Father tries His servants with fire unto obedience. He lovingly places us in situations where the standards of "religion" and "society" would "appear" to justify actions of disobedience. He allows others, especially those close to us, to "encourage" us to "protect" by avenging ourselves. But this is not God's way. It is the way of the world and its wisdom (philosophy). It is earthly and fleshly, and is to be avoided like the plague, because that's what it is--a black death.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Forgive, Forgave, Forgiveness

A. Verbs.

1. aphiemi ^863^, primarily, "to send forth, send away" (apo, "from," hiemi, "to send"), denotes, besides its other meanings, "to remit or forgive" (a) debts, <Matt. 6:12; 18:27, 32>, these being completely cancelled; (b) sins, e. g., <Matt. 9:2,5, 6; 12:31,32; Acts 8:22> ("the thought of thine heart"); <Rom. 4:7; Jas. 5:15; 1 John 1:9; 2:12>. In this latter respect the verb, like its corresponding noun (below), firstly signifies the remission of the punishment due to sinful conduct, the deliverance of the sinner from the penalty divinely, and therefore righteously, imposed; secondly, it involves the complete removal of the cause of offense; such remission is based upon the vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. In the OT atoning sacrifice and "forgiveness" are often associated, e. g., <Lev. 4:20,26>. The verb is used in the NT with reference to trespasses (paraptoma), e. g., <Matt. 6:14,15>; sins (hamartia), e. g., <Luke 5:20>; debts (see above) (opheilema), <Matt. 6:12>; (opheile), 18:32; (daneion), <18:27>; the thought (dianoia) of the heart, <Acts 8:22>. Cf. kalupto, "to cover," <1 Pet. 4:8; Jas. 5:20>; and epikalupto, "to cover over," <Rom. 4:7>, representing the Hebrew words for "atonement."

Human "forgiveness" is to be strictly analogous to divine "forgiveness," e. g., <Matt. 6:12>. If certain conditions are fulfilled, there is no limitation to Christ's law of "forgiveness," <Matt. 18:21,22>. The conditions are repentance and confession, <Matt. 18:15-17; Luke 17:3>.

As to limits to the possibility of divine "forgiveness," see <Matt. 12:32>, 2nd part (see BLASPHEMY) and <1 John 5:16> (see DEATH). See FORSAKE, LAY, Note (2) at end, LEAVE, LET, OMIT, PUT, No. 16, Note, REMIT, SEND, Note, (1), SUFFER, YIELD.

2. charizomai ^5483^, "to bestow a favor unconditionally," is used of the act of "forgiveness," whether divine, <Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13>; or human, <Luke 7:42,43> (debt); <2 Cor. 2:7,10; 12:13; Eph. 4:32> (1st mention). Paul uses this word frequently, but No. 1 only, in <Rom. 4:7>, in this sense of the word. See DELIVER.

Note: Apoluo, "to let loose from" (apo, "from," luo, "to loose"), "to release," is translated "forgive," "ye shall be forgiven," <Luke 6:37>, KJV (RV, "release," "ye shall be released"), the reference being to setting a person free as a quasi-judicial act. The verb does not mean "to forgive." See DISMISS, RELEASE.

B. Noun.

aphesis ^859^ denotes "a dismissal, release" (akin to A, No. 1); it is used of the remission of sins, and translated "forgiveness" in , and in the KJV of <Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18>, in each of which the RV has "remission." Eleven times it is followed by "of sins," and once by "of trespasses." It is never used of the remission of sins in the Sept., but is especially connected with the Year of Jubilee <Lev. 25:10>, etc.. Cf. the RV of <Luke 4:18>, "release" (KJV, "liberty"). For the significance in connection with remission of sins and the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, see A, No. 1. See DELIVERANCE, LIBERTY, RELEASE, REMISSION. Cf. the different word paresis, "a passing over, a remission," of sins committed under the old covenant, <Rom. 3:25>. The RV should be used here. This passing over, or by, was neither forgetting nor "forgiving"; it was rather a suspension of the just penalty; cf. <Acts 17:30>, "the times of ignorance God overlooked," RV; see also, e. g., <Ps. 78:38>." William Edwy Vine, Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words

"859. Aphesis; forgiveness, remission. Of the 17 times aphesis occurs in the NT, it is followed on 12 occasions by the word hamartion (266), of sins; therefore sins are the cords whereby man is bound away from God.

It is interesting indeed that in Luke 4:18, the word aphesis is used without any designation of what this deliverance or forgiveness is from. The Lord said: "He hath anointed Me to . . . preach deliverance to the captives [the word is the same, aphesis] . . .to set at liberty [again the word is the same, en {1722}, in; aphesei, at freedom]." The work of Christ, therefore, is designated as deliverance from everything that holds man a prisoner away from God. However, setting sinful man free would have been a very dangerous thing if God did not simultaneously change man's nature (2 Cor. 5:17; 2 Pet. 1:4). Man's freedom is not one that permits him to continue in sin (1 John 3:6), but binds him in Christ. What Christ does is not simply to take man from prison and set him free, but also to change him radically (katallassei [2644], giving him power over sin.

Aphesis is part of a larger process which does not involve simply the freedom of the sinner, but the change of the sinner from being a slave of sin to becoming a slave of God. With that freedom from sin, he acquires freedom of action because of his changed nature and spirit. He acquires that ability to follow after God instead of fleeing from God, the desire to flee from sin and pursue it. Forgiveness, therefore, must never be understood as the permission for the sinner to continue in his sinful condition." Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary NT.

Bits and Pieces

The True Remnant

The following observations are from The Epistle to Diognetus, Chapters 5 and 6, written circa 100-200 A.D.

"For the servants of Christ are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As inhabitants, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws by surpassing the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred."

Are you Rich or Poor?

One day a father of a very "wealthy" family took his son on a trip to the country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people can be. They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family. On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, "How was the trip?"

"It was great, Dad."

"Did you see how poor people can be?" the father asked.

"Oh Yeah" said the son.

"So what did you learn from the trip?" asked the father.

The son answered, "I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that reach out of sight. We have servants who serve us begrudgingly, and they themselves serve others with joy. We buy our food, and they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to protect us, and they have friends to protect them."

With this, the boy's father was speechless. Then his son added, "Thanks dad for showing me how poor we are."

Too many times we forget what we have and concentrate on what we don't have. What may be one man's worthless object is another's prized possession. It is all based on one's spirit. It makes you take notice of what would happen if we all gave thanks for all the bounty we have been given by God instead of worrying about "wanting" more. Take joy in all we have, especially the gift of family and friends.

A Merchandised Language

The following is a typical example of how the English language can be manipulated in the heathen marketplace and how the commercial world can corrupt that which should be pure. Beware!!:

"I'm a high school math teacher. My first job was working in an orange juice factory, but I got canned because I couldn't concentrate. Then I worked in the woods as a lumber jack, but I couldn't hack it so they gave me the axe. After that, I tried to be a tailor, but I just wasn't suited for it, mainly because it was only a so-so (sew-sew) job. So next I tried working in a muffler factory, but that was too exhausting for me. After many years of trying to find steady work, I finally got a job as an historian, but I realized there was no future in it.

My last job, before I finally settled on teaching, was working at Starbucks (a coffee cafe), but I had to quit because it was always the same old grind."

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

The "Christian" Confidence Game

Three "Christian" pastors were meeting privately to share their innermost confidences and to pray for one another with respect to their major weaknesses and personal stumbling blocks. The first frankly confessed to his two fellow-pastors that he had a serious problem with lust. He shared with them a number of ways that he found himself in compromising situations and told how he was frequently stumbling in this area. He asked them for special prayer in dealing with this weakness.

The second, encouraged by this display of candor, admitted that he, too, had a problem, but with money. He found that he just couldn't resist occasionally skimming from the tithing plate, and was guilty of a number of indiscretions regarding this weakness. He confessed his need for better stewardship and asked for prayer.

The third pastor then reluctantly responded, "I must confess I appreciate the remarkable candor of both of you. My weakness is gossip, and I can hardly wait to get out of here!"

A Sermon on Lying

A minister told his congregation, "Next week I plan to preach about the sin of lying. To help you understand my sermon, I want you all to read Mark 17."

The following Sabbath, as he prepared to deliver his sermon, the minister asked for a show of hands. He wanted to know how many had read Mark 17. Almost every hand went up. The minister smiled and said, "Mark has only sixteen chapters. Now, on to my sermon about the sin of lying."

Issue the Seventieth

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

The Enduring Written Word, The Original Manuscripts and Copied Texts compared ...

The Way of True Peace and Unity...

Body, Soul, and Spirit

In Defense of the Septuagint, Part One ...

Etymologicum Anglicanum...

Bits and Pieces...

The Enduring Written Word

The Original Manuscripts and Copied Texts

Compared

There is the "belief" in some circles that the written Word of God has become corrupted because it has been translated from the original languages, and is merely a copy of the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. For those that walk in such doubt, we hope this article will reveal the utter absurdity of such vain imaginations.

Is it really true that only the original manuscripts in the original Hebrew language were inspired by God, and the copies and translations were not? Is it correct to call a translation of the scripture "the inspired Word of God"? These questions will be examined.

To begin, let us consider 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, our brother Paul refers to the scriptures that Timothy had and called them "inspired." If ones belief that only the original manuscripts were inspired, then one must conclude that "all scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the original manuscripts only. Let's back up one verse. Timothy knew "the scriptures." Did Timothy know the original manuscripts? Did he have them in his possession? Did he see them somewhere and learn them? We know that Timothy did not have the originals; he had only a copy. It is possible that he had the Old Testament in Hebrew, but it is more likely that he had the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), since his father was a Greek and he lived in Derbe and/or Lystra, which were definitely Greek-speaking. Every reference in the New Testament to the "scripture(s)" is rendered from copies of the original manuscripts in Hebrew and the translations in Greek. No one had the original manuscripts at that time.

And at Luke 4:21 we see that "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Did this synagogue in Nazareth have the original manuscript of Isaiah?

