Thomas Jefferson:
Friend or Foe of Christian America?
Part One
The following is from a book written in 1833 by Theodore Dwight, secretary of The Hartford
Convention, titled "History of The Hartford Convention: with a review of the policy of The United Sates
Government, which led to The War of 1812."
The acknowledged head of the Anti-federal party was Thomas Jefferson. At the time when the
convention which formed the constitution was in session, and until its adoption by nine of the states, Mr.
Jefferson was absent from the country in France, where he had resided as the ambassador of the United
States for a number of years. As his character and conduct will be found to be intimately connected with
the subject of this work, it will be necessary to devote some time to an examination of his political career,
from the time of his return from Europe, until the expiration of his administration of the national
government.
This gentleman came into public life at an early age; and after having been once initiated in political
pursuits, he devoted to them a large portion of the residue of his days. His mind was of a visionary and
speculative cast; he was somewhat enthusiastic in his notions of government, ambitious in his disposition,
and fanciful in his opinions of the nature and principles of government. By a long course of watchful
discipline, he had obtained a strict command over his temper, which enabled him to wear a smooth and
plausible exterior to persons of all descriptions with whom he was called to mingle or associate. Having
been chairman of the committee of the congress of 1776, by whom the Declaration of Independence was
drawn up, that fact gave him a degree of celebrity, which the mere style of composition in that celebrated
document would not, under other circumstances, have secured to its author. At the same time, he had the
reputation of being a scholar as well as a statesman; and more deference was paid to him, in both respects,
than the true state of the case called for, or in strictness would warrant. His knowledge of men, however,
was profound; he understood the art of gaining and retaining popular favour beyond any other politician
either of ancient or modern times. Whilst he was apparently familiar with those who were about him, he
was capable of deep dissimulation; and though he had at his command a multitude of devoted agents, he
was generally his own adviser and counsellor. If, by any untoward circumstance, he found himself in the
power of any individual to such an extent as to endanger his standing in the community, he took care to
secure that individual to his interests, by an obligation so strong as to be relieved of all serious
apprehensions of a future exposure. In addition to all this other characteristics, during his long residence
in France, he had become thoroughtly imbued with the principles of the infidel philosophy (the French
Enlightenment Movement) which prevailed in that kingdom, and extensively over the continent of
Europe, previously to and during the French revolution. This fact, in connection with the belief that his
views of government were of a wild and visionary character, destroyed the confidence of a large portion of
his most intelligent countrymen in him as a politician, as well as a moralist and a Christian.
Mr. Jefferson was in Paris when the constitution was published. He early declared himself not pleased
with the system of government which it contained. On the 13th of November, 1787, in a letter to John
Adams, he said - "How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all
my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives
will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their president seems a bad
edition of a Polish king. He may be elected from four years to four years, for life. Reason and experience
prove to us, that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an office for life. When one or two generations
shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes, on every succession, worthy of intrigue, of
bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England,
to have America governed by a Gallonzan or an Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military
force of the Union, without the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the
people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that, at the end of the four years, they
had made him forever ineligible a second time. Indeed, I think all the good of this new constitution might
have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabric, which
should have been preserved even as a religious relique."
In a letter of the same date to Colonel Smith, he says "I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr.
Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave, through you, to place
them where due. It will yet be three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good
articles in it, and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of
Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a chief eligible for a long
duration, if I had ever been disposed toward one: and what we have always read of the election of Polish
kings, should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of
impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat, and
model into every form, lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the
English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist, except in the single
instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honorably conducted? I
say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always well informed. The part which
is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the facts they misconceive. If they remain in quiet under
such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty. We have had thirteen states
independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and
a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what
country can preserve its liberties, its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify
them. What signfy a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
In a letter to William Carmichael, dated December 11th, 1787, he says- "Our new constitution is
powerfully attacked in the American newspapers. The objections are, that its effect would be to form the
thirteen states into one; that proposing to melt all down into a general government, they have fenced the
people by no declaration of rights; they have not renounced the power of keeping a standing army; they
have not secured the liberty of the press; they have reserved the power of abolishing trials by jury in civil
cases; they have proposed that the laws of the federal legislatures shall be paramount to the laws and
constitutions of the states; they have abandoned rotation in office; and particularly their president may be
re-elected from four years to four years, for life, so as to render him a king for life, like a king of Poland;
and they have not given him either the check or aid of a council. To these they add calculations of
expense, &C &C to frighten the people. You will perceive that those objections are serious, and some of
them not without foundation."