And consider John 5:39 as Jesus told the Jews who had challenged Him to "search the scriptures" Was He telling these people to search the original manuscripts? How would anyone know if the "scripture" was fulfilled if the original manuscripts had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Simply because they had copies and translations of the original manuscripts!

And at Acts 8:32, Philip was sent to meet up with the Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip found him, he was reading something called "scripture." Obviously this fellow from Ethiopia was not reading the original manuscript of the book of Isaiah? The synagogue at Nazareth obviously did not give it to him? From these obvious facts, we know that they were copies.

And consider the Bereans at Acts 17:11. Did the Bereans have all of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament? If they had them all, what did the eunuch have; or if the eunuch had Isaiah, the Bereans were deprived of Isaiah?

If "scripture(s)" refers to "original manuscripts," then one would have to say that Jesus was playing a cruel hoax on those to whom He spoke. Examine Matthew 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10,24; Luke 24:27; John 2:22; 7:38,42; 19:36-37; 20:9. How could these people read or know the scriptures, if they had crumbled into dust centuries earlier? Because, of course, they had a copy of the original manuscripts.

Now, when we go to Luke 24:32, we can see things in a new light. Did Jesus have the original manuscripts with Him? In fact, did He have any book with Him?? Or did He simply speak? In verse 45, Jesus opened their understanding so they could understand the scriptures. What scriptures? The original manuscripts? And once these Emmaus fellows understood these original manuscripts, did they mail them up to the Bereans? (Relative to Luke 24:32, see also, Job 32:8).

At John 10:35, we learn that the scripture cannot be broken. But if "scripture(s)" refers to original manuscripts, Jesus was mistaken (but we know He was not). For every original manuscript that was ever written has been broken into dust.

If 2 Timothy 3:16 says only the original manuscripts were inspired, then how do you explain all the other places where that word "scripture(s)" appears, when they cannot possibly refer to the original manuscripts??

Hebrew 1:8 and 10:5 quote from the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures (LXX) authoritatively. Hebrews 3:7 states, "the Holy Ghost said " and it was in Greek, not in Hebrew. Why did he not insert Hebrew words at that point? Obviously, because a translation may be correctly called what the Holy Ghost said! The same is true of Hebrews 9:8 and 10:15.

If only the original manuscripts were inspired, then about 40 verses in the New Testament are not inspired, since they, even in the original manuscripts, were Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All those conversations that took place between Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. Yet, when Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all those conversations appeared in Hebrew. They were all "translations." Or we could go back to Joseph in Egypt. He spoke Egyptian to hide his identity from his brothers. Yet, when Moses wrote it down, he wrote it in Hebrew, another "translation." Not inspired?

What about the decrees of Artexerxes and Darius and Nebuchadnezzar? Those men didn't speak Hebrew, yet what they said appears in Hebrew in Daniel and Esther. Another translation. Not inspired?

All of the "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2 were translations, for each man heard what Peter was saying in his own language. Not inspired? What about the sign that was nailed on the cross? That consisted of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At least 2 of those had to be translations. Not inspired? Or how about Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34? Jesus cried out in Aramaic, and in the very same verse, even in the original manuscripts, there was given the translation. Can you honestly say that "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is inspired, but "Theemou, Theemou, inati me egkatelipes" is not, being a translation?

If only the original manuscripts are inspired, no one has the inspired scripture. Thus, no one could obey Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Did our Father intend for only those who had the original manuscripts to obey His Word? Or did He intend for only those who could read Hebrew and Greek to obey His Word? The answer must be obvious to any child of God. When He spoke this Truth, and when Christ reaffirmed it, did He not know that the scripture would be copied and translated many times?

Again, if only the original manuscripts are inspired, we cannot obey 2 Timothy 4:2 ("Preach the word"); nor can we obey Revelation 22:18-19 (warnings about adding to and taking away from Scripture). Neither could we have the benefit of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, being instructed and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

1 Peter 1:23-25 teaches that "this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." Note: This is the word... that which they had heard. They had not heard the original manuscripts, but, perhaps copies, and more likely, translations. Yet he stated that they were born again by the incorruptible word of God.

And, let's consider this question. Would our Father tell us His Word is the final authority and leave us without His Word? Would He call a man to preach His Word and not give it to him? God calls a man and says, "I'm calling you. Spend your life preaching the Truth. Preach the Word!" So, wouldn't He give him a copy of His Word? Would God tell His people to live by the Word and not give it to them?

It is a very sad commentary when people say, "We believe that the scripture, in the original manuscripts, is the Word of God." If that's true, we have no scripture. Do you understand the implications of that? We have no scripture. Why? With this spirit of unbelief, God is no longer the final authority; man is. If we have no final authority in God's Word, then man will arbitrarily discern what God says. If man discerns what God says in this way, then man becomes the final authority instead of God. "Well, in the original manuscript" sounds very scholarly; and "nobody in our generation has seen them" is even more "reasonable." We see from such vain imaginations that, if we don't have a scripture that's the Word of God, we've got to go to human reasoning. "Those of little faith" have to either admit that the written Word of God existing today is inspired by Him or they have to flee to the Church, or to human reasoning or human experience as being the final authority. If there is no "dependable" written Word of God today for them, they have no other recourse. If God has not given them His Word, then they have to decide what is God's Word. That's human reasoning.

By the way, basing a doctrine on human experience is idolatry. Basing a doctrine on the State's church being the final authority is idolatry. The Church is then the idol. Letting the Pope or a preacher speak ex cathedra and saying that it is God who is speaking is idolatry. You're making him as God. Human reasoning says that what you can reason, you can believe. That's idolatry. So the truth is, you've got one choice of two. Either the written Word handed down to us is the uncorrupted Word of God or we have no other place to turn but to idolatry. The three choices are human reasoning, human experience or the State's church, and they are each a form of idolatry. They are all three the same because making the Church the final authority is done so by human reasoning.

Now we will consider some answers to common objections:

Question 1. "Are the italicized words inspired?"

Answer: When translating from one language to another, it is impossible to give a word-for-word rendering. Inserted words (usually italicized) are necessary. The Greek language omits the verb sometimes and is perfectly correct, according to the rules of Greek grammar. However, in English, this would make an awkward sentence to say the least, and in some cases, would greatly hinder one's understanding of it. An example: in 2 Timothy 3:16 "is" is in italics, since there is no Greek equivalent for it.

If we translated John 3:16 in a word-for-word literal rendering, it would read:

"So for loved the God the world that the Son of him the only-begotten he gave, that all the ones believing into him not may perish, but may have life eternal."

There is nothing wrong with the insertion of words, if they be correct. They are necessary for our understanding.

Q.2. "The translators were not consistent; they were wrong to translate one Greek word by several English words."

Answer: We must distinguish between a translator's choice and a translator's error. For example, in Roman 7:7-8 the Greek noun epithumia and its corresponding verb epithumeo are translated by three English words: lust, covet, and concupiscence. We cannot charge them with error here. In their day, the three words meant essentially the same thing. The same is true of the translation of the definite article from Greek to English. Not all translators agree when it should or should not be done, however, it is not a matter of error, but of personal judgment, as every translator knows. We may disagree with a translator's choice of words, but cannot necessarily call that an error. The English words story, fast, tie, post and watch all have at least two different meanings; sometimes three. This situation exists in any language.

Synonyms may mean the same in one situation, and have different shades of meaning in another. For instance, car and automobile may be referring to the same thing, or differentiating between a railroad car and an automobile. The context must determine.

Q.3. "If the translation is inspired, it would be wrong to have a marginal reading or to suggest another possible word."

Answer: When suggesting another translation of a word or phrase, there is no thought of correcting the translators or the scripture. Such suggestions are given because of the changes in the English language in the past 300 plus years. Also, various false doctrines which are popular today, but were unknown at the time the translation was written, have confused the understanding of many people. Hence, it is often necessary to go to the Greek and Hebrew to clear up such misunderstandings.

New Testament writers sometimes paraphrase Old Testament scripture. Examples: Matthew 12:17-21 (from Isaiah 42:1-3); Romans 3:10-18 (from Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 5:9; Psalm 140:3; Psalm 10:7; Psalm 59:7-8; Psalm 36:1).

Therefore, different words may be used when teaching the same truth. Hence, an honest translation in English from uncorrupted texts would be equally inspired as an honest translation in Spanish from the same texts. Also, two English translations that state the same truths, though using different pure words to do so, would be equally inspired in the scriptures which agree. It is in the places where there is a different teaching, or an omission, that we must choose.

If God was not involved in the making of copies or translations, then how does one advancing the "theory" that "only the original manuscripts were inspired and man took it from there," avoid the charge of anthropolatry? They are saying that man is more powerful than God, and God is not powerful enough to keep His promises to preserve His Word.

Q.4. "Only the original writings were inspired of God; therefore, only the original writings were inerrant, or without error."

Answer: To answer honestly, a question must first be asked: which copy of the originals? For instance, in Jeremiah 36:2 an "original" is made, and in verse 23 it is burnt. Then in verse 32 Jeremiah makes another "original" and in this one he adds some words to it (at the direction of God). Then this second copy is tossed into the Euphrates river at 51:63! Which one was the original? Was the first one, or the second one the correct copy? If it was the first, then why didn't God save it from the fire? If it was the second, then God must not think much of the originals, for He had them thrown into the river!

Conclusion

This is a life and death matter, for if we do not have an infallible, pure, inerrant Holy Word of God now, (not in the originals which have been lost forever, centuries ago) to rest our weary souls upon for time and eternity, then we have but one alternative or option: Let's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and go to hell. For the child and servant of Almighty God, that is not an option.

Let us look at some undisputed facts about the originals.

Second: there never was a book of the 39 originals of the Old Testament.

Third: there never was a book of the 27 originals of the New Testament.

Fourth: no one living or dead ever saw the 66, 39 or 27 originals.

Fifth: each of the originals was lost, worn out, destroyed or gone within 100 to 150 years of their writing.

Sixth: the originals were written over a period of about 1600 years from the first book of Job to the last one, Revelation.

Seventh: the originals were written at a distance of 1500 to 2000 miles apart from each other.

Eighth: the originals were written in at least three different languages.

Ninth: the originals were written on any number of kinds of materials, with any number of kinds of writing fluid.

Tenth: the originals under God's will and guidance incorporate many kinds of culture and background.

Eleventh: no version in existence today was or is translated from any original.

Twelfth: no one living today would know or recognize any one of the 66 originals if they saw one.

And on and on and on. Therefore, in the light of the above, to flee to the supposed sanctuary of the originals is unreal, hypocrisy, a fetish, and worse than the proverbial ostrich hiding its head in the sand and thinking it is covered and out of sight.

The first thing we observe is that our Father in Heaven promised to preserve both His word and words.

"The word of Godabideth for ever" 1 Peter 1:23
"The word of the Lord endureth for ever" 1 Peter 1:25
"My words shall not pass away" Luke 21:33
"Thou shalt preserve them" Psalms 12:6-7
"For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven" Psalms 119:89
"Concerning Thy testimoniesThou hast founded them for ever" Psalms 119:152
"Thy wordendureth for ever" Psalms 119:160
"The word of our God shall stand for ever" Isaiah 40:8
"My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouthsaith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" Isaiah 59:21

Has our Father kept His promises? Yes, He has preserved His Word and it endures even unto today, because His Power, Wisdom, and Spirit transcend the error of men!!

The Way of True Peace and Unity

by William Dell (1649)

cited in Puritanism and Liberty by Woodhouse (pages 303-312)

"The right Church is not the whole multitude of the people whether good or bad, that join together in an outward form or way of worship. And therefore I shall not speak of this church. But the church I shall speak of is the true Church of the New Testament, which, I say, is not any outward or visible society, gathered together into the consent or use of outward things, forms, ceremonies, worship, as the churches of men are; neither is it known by seeing or feeling, or the help of any outward sense, as the society of mercers or drapers, or the like; but it is a spiritual and invisible fellowship, gathered together in the unity of faith, hope, and love, and so into the unity of the Son, and of the Father by the Spirit; wherefore it is wholly hid from carnal eyes, neither hath the world any knowledge or judgment of it.

This true Church is the communion of Saints, which is the communion believers have with one another; not in the things of the world, nor in the things of man, but in the things of God. For as believers have their union in the Son, and in the Father, so in them also they have their communion; and the communion they have with one another in God cannot be in their own things, but in God's things, even in his light, life, righteousness, wisdom, truth, love, power, peace, joy, &c. This is the true communion of Saints, and this communion of Saints is the true Church of God.

Now this true Church of God differs from the churches of men in very many particulars, as follows.

In the churches of men members are admitted through an outward confession of doctrine; but none are admitted into this true Church but through a new birth from God and his Spirit. John 3.: Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, which is the right Church of the New Testament.

The churches of men knit themselves together into such societies by some outward covenant or agreement among themselves. But the true Church is knit into their society among themselves by being first knit unto Christ, their head; and as soon as ever they are one with him, they are also one with one another in him; and are not first one among themselves, and then after one with Christ. So that the true Church is a spiritual society knit unto Christ by faith, and knit to one another in Christ by the Spirit and love; and this makes them infinitely more than one than any outward covenant they can engage themselves in, the union wherein God makes us one, passing all the unions wherein we can make ourselves one. And so when some believers perceive the grace that is given unto others, they presently fall into one communion, without any more ado. Wherefore they that are of the Church, the body, cannot deny communion to them that are in true union with Christ, the head, when they do perceive this grace. For this is considerable in this matter, that we are not first one with the Church, and then after one with Christ; but we are first one with Christ, and then one with the Church, and our union with the Church flows from our union with Christ, and not our union with Christ, from our union with the Church. Christ (John 17.) prays, That they all (that is, believers) may be one in us; so that our Union is not first among ourselves, and then with the Son, and with the Father, but it is first with the Son, and with the Father, and then with one another in them. And Christ is the door through which we enter into the Church, and not the Church the door through which we enter into Christ. For men may join themselves to believers in the use of all outward ordinances, and yet never be joined to Christ, nor to that communion which believers have in Christ; but a man cannot be joined to Christ but he is joined to all believers in the world, in the communion they have with Christ and with one another in him; which upon all occasions he enjoys with them wherever he meets with them. So that the true Church is knit up together into one body and society by one faith and Spirit; the churches of men by an outward covenant or agreement only.

The churches of men have human officers, who act in the strength of natural or acquisite parts, who do all by the help of study, learning, and the like. But in the true Church, Christ and the Spirit are the only officers, and men only so far as Christ and the Spirit dwell and manifest themselves in them. And so when they do any thing in the Church, it is not they that do it, but Christ and his Spirit in them.

The churches of men have the government of them laid on men's shoulders. But the true Church hath its government laid only on Christ's shoulders. For if the Church be gathered together in Christ, as the true Church is, Christ is always in the midst of them, and if Christ is ever present with them, his own self, how cometh it to pass that Christ may not reign immediately over them? Wherefore the true Church reckons it sufficient authority that they have Christ and his word for the ground of their practice; and whatever they find in the Word, they presently set upon the practice of it, and never ask leave either of civil or ecclesiastical powers. But the churches of men will do nothing without the authority of the magistrate or assembly, though it never be so clear in the word of God. For in their religion they regard the authority of men more than the authority of God.

The churches of men are still setting themselves one above another, but the assemblies of the true Church are all equal, having Christ and the Spirit equally present with them and in them. And therefore the believers of one congregation cannot say they have power over the believers of another congregation, seeing all congregations have Christ and his Spirit alike among them, and Christ hath not anywhere promised that he will be more with one than another. And so Christ and the Spirit in one congregation do not subject, neither are subjected to Christ and the Spirit in another congregation, as if Christ and the Spirit in several places should be above and under themselves. But Christ in each assembly of the faithful is their head, and this head they dare not leave, and set up a fleshly head to themselves whether it consist of one or many men, seeing Antichrist doth strongly invade Christ's headship in many as in one man, in council, as in a pope.

And thus having declared what the true Church of Christ is, and rectified some ancient and general mistakes touching it, I shall now proceed to make known from the clear and evident word, the true and only bonds of the Church's union, peace, and agreement, as the Apostle hath delivered them to us by the Spirit. Ephes. 4. 4: There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, on Baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Where note, in general, that among all these bonds of the Church's unity, the Apostle makes not so much as any mention of uniformity. But it will appear by the Apostle's doctrine, that no conformity or uniformity are any bonds of the true Church's peace and union, seeing the Church is such a kingdom as is not preserved in its peace by any outward forms and orders, as the kingdoms of the world are, but by inward principles.

In this true Church or one body of Christ, notwithstanding diversity of members and offices, there is still an equality among them all, seeing all alike make up one body. In which regard one member is as necessary to the body as another; and no member can say to another, I contribute more to the making up of the body than thou. The most honourable members cannot say thus to the most mean-not the Apostles themselves to believers among the Gentiles; for we are the body of Christ as they, and they are the body of Christ no more than we. Wherefore no member, for diversity of office, is to lift up himself above another member who is as necessary as itself to the making up the body, and also is every whit as useful in its place.

They that do content themselves in joining to some outward and visible society and corporation of men, though called a church, and think that by being knit to them in ways of outward worship and ordinances, they live in the unity of the Church, when as yet all this while they live out of that one body that is born of the Spirit, which is the only true Church and body of Christ. He that lives out of this spiritual body, though he live in the most excellent society in the world, yet he breaks the unity of the Church, not living in one body with it. And thus many break the Church's unity, that never think on it.

Again they break this bond of the Church's unity that live in this one body, but not as members. And such are they who, having got the advantage of the magistrate's power, will needs lift themselves up above their fellow-members, and exercise authoritative, coercive, domineering power over them; whereas the very Apostles themselves were not lords of the Church, but fellow members with the faithful, living in one body and under one head with them, and so did all by love and persuasion, and nothing by force and violence.

They that labour to join men into one body with the Church that are not one spirit with it, do mar the peace of it. For as unity of spirit in the Church is the bond of peace, so diversity of spirit is the breach of peace, and therefore to preserve the peace of the Church, none are to join themselves to this one body that are not of this one spirit.

As all believers are called by one calling (which is the inward and effectual voice of God to the soul, by his Spirit through the Gospel), so they are called into one blessed hope of obtaining the kingdom and glory of God. And no one is called to this hope more than another, or hath more interest or share in it than another. Fishes that live in the sea, though some be greater and some less, yet none hath more interest or share in it than another, but all, being alike produced in it, enjoy it alike. The creatures that live on the earth, though some be greater and some less, yet all enjoy the sun and air alike.

Now the government of the Church is twofold. (1) There is that government which God exercises immediately by himself; and (2) that government which he exercises mediately and by the faithful. The first of these again, that is God's immediate government, is twofold: (1) the government of his special providence; (2) the government of his spiritual presence.

Now besides this immediate government of God, there is another sort of government of the Church, which Christ exercises mediately by the Church. And this also is Christ's government, and not man's; and men who have not known nor understood the former government of Christ, have mistaken this also through the same unbelief. Wherefore, they, not so much as minding the former of Christ, which is immediate and by himself, have made this mediate government of the Church by man, to be all. And this also I say, they have understood most grossly and carnally, and not according to the Word, but according to their own ignorant and seduced hearts.

This mediate government then of Christ in the true Church (which, it may be, may better be called order and decency than government) I conceive to be nothing but this, Christ's ordering all things by the faithful, among the faithful, in reference to the communion of Saints.

The first thing then is: to whom Christ hath committed the power of ordering and managing all things in the true Church, in reference to the communion of Saints. I answer, he hath given it to the true Church itself, as formerly described, even to each and all members of it. For as natural power belongs to all natural men alike, so spiritual power (which is the true church-power) to all spiritual men alike. Christ in a believer is the root of true church-power; and because Christ dwells in all believers alike, through unity of faith, therefore all believers partake alike of spiritual and supernatural power; and no one partakes of this power more than another, any more than he partakes of Christ more than another; but Christ in them is the self-same power of God to do all things that are to be done in the kingdom of God.