The subject is alluded to subsequently in a variety of letters to different correspondents, in the course of
which he confines his objections principally to the omission of a bill or declaration of rights, and the re-eligibility of the president.
Enough has been quoted to show that Mr. Jefferson was not friendly to the constitution; and some of his
sentiments were of a nature to shake the confidence of its friends in the soundness of his general political
principles. Of this description were his remarks on the Massachusetts insurrection. So far from
considering rebellion against government an evil, he viewed it as a benefit - as a necessary ingredient in
the republican character, and highly useful in its tendency to warn rulers, from time to time, that the
people possessed the spirit of resistance. And particularly would the public feelings be shocked at the
cold-blooded indifference with which he inquires, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?" and
the additional remark, that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." This language would better become a Turkish Sultan, or the
chief of a Tartar horde, than a distinguished republican, who had been born and educated in a Christian
country, and enjoyed all the advantages to be derived from civilization, literature, and science.
"In September, 1789, Mr. Jefferson left Paris, on his return to the United States. On the 15th of
December, of that year, he wrote the following letter to General Washington:
Chesterfteld, December 15, 1789.
"TO THE PRESIDENT.
"SIR, - I have received at this place the honor of your letters of October the 13th, and November the
30th, and am truly flattered by your nomination of me to the very dignified office of Secretary of State, for
which permit me here to return you my humble thanks. Could any circumutance seduce me to overlook
the disproportion between its duties and my talents, it would be the encouragement of your choice. But
when I contemplate the extent of that office, embracing as it does the principal mass of domestic
administration, together with the foreign, I cannot be insensible of my inequality to it; and I should enter
on it with gloomy forebodings from the criticisms and censures of a public, just, indeed, in their
intentions, but sometimes misinformed and misled, and always too respectable to be neglected. I cannot
but foresee the possibility that this may end disagreeably for me, who having no motive to public service
but the public satisfaction, would certainly retire the moment that satisfaction should appear to languish.
On the other hand, I feel a degree of familiarity with the duties of my present office, as far at least as I am
capable of understanding its duties. The ground I have already passed over, enables me to see my way
into that which is before me. The change of government too, taking place in the country where it is
exercised, seems to open a possibility of procuring from the new rulers some new advantages in
commerce, which may be agreeable to our countrymen. So that, as far as my fears, my hopes, or my
inclinations might enter into this question, I confess they would not lead me to prefer a change.
"But it is not for an individual to choose his post. You are to marshal us as may best be for the public
good; and it is only in the case of its being indifferent to you, that I would avail myself of the option you
have so kindly offered in your letter. If you think it better to transfer me to another post, my inclination
must be no obstacle; nor shall it be, if there is any desire to suppress the office I now hold, or to reduce its
grade. In either of these cases, be so good as to signify to me by another line your ultimate wish, and I
shall conform to it cordially. If it should be to remain at New-York, my chief comfort will be to work
under your eye, my only shelter the authority of your name, and the wisdom of measures to be dictated by
you and implicitly executed by me. Whatever you may be pleased to decide, I do not see that the matters
which have called me hither will permit me to shorten the stay I originally asked; that is to say, to set out
on my journey northward till the month of March. As early as possible in that month, I shall have the
honor of paying my respects to you in New-York. In the mean time, I have that of tendering to you the
homage of those sentiments of respectful attachment with which I am, Sir, Your most obedient, and most
humble servant,"
TH. JEFFERSON.
This letter will show with what feelings of esteem and respect for General Washington Mr. Jefferson
professedly accepted the appointment of Secretary of State. It may hereafter appear with what degree of
Sincerity these professions were made; and it is important to the object of this work, that it should be
borne in mind by the reader, because one end which the writer has in view in preparing it is, to enable the
community to form a more just estimate of his principles and character. By adverting to that part of Mr.
Jefferson's writings, published since his death, which bears the singular and awkward title of "Ana," it
appears by his own declarations, that immediately upon entering upon the duties of his office, he became
an opposer of some of the principal measures of the government. He says - "I returned from that mission
(to France in the first year of the new government, having landed in Virginia in December, 1789, and
proceeded to New-York in March, 1790, to enter on the office of Secretary of State. Here, certainly, I
found a state of things which, of all I had ever contemplated, I the least expected. I had left France in the
first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights, and zeal for reformation. My conscientious
devotion to those rights could not be heightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise.