But what are these keys about which there hath been so great ado in the Church? I answer, they are not any outward ecclesiastical power whatever, that men have devised to serve their turns withal. But to pass by the many false conceits, wherewith many former and present writers have and do still trouble the Church, John doth tell us plainly (John 20.22) what Matthew means by the keys of the Church. Christ (saith he) appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection, breathing on them, said, Receive the Holy Spirit (here are the keys of the kingdom of Heaven), and then adds, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. That is, when ye have received the Spirit, then you have received the keys, to bind and to lose, to remit and retain sin, and not according to your wills, but wholly according to the mind and will and direction of the Spirit.

What is the extent of this church-power? I answer that this power extends itself full as far as the Church, but no further. For what hath the Church to do with those that are not of the Church? What have we to do (saith Paul) with them that are without? For church-power, which is spiritual, is no more suitable to the world than worldly power, which is fleshly, is suitable to the Church. The power of the Church, which is Christ's power, only reaches so far as Christ's kingdom; that is, the people that are born of God and his Spirit. True church-government reaches as far as Christ's and the Spirit's effectual influence and operation, but no further; that is to all that are willing, but to none that are unwilling. As nothing hath more troubled the Church that to govern it and give it laws, after the manner of the world, by secular force and power; so nothing hath more troubled the world than to govern it and give it laws after the manner of the Church, by the aforesaid compulsion. Wherefore as the government of the world is not to spread over the Church, so neither is the government of the Church to be spread over the world. But as the world and the Church are distinct things in themselves, so they are to be contented with their distinct governments.

What is the outward instrument of this power? I answer, the Word only, which is the only sceptre and sword of Christ's kingdom, to govern his people and subdue his enemies. And so the true Church doth all in itself only by the Gospel; by the Gospel it bindeth and looseth; by the Gospel it remits and retains sin, by the Gospel it quickens to life and wounds to death; by the Gospel it receives in, and casts out; by the Gospel it works faith, renews the life, acts, orders, guides, and governs all things.

What the true Church can do

by virtue of this power

Now the true Church by the power it hath received from Christ can gather itself together when, and as often as, it pleaseth. The company of believers have power to gather themselves together for their mutual good, instruction, preservation, edification, and for the avoiding or preventing of evil, and that without the consent or authority of any extrinsical and foreign power whatever; else Christ were not a sufficient founder of his Church. And if every free society, not subjected to tyranny, hath power in itself to congregate and come together as conveniency and necessity shall require, as is evident in all civil corporations, and in all fraternities and meetings of love; much more hath the Church of Christ, which is the freest society in the world, power to meet together into a communion of Saints, though it be without and against the consent and authority of the powers of the world.

As the Church of the faithful hath power from Christ to meet together, so to appoint its own outward orders. And these things each church or communion of Saints may order by itself, according to the wisdom of the Spirit, so it observe these rules. That they do all things in love, seeing all laws without love are tyranny; and so whatsoever is not from, and for, love, is not to appointed; and if ti be, it is again to be abolished; seeing no text of the scripture itself, if it build not up love, is rightly interpreted. They are to do all things for peace. They must appoint nothing as of necessity; for there is no more pestilent doctrine in the Church than to make those things necessary which are not necessary. For thus the liberty of faith is extinguished, and the consciences of men ensnared. They may persuade their orders (if they see cause) by the spirit of love and meekness, but must not enforce them upon pain of secular punishment or church-censure, as those use to do that make themselves lords and tyrants in the Church. For these outward things the Church can order only for the willing, but not for the unwilling.

Now one thing more I shall add touching the church's power to appoint its own orders: that the true church hath power to appoint these outward orders, not for itself only, but also for its officers (which also are part of itself), and it is not to suffer its officers to frame or impose such on it. For the church is not the officers', but the officers are the church's.

The true church hath power to choose its own officers, and, if there be cause, to reform them or depose them.

More particularly in this matter we shall inquire after these three things: (1) What officers are to be chosen? (2) Out of whom they are to be chosen? (3) By whom they are to be chosen?

For the first, Paul teaches us, they must be faithful men, apt, and able to teach others. For us among natural men in the world, they that have most natural power and abilities, are fittest to be the officers: so among spiritual men in the church, they are fittest to be the officers that have the most spiritual power, that is, such in whom Christ and the Spirit are most manifest; and of this the faithful of all sorts are judges. Wherefor no natural parts and abilities, nor no human learning and degrees in the schools and universities, nor no ecclesiastical ordination or orders, are to be reckoned sufficient to make any man a minister, but only the teachings of God, and gifts received of Christ, by the Spirit, for the work of the ministry, which the faithful are able to discern and judge of.

Out of whom these officers are to be chosen. And this is out of the flock of Christ, and nowhere else.

By whom they are to be chosen. And this by the congregation or community of believers. For if every free society hath power to choose its own officers, much more hath the true church this power, being (as is said) the freest society under heaven. And so the true church is not to have officers thrust over them by others, but is to choose them itself.

The true Church hath power to call its councils. Now I said, the church, if it need a council, may call one; because the church of believers now seldom needs a council, seeing all things are so clear in the Word of God, with which the faithful are so well acquainted. For it is not dead laws and orders, written by men, will do the true church any good; but the Living Law of God, written in their hearts by the Spirit, as God hath promised to do, saying, I will write my Law in their hearts, and put it in their inward parts. For as the law of sin hath been written in our natures, to corrupt us, so the Law of the Spirit of Life must be written also in our natures, to reform us.

The church hath power to judge of all doctrines, and that both of its officers and councils.

The clergy and ecclesiastical men have been wont to challenge to themselves the knowledge and judgment of doctrines, and have excluded ordinary Christians from it; whereas, in truth, the judgment of doctrine belongeth to the people, and not to the ministers. And the Apostle commands them, to try the spirits, whether they be of God, and hath said, Let one or two speak, and the rest judge (1 Cor 14, &c.). By which, with many other scriptures, it is evident that the ministers are not to judge of doctrine for the people, but the people are to judge of the doctrine of the ministers, and according as they find it to be of God, or not of God, to receive it, or reject it. For every one is to be saved by his own faith, and not by another man's. And Paul gives this liberty to Christians-yea, we have it from Christ himself whether Paul had allowed it or no-to try the very Apostles themselves and the very angels of heaven, whether they bring the right word or no.

Among the things which are to be done to procure and preserve the peace of the church these things that follow have not the least place.

The true church is to preserve itself distinct from the world, and is neither to mingle itself with the world, nor to suffer the world to mingle itself with it. For if the church and the world be mingled together in one society, the same common laws will no more agree to them who are of such different natures, principles, and ends, than the same common laws will agree to light and darkness, life and death, sin and righteousness, flesh and Spirit. Wherefore, it is not the way of peace to mingle the church and the world, but to separate them, and to keep them distinct; that those that are of one nature and spirit may be of one communion among themselves. And this way of peace God Himself teacheth us by Paul (2 Cor 6:17), saying, Come out from among them, my people, and be ye separate. For to separate the church from the world, in its communion of Saints, is the only way to preserve peace, in both; seeing the church will best agree with itself, and the world with itself.

The church being thus distinct from the world is to be contented with its own power for its own affairs, and is not to introduce or entertain any power in it that is not of it. Wherefore the true church, being such a kingdom as is not of this world, stands in need of no worldly power, and being a spiritual and heavenly kingdom, is only to have and exercise a spiritual and heavenly power, seeing this power alone, and by itself, is able to accomplish the whole good pleasure of God in the church, and to work all the works in it that God hath to do.

The third rule is, not to bring or force men into the church against their wills.

The fourth rule is, to make void the distinction of clergy and laity among Christians. For the clergy or ecclesiastical men have all along, under the reign of Anti-Christ, distinguished themselves from other Christians, whom they call the laity, and separated themselves from the lay in all things, and called themselves by the name of the Church, and reckoned other Christians but as common and unclean in respect of themselves; whereas in the true church of Christ there are no distinctions, nor difference of persons; no clergy or laity ; but they are all, as Peter describes them (1 Pet 2:9), a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to show forth the virtues of Him that called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. And so all Christians, through the baptism of the Spirit, are made priests alike unto God; and every one hath right and power alike to speak the Word; and so there is among them no clergy or laity, but the ministers are such who are chosen by Christians from among themselves to speak the Word to all in the name and right of all; and they have no right nor authority at all to this office but by the consent of the church. And so presbyters and bishops, or (which is all one) elders and overseers in the church, differ nothing from other Christians, but only in the office of the Word which is committed to them by the church; as an alderman or common-council man in the city differs nothing from the rest of the citizens, but only in their office, which they have not of themselves neither, but by the city's choice; or as the Speaker in the House of Commons differs nothing from the rest of the Commons, but only in his office, which he hath also by the choice of the House. And thus, and no otherwise, doth a minister differ from other Christians.

The fifth rule, is to keep equality between Christians. For though according to our first nativity, whereby we are born of men, there is great inequality, some being born high, some low, some honourable, some mean, some kings, some subjects, &c.; yet according to our new or second birth, whereby we are born of God, there is exact equality, for here are none better or worse, higher or lower, but all have the same faith, hope, love, the same God, Christ, Spirit, the same divine nature, the same precious promises, the same incorruptible crown and inheritance of Saints in light.

The sixth rule is, to keep the officers of the Church in subordination to the whole church or community; and not to suffer them to get head over it; seeing the very nature of ruling the church is not dominion, but service.

Now if any say, by what means the church be able to keep out error? I answer, it may certainly keep out error by these means.