The president received me cordially, and my colleagues, and the circle of principal citizens, apparently
with welcome."
(continued in Issue the Tenth).
News from Home
Reprinted from The Kanzas News (Emporia, Kanzas) published during the years 1850-1870
For Christ's Sake
Saturday April 17, 1858
An exchange paper says: "The chaplain of the Iowa house of Representatives, at the opening of the
morning session, the other day, prayed very graphically and to the point as follows: 'Great God! Bless the
young and growing State of Iowa, her Senators and Representatives, her Governor and State officers--give
us a sound currency, pure water, and undefiled religion, for Christ's sake; Amen.'"
That's So!
Saturday May 8, 1858
Why is an editor like the book of Revelation?
Because he is full of 'types, and shadows,' and a mighty voice, -like the sound of many waters, is ever
saying to him, "Write."
Hazlitt says: "Most people do not think; they only think they think."
About Collecting Taxes
Saturday, June 6, 1857
On the 1st instant, Deputy Marshal Fam visited Lawrence for the purpose of assessing taxes, according to
enactment of the Bogus Legislature.- The citizens held a meeting, and after spirited addresses by Judge
Conway and others, adopted a series of resolutions, among which were the following:
Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting no good citizen will, in any manner, furnish "aid and
comfort" to the Assessor or Collector of Taxes, or render to him a list of the valuation of his property.
Resolved, That, recognizing the principal established by the blood of Our fathers, that "representation and
taxation are inseparable," we will not violate that principal by the voluntary payment of any taxes levied
by the present Territorial Legislature.
I Don't Like the Name
Saturday, June 20, 1857
A man named Aaron Bedbug, Montgomery county, Kentucky, is about to petition the Legislature to
change his name. He says that his sweetheart, Olivia, is unwilling that he should be called A. Bedbug,
she, 0. Bedbug, and the little ones, Little Bedbugs.
Court Reporter?
August 1, 1857
John Smith was tried over in Shawnee county last week, for stealing a hog worth one dollar and a
half. After the testimony and presentation of evidence, the jury retired to an adjoining grove of trees to
make up the verdict. It weren't long before they returned with a verdict of "guilty of hog stealin' in the
fust degree." The Judge told them the verdict was proper, except that they had omitted to assess the value
of the property, and that there was no 'degree' to hog stealing, to retire again and bring in a verdict in
proper "form." Again they retired with pen, ink, and paper, rather nonplussed with regard to "form." They
pondered long and deep over what he meant by form. At last, old Turner, who'd been justice of the peace
over in Oklahoma, wrote the verdict and returned to the court-house. The jury filed in and old Jim handed
the verdict to the clerk with anxious pomposity, and sat down. The clerk read the following verdict: "We
the jury, find the defendant guilty in the sum of one dollar and a half - in favor of the hog."
-------------------------
Letters from Home: Mom says: "Mrs. Nonsogood regards every calamity that happens to her as a major
trial, and every calamity that happens to someone else - a judgment.
-------------------------
Mom also sent along her famous soap recipe: Collect all the political papers you can lay your hand on to
make it with. "They are a dang sight better than ashes - and they're almost as good as clear lie!
Saturday, November 7, 1857
A story is going the rounds of the papers to the effect that Mr. Daniel S. Morrison was recently lost in
an immense cornfield in Hot Springs county, Arkansas, and wandered about for three days trying to find
his way out. He was found on the 4th day by his negroes, who went out to search for him!
He must have been a slow walker or an idiot. If the field was fifty miles square, he could have walked
straight out if necessary. It's a good thing that the negroes knew more than the master. -- Woman's
Advocate.
He was evidently "corn-ed."
Saturday, December 5, 1857
A worthy clergyman in the city of New York, following the practice of his ministerial brethren, recently
preached a very earnest discourse on the hard times, enforcing the duty of retrenchment and economy.
Immediately after church, the congregation took him at his word, by holding a meeting, at which his
salary was cut down from $1000 to $600.
Saturday, September 12, 1857
To the wicked, the virtues of other men are always objects of terror.
Saturday, July 3, 1858
We hear of a piquant correspondence that has just passed between two clergymen in a city where a
considerable awakening has taken place. In substance, the correpondence ran as follows:
BAPTIST TO METHODIST CLERGYMAN. ---- Dear Brother: I shall baptize some converts to-morrow; if any of your converts prefer to be baptized in our mode, I shall be happy to baptize them as candidates for your church.