Body, Soul, and Spirit

Few scriptures are more misunderstood than the verses that refer to the fall of Adam and Eve. Sadly to say, the misunderstanding of these passages has caused a multitude of confusion and misdirection in many other areas of the scripture as well. Indeed, if we do not have a clear understanding of exactly what happened in the first through third chapters of Genesis, then we will not have a clear understanding of what Jesus the Christ accomplished as Saviour.

Why should we need a Saviour? What did the coming and fulfillment of the Messiah restore?

Many know that Jesus the Christ redeemed us from what Adam did, but do we know exactly what happened when Adam did what he did?

Also, many of us know that now, after we believe on Him, we receive the Holy Spirit. But what do we need the Holy Spirit for? And why was His Spirit not available to everyone before the day of Pentecost? To know the answer to these and to many other questions, a clear understanding of what is said in the first three chapters of Genesis is more than a requirement. That's why we consider what we are going to see in this study as especially significant, and we ask for your diligent attention.

Death

"...in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17

The starting point for this study is the first book of the scripture, Genesis. There, after God made man, He imposed a restriction upon him, and He also made known the penalty if this restriction was violated.

In Genesis 2:16-17, the restriction that God imposed on Adam was that he should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The penalty for violating this restriction was that: "in the day [*note: that very same day] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Two very significant things have to be noted in that penalty. The first is that if Adam ate from the tree, death would happen immediately, in that very day. The second is that this would happen surely. The word "thou shalt surely die" is purposed to put emphasis on the fact that death would happen 100%, surely, in that very same day.

Genesis 3:1-6 describes how the crafty serpent deceived Eve. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thereafter. Having done that, according to what God had said, they should have died at that very moment.

The "problem" here is that Genesis 5:5-6 says Adam continued to have life in his body for many years after he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! On the other hand, God had said that if he ate from that tree he would surely die the same day. At first glance, there "seems" to be a contradiction and therefore "a problem" about what finally happened in the day that Adam and Eve ate from that tree. Did they die as God said, or did they not die? Who will solve this "problem"? Man's ideas, theories, religion and tradition? No! Only One can give us the answer, and this is no other than the written Word of and from God. And if you desire that His Word give you the answers, you have to avoid tampering with it and allow His Word to speak for itself (scripture interprets scripture).

Now, since our Father cannot lie (Numbers 23:19), in the day that Adam and Eve ate from that tree, they did surely die. Actually, it was the serpent that said, "ye shall not surely die" when it deceived Eve (Genesis 3:4). Thus, if they didn't die that day, as God said, then that old serpent was right and God was wrong, which is simply impossible. However, that's exactly what many teach today when they say "actually, when God said that they would surely die, He only meant that "the sperm" of death would be planted, and the process of dying would begin." The Word of God does not need such defense through vain imaginations of reinterpretation. Actually it does not need any defense at all, for it is truth, and the truth stands on its own. What the Word needs is to be rightly divided (straightly cut) and then boldly proclaimed (2 Timothy 2:15).

Returning to our point: since God said that they would surely die that very day, they indeed died that day. However, since they continued to have life in their bodies (physical life), even after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it is evident that they had another form of life, in addition to their physical life, that was lost in the day that they ate thereof. So, we have to search the scriptures to see how man was created and what were the parts of his being. Knowledge of what composed the life of the first man will also enable us to see what was lost in that day.

The Body

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:19

Before we proceed, we should look at the above passage which explains why the physical body was never created to live for ever. Our Father tells us why the body will "return unto the ground." Because the body is dust, and the body will return to dust. Not because of sin. All physical things, sinful and non-sinful, will eventually decay and return to dust.

The Soul

To start our study regarding the first man, let's go to Genesis 2:7. Which part of man did God form of the dust of the ground? His body. That's why the elements of all physical bodies can be found in the ground. So one part of the first man was the body. But let's continue:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul" [*soul = nephesh in Hebrew) Genesis 2:7

We see that our Father formed man's body of the dust of the ground. However, this body didn't have life. It was just formed, without life. At this point, our Father's Word tells us that He "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." What is the soul? The soul is life to the body. The fact that people do not understand the simple truths of the Word of God described at that point has caused no end to the confusion.

At Genesis 2:7, our Father's written Word tells us that the breath of life from Him is what gives life to the body. Without the soul the body is dead. But where is the soul, the life of the body, the life of the flesh? The Word of God never leaves us destitute of answers to these and all questions:

"For the life [*nephesh in Hebrew] of the flesh is in the bloodNo soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it [*the blood] is the life [*nephesh] of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life [*nephesh] thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life [*nephesh] of all flesh is the blood thereof." Leviticus 17:11-14

As shown in the above passage, the word "life" is a translation of the Hebrew word "nephesh," which is translated as 'soul' at Genesis 2:7, as well as in 471 out of the 753 other places where it occurs. Therefore, what is nephesh, or soul/life? According to Genesis 2:7, the breath of life is what gives life to the body. Where is the nephesh, the life of the body, the soul? According to Leviticus 17:11-14, it is in the blood: "For the life [*nephesh] of all flesh is in the blood..." How does this soul life pass from generation to generation? Through the blood. That's why Acts 17:26 tells us:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth."

The "one blood" of this passage is the blood of Adam, which passes from generation to generation, and is actually the blood that all of us have.

And, soul is not something that only man has. Animals have a soul also, which, again, is in the blood. Although this is immediately understood from the above passage of Leviticus, where we are told that the life of all flesh is in the blood, let's go to the first chapter of Genesis to see it there as well:

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life [*KJV margin - soul] and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature [*nephesh] that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:20-21

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature [*nephesh] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Genesis 1:24
"And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yield seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth , wherein there is life [*nephesh, KJV margin - a living soul], I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Genesis 1:29-30

And at Genesis 9:16:

"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature [*nephesh] of all flesh that is upon the earth."

And in the same fashion as to how God breathed into man's nostrils the "breath of life" and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7), all animals have in their nostrils the "breath of life" from God as well (see Genesis 1:30 (LXX) and Genesis 7:14-15, 21-22 (KJV and LXX)).

Therefore, not only man, but also the animals have "nephesh," (soul/life). This is not strange at all, if we understand that soul is what gives life to the body (Job 12:10). When you die, there is no more life, no more soul. The same happens with the animals. Soul, is for them, the same that it is for man (it gives life to the body). Though scripture clearly shows us what soul is, a problem is created when one goes to the scripture with the preconceived idea that soul is immortal. If soul was immortal, then the souls of the various animals would also be immortal, since they have "nephesh" as man has "nephesh." Soul is not something immortal. It simply gives life to the body. When you stop having life in your body, you have no more soul. If a soul couldn't die, then there would be no need to "save a soul [*psuche] from death" (James 5:20).

The words 'soul' (and 'spirit') occur in the scripture approximately 900 times, and not once, either in Hebrew or Greek, are they referred to as being immortal or undying. The inspired writers of the scripture had at least 900 opportunities to inform us that the soul is immortal, but never did. Surely this is a significant fact that must not be overlooked. The fact that man is mortal is affirmed throughout the scripture. The word "immortality" is used only five times (the word "immortal" only once) and is never coupled with the words "soul" or "spirit." On the contrary, we have found that the scripture teaches clearly: first, that God alone possesses immortality (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16); second, that man should be seekers for it (Romans 2:5-7); third, that immortality can be found in the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10); and forth, that if man "puts on" immortality, it will be conferred upon him at the last trump, when death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Corinthians 15:51-54).

Every man in the world, believer or unbeliever, has body and soul. It can therefore be understood that, since Adam died at 930 years of age after he had partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, his body or soul obviously did not "die" during that time. Thus, since something had to die for Adam that day in accordance with God's revealed Will, he originally had to of had at least one more "part" which was lost, which died, when he ate. So, let's continue searching the scripture to find the answer.

The Spirit

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likenessSo God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." Genesis 1:26-27

We see from the above verses that Almighty God created man "in His own image." Here is a very critical point, a key point, if we seek to understand not only what happened in the day that Adam and Eve partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but also the understanding of other passages of the scripture that are directly affected in interpretation by these verses. Reading the above passage, the question that has to be asked is, "What is the image of God?"

John 4:24 tells us "God is Spirit." God is not flesh, but Spirit. That is His image. Therefore, when the Word of God tells us that He created man according to His image, it means that, in addition to body and soul, man received that which is "according to" (LXX, "in accord with") the image and the likeness of Godspirit. In order to understand better the usage of the phrase "in His image" in the above critical passage, let's observe another place where this phrase occurs.

Genesis 5:1-3 tells us that Adam begat a son "in his own likeness, after his image." What does this mean? It means that as Adam was, so his son was (as Adam had hands so Seth had hands. As Adam had feet so Seth had feet, etc). As Adam was body and soul so Seth was body and soul. Similarly, when the Word says that God created man "in His image," "after the likeness of God," it simply means that Adam was given God's spirit.

God is not flesh. He does not have physical feet, hands, a head, etc. He is spirit. So as God is spirit so Adam was given that spirit. One could ask, "why did God make Adam apart from body and soul, with spirit as well?" Simply put: without spirit, Adam could not fellowship or walk with God, who is spirit. God, being spirit, does not fellowship with a body and soul of physical senses alone. They are separate and distinct. God is spirit, and to fellowship with Him and walk in His light you must be receptive to (receive) and walk in His spirit. Body and soul are enough for things of the five senses. But when it comes to the things of God, what you must faithfully receive is His spirit (see John 1:12 and 1 John, chapter 1). This truth is also revealed to us at I Corinthians 2:14:

"But the natural man [*psuchikos anthropos in the Greek) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

In this passage, the word translated "natural" is the Greek adjective [psi] [upsilon] [chi] [iota] [kappa] [omicron]-- psuchikos, which comes from the noun psuchi, which means soul (see Etymologicum Anglicanum, Page thirteen). Therefore, psuchikos anthropos means "a soul man" (a man with a body and soul only). The same word, psuchikos, is also translated as "natural" in I Corinthians 15:44, 46, and as "sensual" in James 3:15 and Jude 19.

According to I Corinthians 2:14, a man who is content with being body and soul only will not receive (dechomai (1209) take hold of) the things of the Spirit of God. To receive "the things of the Spirit of God [*righteousness]," to fellowship and walk with Him (walk in His ways), and to please Him, one does not partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for that is death; whereas, partaking of and holding to the things of the spirit is a true and faithful life. It always comes down to love and the fulfilling of the law, for love is the fulfilling of the law (see Romans 13:10):

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:4-8

That's why the passage in 1 Corinthians says: "neither can he (the man of body and soul only) know them, because they are spiritually discerned." It is impossible for the man of body and soul alone to know the things of God simply because such things have to do with the spirit ("they are spiritually discerned"); and since he lacks the willingness to receive (take hold of) the things of the spirit, he cannot know them.

Summarizing the above, in the garden Adam had body, formed from the dust of the ground; soul that gives life to the body; and spirit to fellowship and walk with God. He was body, soul and spirit. Having established that, there is no question about what happened in the day that Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God had told them that in the day that they would eat, they would surely die. Bearing in mind that death means the absence of life, we can now see what died that day. Adam was body, soul and spirit and his body died many years after the day that he ate. And since what permits a body to live is soul, Adam had body and soul even after he ate from that tree. On the other hand, since God is always right in what He says, something had to die that day. Since Adam was body, soul and spirit before he ate, and since, as we saw, he continued to have body and soul after he ate, what was lost for him that day was the spirit that God gave him. He continued to have body and soul, but he didn't have spirit. The spirit departed from him and this was death for him, since spirit, a form of life that he had before he partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was no longer there; to wit:

"For as the body without the spirit is dead" James 2:26

Nowhere in the scripture can you find that the flesh was to live forever. We are told that in the very beginning, the natural man was taken from the ground (dust) "and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). In other words, flesh was to go back from which it came, and the breath of life (ruwach-spirit, see Genesis 6:17 and 7:22) was to go back to the One that gave it:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit [*ruwach] shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7

When God "taketh away their breath [*ruwach], they [*men] die, and return to their dust" (Psalm 104:29).

We see how clearly the scripture settles things when we leave it to interpret itself? It was actually this loss of the spirit that was restored in the day of Pentecost, where the holy spirit was made available, so that today, after believing on Christ Jesus, you are again body, soul, and spirit:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it." 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24

Pentecost and the New Birth

The man after Adam's fall and before Pentecost

God is spirit and, therefore, to fellowship and walk with Him, and He with you, one must receive (take hold of) the things of His spirit. Since the Holy Spirit was not available after Adam's fall to all of his descendants, during that period God put His spirit upon those that He wanted to communicate with. God put it upon them to give them revelation. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit was available to everyone. From Genesis to Acts, there is no record of any instruction as to how to receive His the things of His spirit, because the Holy Spirit was not yet available to all, to wit:

"...for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" John 7:39

John 7:37-39 tells us that the Holy Spirit was not available at the time that Jesus Christ walked with His apostles, and, of course, it was not available before that time as well. During all this period (from Adam's fall to the day of Pentecost), if God wanted to communicate with someone, He put His spirit upon him. Let's see some examples from the Old Testament starting from Numbers 11:16-17.

Moses wanted helpers for the governing of the people of Israel and God answered his request. As it is clear from this passage, Moses had spirit and he had it upon him. It is significant to point out something here: the fact that Moses had the spirit of God upon him, was not because he decided that he would desired to have spirit. Even if he had desired that, there was no "guarantee" that he would have it, for the simple fact that spirit was not "automatically" given. Actually, it was God that decided to put His spirit upon Moses and not the other way around. The same is true for those seventy men as well: the spirit of God was upon them, not because they decided to receive it but because God wanted to make possible communication with them.

In Judges 3:9-10, did Othniel have the spirit before this time? No. God put it upon him for the purpose of judging Israel.

In Judges 6:33-34, did Gideon have spirit before? No. Was it that Gideon received the spirit from God or that God put the spirit upon Gideon? To receive something, it must be available, and spirit was not available after Adam's fall. So it was God who chose to put His spirit upon Gideon for the purpose of judging Israel.

Similar examples are many in the Old Testament. Also, it can be seen that Saul, the first king of Israel, when he disobeyed God, the spirit of God that was upon him departed from him (1 Samuel 15:26, 16:14).

The New Birth

Having seen what the situation was before the day of Pentecost, it is now time to see what happened after the day of Pentecost. To see this, let's start examining some things that Jesus the Christ said in His Glad Tidings. As we read the Word, we must bear in mind that, at the time He was on earth, spirit was not available, as we have already seen from John 7:37-39. Therefore, whatever we see in the gospels about spirit, it refers prophetically to the time that spirit would become available.

Our Lord told us in John 3:1-6, no man can enter the kingdom of God if he isn't born again or born from above. This is probably enough to resolve many arguments and guesses as to how one can enter the kingdom of God. The answer is simple: You must be born from above. Now, what does "born from above" mean? The only birth that most know is the "natural" birth. Nevertheless, here our Lord tells us that there is one more birth, which is the prerequisite to "see the kingdom of God." Questions may come immediately to our minds: "How does this birth occur?", "who is the parent of this birth?", "what do I receive from this birth?" How will we answer these questions? By going to scripture and leaving it to interpret itself. So let's see what it says:

In John 3:4-5, Christ Jesus explains that for a man to enter the kingdom of God he must be born of water and of the spirit. To be born of water means the first birth. Without having been born once, how could you be born again? He tells us also that one must be born of the spirit. The word "spirit" has various usage's in the scripture. However, most of the usage's refer either to God who is spirit (John 4:24) or to the spirit that God gives. In the above passage "born of the Spirit" means born of God who is spirit. In the first birth, you were born "of water" (the baby is surrounded by water and therefore it is truly "born of water."). In the second birth, you are born "of the spirit" (you are born of God). That in this second birth you are born of God is also clear in verse 6, where we also learn what is received by this birth:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3:6

In John 3:6, again the two births are put together in the same verse, but this time the purpose is to contrast them and to show that they are entirely different. From the first birth you received what your parents are (flesh). Similarly, from the second birth, you received what your Father, God, is (spirit). Having answered the question about the second birth and who is the parent of this birth, let's move one step ahead to examine how this second birth occurs.

In I John 5:1, the Word of God tells us that to be born of God, what is needed is to believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah [the Anointed One], the Saviour of the world). Yes, so simple it is. Take a minute to think about it. If you are born of God, what are you then? A child of God! A son or a daughter of God! To be a child of someone requires birth. And Galatians 3:26 has us know that at the time that one has faith in Christ Jesus is when one is born of God. Then God is your Father.

"Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?" Isaiah 49:15a

If no, then where do all these children that live in the streets and in the State institutions come from? That is why God answered "yea, they may forget" (Isaiah 49:15). However, He does not stop there. He faithfully continues "yet will I not forget thee." Many mothers and/or fathers forget or mistreat the children that the Father has blessed them with. However, God will never forget them, or you. Do you know why? Because you, and they, are His and He loves all of His children.

In Hebrews 13:5, God promises that He will never leave you nor forsake you. Your friends may leave you, the so-called government may enslave and mistreat you, and your "boss" may overwork and forsake you, but God will never leave you because you are His child. If you "feel" forgotten, neglected, etc., it is because you look upon the wrong things. Look to God your Father; develop a father-child relationship with Him, and you will see how much more light your life will have. You also may boldly say: "The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me" (Hebrews 13:6).

Pentecost: the day of a New Beginning

Returning now to our initial point, remember that spirit was lost in the day that Adam sinned. Also, remember that spirit was not available after that day. Nevertheless, in John 3:6, Jesus Christ, speaking prophetically to Nicodemus, said that one could again have spirit. The point in time where spirit was again made available was the day of Pentecost, almost 2,000 years ago. So let's read to see what happened that day:

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4

What is described in Acts 2:1-4 is the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit that happened in the day of Pentecost. From that day onward, the Holy Spirit is again available, and everyone that truly believes that Jesus is the Christ receives it.

Before and after Pentecost: comparisons

Spirit is again available. As we have already seen, before the day of Pentecost, spirit was not available. However, from the day of Pentecost, and because of what Jesus the Christ accomplished, spirit is again available and you can again be body, soul and spirit. What a dramatic change! But it is not the only one:

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16

The spirit dwells in you: you are the temple of God. We saw previously that, before Pentecost, only a few people had the spirit of God placed upon them, for His purposes. On Pentecost, this situation also changed dramatically. From that day onward, everyone that truly believes that Jesus is the Christ receives the Holy Spirit! Let's consider some other scriptures on this:

"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Cor. 6:19-20

Many believe that the spirit of God dwells in the so and so church of the so and so denomination. How much have they misunderstood what the scripture says?! Here, the Word of God tells us that the spirit of God dwells in you. It also says that "You are the temple of God." So the temple of God is not the denominational church and its building at the corner of Main and Tranquility streets--but you, and do you know why? Because the spirit of God dwells in you.

Here is the great difference between having the spirit upon you (before the day of Pentecost) and having the spirit in you (from the day of Pentecost). Before the day of Pentecost, those few people that had the spirit of God upon them, were not the temple of God, simply because the spirit of God wasn't in them, but was upon them temporarily. That is why the temple of Solomon was constructed; it was a temporary dwelling place of God. But today, there is no more need for man-made temples because today, God, Who is spirit, does not dwell in buildings, but in His children that truly love Him.

In Defense of the Septuagint

Part One

by Richard Anthony

This article will address the arguments made by Floyd Nolen Jones in his article entitled, "The Septuagint; A Critical Analysis." In his article, he attacks the credibility of the Septuagint. This article will rebut his accusations and defend the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint. Floyd has four chapters in his article, and each of these four chapters will be addressed; the first two this month, and the last two next month.

The Septuagint I will be quoting from in this article is "The Septuagint with Apocrypha" Brenton's edition (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), by Hendrickson Publishers. Originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851.

Chapter One

In Chapter One, Floyd Nolen Jones engages in the "Straw Man" method of argument, and he is very good at it. A "Straw" Man" argument does the following. Instead of dealing with the actual topic at hand (the Septuagint itself), he deals with the opinions of what others say about this topic (opinions of the Septuagint). Once he attacks these opinions successfully, he assumes the original topic has been refuted. This is a fallacy because it does not deal with the Septuagint itself, but only with the "theories" and "opinions" that others say about the Septuagint.

For example, Floyd states:

"In perusing the literature, the typical definition offered for the Septuagint is that it was an "authorized" Greek translation of the Old Testament prepared in Alexandria, Egypt around 285-250 B.C. The enterprise is said to have been accomplished by 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus or possibly begun during the reign of his father, Ptolemy Soter."

He then goes on to rebut this "theory" of "when" the Septuagint was translated and by "whom" it was translated. And he assumes that by rebutting these speculations, that the Septuagint is worthless! Dear reader, let me ask you some questions. Do you consider the book of Hebrews a part of scripture? Well, there has been many "theories" of "when" this book was written, and by "whom" it was written. Some say it was written by a Gentile, others a Jew. Some claim it was written by Paul, others by Luke, Barnabas, Silas, and Apollos. Some claim it was written in the early 60'sAD, others in the late 90'sAD.

The fact is the book of Hebrews itself does not state when or by whom it was written. Does this mean that the book of Hebrews is not inspired by God? No, of course not. Why doesn't the book of Hebrews state when and by whom it was written? Because it is not important! What is important? Is this book of scripture inspired by God or not!!

Likewise, the Septuagint itself does not state when or by whom it was written. Does this mean that the Septuagint is not inspired by God? No, of course not. Again, what is important? Again, is this scripture inspired by God or not. The way to test it, to see if it is of God, is to examine the Septuagint itself! Not the opinions surrounding the Septuagint.

If somebody claimed the book of Hebrews was written by Paul, and somebody successfully proved that it was not written by Paul, does this mean the book of Hebrews is not the inspired Word of God? No. All it means is that someone rebutted an opinion about the book of Hebrews. Likewise, if somebody claimed the Septuagint was written by 72 Jewish Scholars in Egypt around 285 BC, and it was proven that it was not, does this mean the Septuagint is not the inspired Word of God? No. Rebutting opinions of the scripture is not the same as rebutting scripture itself.

Floyd says:

"The history of the origin of the Septuagint is embellished with many diverse fables, hence its actual derivation is still being debated."

I agree with his statement. But I must ask, why is he discussing these "fables"? Why does he spend so much time rebutting opinions of the Septuagint, instead of going to the Septuagint itself?

My point is the following. It is meaningless to speculate about the origin of the Septuagint, or when it was written, or by whom it was written. Most scriptures do not mention these facts anyway. The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and many others, do not state when they were written, where they were written, or by whom they were written. Why? Because it has no bearing whatsoever on the authenticity of scripture. What is important is what is written in the scripture; not what others speculate about the scripture.

Floyd says:

"Others speculate that the LXX was primarily prepared for the benefit of a large population of Greek-speaking Jews living in and around Alexandria, Egypt."

Again, he is dealing with "speculations," and not the Septuagint itself.

Floyd says, "Some have suggested that Philo is possibly the author of The letter of Aristeas."

Why argue what others "suggested"? Most of his arguments, throughout his article, deal with these speculations, and not the Septuagint itself.

Under the sub-heading:

Discordant Ages Of The Patriarchs In The LXX:

In Chapter one, Floyd does speak of the discrepancies between the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Septuagint text, as far as the length of years that some Patriarchs lived. However, he has a pre-conceived idea that, since the Masoretic Hebrew text is more accurate, that the Septuagint must be inaccurate. He does not consider the possibility that the Septuagint could be correct, and the Masoretic Hebrew incorrect.

One of the "reasons" he gives for why the Septuagint is wrong is because of the age of Methuselah. The Septuagint records that he was 167 at the birth of Lamech (Genesis 5:25), while the Masoretic Hebrew reads 187. Here is his "reasoning":

"The majority of LXX manuscripts give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, Lamech (the Masoretic Hebrew reads 187 - Gen. 5:25). However, if Methuselah were 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood (as recorded in the LXX), Methuselah would have been 955 at the date of the Flood. Since he lived to be 969 (the life span given in both), the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7-10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and all four of their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived the Deluge."

It "seems" like a good argument! The only thing wrong with it is that Floyd is lying as to what the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint states! Both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts state that Methuselah died at 969 years old; the Septuagint does not say 955 years old. Both manuscripts are in harmony with each other on this point. Floyd says the Septuagint records Methuselah being 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech being 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood, which totals 955! Thus, he claims the Septuagint says Methuselah was 955 years old when he died. This is a lie!

In the Brenton's edition of the Septuagint, even though it does record that Methuselah was 167 at the birth of Lamech (Genesis 5:25), it records Lamech being 802 years at the birth of Noah (Genesis 5:26), and not 188 as Floyd claims it says. Therefore, 167 + 802 = 969 years old! Exactly what it's supposed to be. As a matter of fact, the Septuagint specifically states that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old in Genesis 5:27!!!

Therefore, Floyd's claim that the Septuagint records Methuselah being 955 is a blatant lie! The Septuagint says no such thing. Dear reader, you must not believe everything you read from those who would attack the Word of God. Please test these people, and read the Septuagint for yourself to see if it really says what these people claim it says.

After Floyd's blatant falsehood, in the very next paragraph he speculates as to why Methuselah's age is different in the Septuagint (which it is not). What is his claim? -- because it is "a philosophy which embraced the basic precepts of evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists."

So, here is Floyd accusing the writers of the Septuagint of being evolutionists! He comes to this conclusion on nothing more than his claim that the Septuagint says Methuselah lived to be 955! Yet, as is easily verified, the Septuagint says no such thing! The Septuagint says Methuselah lived to be 969 years old, just like the Masoretic Hebrew text states.

Not only is Floyd debating opinions of others about who wrote the Septuagint, but now he is digressing into his own opinions (based on a lie to begin with) about those "mystery" writers being evolutionists! Dear reader, God does not respect opinions and lies, but Truth.

So, since Chapter One deals mostly with people's "opinions" about the Septuagint, and misrepresentations about the Septuagint, I shall move on to Chapter 2.

Chapter 2

In Chapter Two, Floyd starts by criticizing Origen Adamantius, who compiled an Old Testament "Bible" called the Hexapla (c.245 A.D.). It was, in effect, a parallel Bible comprising six columns. Here is his quote:

"When researching materials relevant to the Septuagint, a typical statement encountered by the inquirer is that it was "the" Bible of the early Christians. The problem with this and many similar declarations is that most scholars consider that Origen was a Christian, but he was not. Neither was Eusebius nor many other of the so-called early Church "Fathers." Their beliefs relevant to the deity of Christ Jesus reveal that they were merely religious Gnostics, steeped in pagan Greek philosophy. Thus, a significant number of the people about whom such statements are directed were not actually Christian in the true sense of having been born again."

Well, here we go back to the "Straw Man" method of argumentation again! I guess Floyd did not want to lie too much about what the Septuagint says (somebody might actually take the time to verify his false claims).

So, here he is arguing about somebody's opinion that the Septuagint was "the" Bible of the early Christians! My question is, So What?! What does it matter? First of all, "bibles" did not come into existence until the 15th century. Before then, the "church" kept most of scripture. Believers did not have easy access to scripture. The 66 books of scripture were not compiled into "one" book back then, like we have today. Christians usually memorized certain books of scripture, and shared that with others, because they would have been killed if caught carrying scripture with them. Again, this is totally irrelevant to whether or not the Septuagint is the Word of God or not.

Floyd also attacks many "church fathers" and claims they were Gnostics, not Christians. Tell me, dear reader, what does this have to do with whether or not the Septuagint is the Word of God? These church fathers did not write the Septuagint. Floyd is avoiding the Septuagint itself, and changing the subject by attacking people he never knew! By attacking people's opinions about bibles!

Again, Floyd makes this statement:

"As mentioned previously, nearly all scholars believe that the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla is Origen's revision of a B.C. Septuagint. Nevertheless, as noted in the previous heading, some dissenters believe that the so called LXX in fact originates with Origen's fifth column - that the 5th column is based on and constructed from the versions in the other columns - and that Origen also had a N.T. at his side to further assist him."

So what?! Floyd is spending so much time debating people's beliefs and opinions about the origin of the Septuagint, perhaps people might start believing the Septuagint itself is shrouded in mystery! But, remember, it is not the Septuagint that Floyd is talking about; he is only dealing in speculations, opinion, and fables about the Septuagint. In truth, he is avoiding the Septuagint, and depending upon a Straw Man to attack God's Word.

He already tried attacking the Septuagint itself in Chapter One, and this was a failure, because he blatantly lied about what the Septuagint actually says. The only people who might believe what Floyd says are those who won't take the time to verify his claims for themselves.

Under the sub-heading:

Is The Apocrypha The Clue To The Truth Regarding The Septuagint?

Floyd states:

"...the Apocrypha has always been "part and parcel" of the Septuagint."

This is not true. The books of the Apocrypha are "appended" to the Septuagint. They are not mixed in with the Septuagint. In the Brenton's edition, the Septuagint is first, and after the Septuagint is finished, there are a few pages of separation and the Apocrypha begins. The page numbers begin at "1" again with the Apocrypha. It is not a continuation of the Septuagint, but it is added for historical purposes, to show the history during the 400 years between the last book of the Old Testament and the beginning of Christ's ministry. And he fails to mention (or does not know) that the Apocrypha was also "appended" to the original 1611 King James Version (which is a translation of the Masoretic text). With his attempted "taint" of the Septuagint by "part and parceling" it with the Apocrypha, he also "taints" the King James.

Floyd ends Chapter Two with the following statement:

"Similarly, the Septuagint manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among themselves and disagree with the Masoretic Hebrew Text in many places. Both cannot be correct. As the Masoretic Hebrew text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God - the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected."

So far, Floyd has not shown any evidence of how or where "the Septuagint manuscripts exhibit considerable significant differences among themselves." He hardly touched upon what the Septuagint actually says! So how can he claim the Septuagint contradicts itself? This is his opinion! This is the only thing he has discussed in these two chapters--opinions!

It is true that the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic text in many places, and therefore both cannot be "correct." He claims that we should reject the Septuagint because it contradicts the Masoretic text. But he never suggests that we should reject the Masoretic text because it differs from the Septuagint, since there is very strong evidence that the Masoretic Hebrew is a corrupted text, as many "scholars" have pointed out in their many books (which he never mentioned in his article). Whose "opinion" are we to listen to. Where does his "opinion" that the Masoretic Text is the "inerrant, infallable" Word of God come from?

In Part Two next month, we will examine Chapters 3 and 4 of his article to see if he finally confronts the Septuagint on its own ground.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

Soul

from The Companion Bible (Appendix 110), by Ethelbert William Bullinger

Psuche is the only word translated "soul" in the New Testament. It occurs 105 times, and is rendered "soul" 58 times, "life" 40 times, "mind" 3 times, and "heart", "heartily", "us", and "you" once each.

To ascertain its meaning, it is useless to go to heathen authors. The Greek philosophers were at variance among themselves. ARNOBIUS, a Christian writer of the latter part of the third century, in his work Adversus Gentes, speaking of the speculations of the heathen of his day, says : "In exactly the same way (as the creation and the gods) is the condition of souls discussed. For this one thinks they are both immortal, and survive the end of our earthly life; that one believes that they do not survive, but perish with the bodies themselves; the opinion of another, however, is that they suffer nothing immediately, but that, after the [form of] man has been laid aside, they are allowed to live a little longer, and then come under the power of death."(1)

We must therefore, let Scripture be its own interpreter. Psuche exactly corresponds to the Hebrew Nepesh, as will be seen from the following passages : Mark 12:29, 30, compared with Deut. 6:4, 5; Acts 2:27 with Ps. 16:10; Rom. 11:3 with 1Kings 19:10; 1Cor. 15:45 with Gen. 2:7. In all these places, psuche in the New Testament represents nepesh in the Old.

The following are the occurrences of the word:

I. psuche, used of the lower animals twice, is rendered:

1. "life": Rev.8:9

2. "soul": Rev. 16:3

II. psuche, used of man as an individual (just as we speak of a ship going down with every soul on board, or of so many lives being lost in a railway accident), occurs 14 times, and is rendered "soul" : Acts 2:41, 43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37. Rom. 2:9; 13:1. 1Cor. 15:45. James 5:20. 1Pet. 3:20. 2Pet. 2:14. Rev. 6:9; 18:13; 20:4.

III. psuche, used of the life of man, which can be lost, destroyed, saved, laid down, &c., occurs 58 times, and is rendered

1. "life" : Matt. 2:20; 6:25; 10:39; 16:25; 20:28. Mark 3:4; 8:35; 10:45. Luke 6:9; 9:24, 56; 12:23; 14:26; 17:33(2). John 10:11, 15, 17; 12:25; 13:37, 38; 15:13. Acts 15:26; 20:10, 24; 27:10, 22. Rom. 11:3; 16:4. Phil. 2:30. 1John 3:16. Rev. 12:11.

2. "soul" : Matt. 10:28; 16:26. Mark 8:36, 37. Luke 12:20; 21:10. 1Thess. 2:8; 5:23. Heb. 4:12; 6:19; 10:39; 13:17. James 1:21. 1Pet. 1:9; 2:11, 25; 4:19.

IV. psuche, used to emphasize the pronoun, as we use "self" (e.g. "my soul" = "myself"), occurs 21 times and is rendered

1. "soul" : Matt. 11:29; 12:18; 26:38. Mark 14:34. Luke 1:46; 12:19. John 12:27. Acts 2:27, 31; 14:22; 15:24. 2Cor. 1:23. Heb. 10:38. 1Pet. 1:22. 2Pet. 2:8. Rev. 18:14.

2. "mind" : Acts 14:2. Heb. 12:3.

3. "us" : John 10:24.

4. "you" : 2Cor. 12:15 (see margin).

V. psuche, used with intensive force, to express all the powers of one's being, occurs 10 times, and is rendered

1. "soul" : Matt. 22:37. Mark 12:30, 33. Luke 2:35; 10:27. Acts 4:32. 3 John 2.

2. "heart" : Eph. 6:6

3. "mind" : Phil. 1:27

4. "heartily" : Col. 3:23

(1) Clark's Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xix, p. 125.

(2) In this verse "life" occurs twice in the English, but psuche only once in the Greek.

Bits and Pieces

A Letter From Grandma

Got a letter from Grandma the other day. She writes: The other day I went up to a local Christian bookstore and saw a "honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker. I was feeling particularly sassy that day because I had just come from a thrilling choir performance, followed by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought the sticker and put it on my bumper. I was stopped at a red light at a busy intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord and how good He is and I didn't notice that the light had changed. It is a good thing someone else loves Jesus because if he hadn't honked, I'd never have noticed! I found that LOTS of people love Jesus! Why, while I was sitting there, the guy behind started honking like crazy, and then he leaned out of his window and screamed, "For the love of GOD! GO! GO! Jesus Christ, GO!"

What an exuberant cheerleader he was for Jesus! Everyone started honking! I just leaned out of my window and started waving and smiling at all these loving people. I even honked my horn a few times to share in the love! There must have been a man from Florida back there because I heard him yelling something about a "sunny beach." I saw another guy waving in a funny way with only his middle finger stuck up in the air. Then I asked my teenage grandson in the back seat what that meant, he said that it was probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something. Well, I've never met anyone from Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave him the good luck sign back. My grandson burst out laughing...why, even he was enjoying this religious experience!

A couple of the people were so caught up in the joy of the moment that they got out of their cars and started walking towards me. I bet they wanted to pray or ask what church I attended, but this is when I noticed the light had changed. So, I waved to all my sisters and brothers grinning, and drove on through the intersection. I noticed I was the only car that got through the intersection before the light changed again and I felt kind of sad that I had to leave them after all the love we had shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian good luck sign one last time as I drove away. Praise the Lord for such wonderful folks! Love, Grandma

Organized Imagery

"A society [*a fiction of law] consists not only of individual persons [*fictions]; it consists of organizations [*fictions]. Individuals [*fictions] are grouped into many 'Leviathans' both large and small: states, churches, business, families, trade unions, universities, and so on [*all fictions of law]. We have already defined an organization as a structure of roles tied together by lines of communication. The existence of such a structure depends on the presence of a 'public image' among those who participate in its roles. This does not mean, of course, that every individual participating in any organization must have an identical image of the organization itself. The image of a great corporation which is possessed by the president of the company is different from the image of the same corporation possessed by the janitor. Indeed, it is usually essential to the operation of an organization that there should not be the same image of the organization in the minds of the various participants. It is the image of the role which is significant, not the image of the whole organization. But the images of the roles must be consistent with the over-all image of the organization itself.

On the vital matter of intellectual freedom, the image of the academic world is split and divided. We do not know from whence comes our peace, or our prosperity. The universe of discourse is crumbling into a multiverse, and in one's more depressed moments one looks forward to a time when the progress of science [*a molten image] will grind to a standstill in a morass of mutual incomprehensibility [*confusion]. Out of our intellectual pride, we may be building a new Tower of Babel." Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (1956), pp. 56-57.

An Hour Late and a Dollar Short

Slouching Towards Tyranny, an article sent to us by our Brother Bruce William, contains a revealing statement quoted by its author, Chris Floyd:

"The chief justice, William Rehnquist, whose Supreme Court stands as the last defense against the dictatorship of the executive branch, has already signaled his approval of military rule, quoting the old Roman maxim:

'In time of war, the laws are silent.'

So if the wars never cease raging, the laws will no longer speak. Or rather, they will speak only to ratify the will of the authoritarian regime."

(Editor's Note: Chris?? "Honest" Abe already beat George W. to the punch.)

His Children

For the true servants of Jesus the Christ, learning is finding out what you already know. Doing is demonstrating that you know it. Teaching is reminding others that they know just as well as you. His obedient servants are all:

learners,

doers,

and teachers.

The Natural Man

"This theme has long been involved in the debate over natural theology, which has sought to define how much knowledge of God (if any) is available to man outside Christ. But as a distinct theological term 'natural man' is used by Paul in I Cor. 2:14, where 'natural' is a translation of psychikos and stands in contrast to 'spiritual' (pneumatikos, I Cor. 2:13, 15; 3:1) and thus in parallel with 'fleshly' (sakinos, I Cor. 3:1). The meaning of 'natural man' here is illuminated by I Cor. 15:44-47, where the whole phrase does not appear, but psychikos is used a further three times, again in contrast to pneumatikos, and with reference to the contrast between Adam and Christ as 'living being' (psyche) and 'life-giving spirit' (pneuma) respectively (I Cor. 15:45).

To summarize, the meaning of 'natural man' indicates man in the 'lower' aspects of his being, i.e., in those aspects which mark him off as creature, as temporally and spatially confined, as limited to this-worldly, 'fleshly' modes of perception that cannot penetrate the world of the Spirit. It means much more than 'fallen,' for it is applied by implication to Adam at the moment of his creation, before the fall (I Cor. 15:45). But the fall is involved, for that had precisely the effect of shackling man irretrievably to those creaturely limitations which for Adam could have been opportunities for discovery and growth but became in fact a sentence of banishment. The contrasting 'spiritual man' is not therefore one delivered from all creaturely limitations, but one in whom the indwelling Spirit is beginning to open the doors of perception which Adam slammed shut." S. Motyer, Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary

(Isaiah 33:22) For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(Formerly known as The Christian Jural Society News)

Hyperlinked Table of Contents

Avoidance

The Lawful Path - http://lawfulpath.com