METHODIST TO BAPTIST CLERGYMAN. ---- Dear Brother: Yours received. I prefer to wash my
own sheep. - - Springfield Rep.
Saturday, June 26, 1858
There is a man in one of the Western States who has moved so often, that whenever a covered wagon
comes near his house, his chickens all march up, fall on their backs, and cross their legs, ready to be tied
and carried to their next stopping place.
Saturday, June 12, 1858
The fellow who was content that his life should be linked with crime, has found a strong chain round his
leg, and a pair of handcuffs upon his wrists.
Saturday, August 27, 1859
A member of the Mississippi Legislature, at one of its late sessions, introduced a bill to change the name
of a certain county in that State, to Cass County. One of the opposition moved, as an amendment, that the
letter C. be stricken out of the proposed name. This motion created some laughter at the expense of the
member offering. Nothing daunted, however, he arose in reply and said, "Mr. Speaker, this is the first
instance that has come to my knowledge in which a member has had the assurance upon the floor of any
legislature, to propose to name a county after himself."
Saturday, September 17, 1859
A minister, noted for combining the somewhat incongruous professions of preacher and money lender,
was proferring a prayer, in which was the following petition: "Grant that we may have an interest in
heaven."
"Don't do it," exclaimed one of the congregation, "don't do it. The old sinner gets five per cent a month
now, and that's enough, the Lord knows."
Saturday, August 22, 1857
Why is a restless sleeper like a lawyer?
Because he lies on one side; and then turns over and lies on the other side.
501(c)3 Churches: Godly, or Godless?
by The King's Men
The most important issue facing America's Christian churches in this last decade of the 20th Century,
is - from whence does the church derive its authority to exist.
To most Christians, the answer is obvious; the Christian church derives its right to exist from the
authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and Scripture.
But, it is one thing to believe this, and quite another to act like it. The church may preach this doctrine,
but in fact, it acts as if its right to exist is derived from the state. They say one thing and yet, practice
another, and this is true of the vast majority of Christian churches in America today.
And, while many examples of this can be pointed to within the history of the church in the last
century, the most glaring example of it, and the clearest evidence of it, is the fact that the vast majority of
Christian churches, special groups, foundations, private schools, etc., all exist as 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt, charity corporations.
Indeed, every minister that graduates from a seminary, if he sets out to build a new church, does, as his
very first act, raise money to form such a corporation. In other words, the first thing the Christian does
when forming a church, foundation, ministry, etc., is to hire an attorney-at-law, to get the churches house,
'legally,' in order.
Of course, there is no authority or Law in Scripture commanding Christian churches to do this. One
wonders how the first churches at Ephesus, Jerusalem, and Rome ever got organized -- without a Roman
Advocate (attorney) going before Caesar to get his permission for a church to exist in Rome.
Indeed, one principle reason why the church was in such trouble in Rome and elsewhere is, they
refused to bow to Caesar and seek his permission to preach the Gospel.
In fact, the church met right under Caesar's nose -- in Catacomb's, in spite of him.
At any rate, the other service the attorney provides is usually, to formulate the by-laws of the new
corporation.
The process costs from 600 to 2,000 dollars. Of course, the more "spiritual" an attorney is, the less he
charges.
Of course, no church is completely organized unless it has an accountant. Again, the accountants
spirituality may be measured by a discount on his services to a church if he just happens to be a 'member.'
This same accountant, if he handles the tax returns of the church (Note: the church may be tax exempt,
but this does not mean it files no tax returns) must be a Certified Public Accountant, which means he is a
specialist in I.R.S. matters.
All these high-powered attorneys, accountants, and C.P.A.'s, cost money, and the larger the church is
the more it costs for their professional services.
It's not unusual for pros to cost a medium to large church 10, 20, or 50,000 dollars a year - when the
real cost of their services and charges are totaled. Moving up to a denominational level, one may find a
law firm on the payroll -- under an annual retaining fee .
The bottom line is, it's all a great waste of God's property. Regardless of the source we go to, the truth
is, there is no law, code, or regulation -- anywhere -- at the federal, state, county, or city level, that
requires Christian churches, et al, to form 501(c)3 corporations.
Surely law requires a church to at least register with a government as a tax exempt organization, or
Christian charity? Here again, the answer is a resounding -- no!
If pressed, some attorneys admit it. Then add a whole list of reasons why one should incorporate, and
they will be joined by accountants and C.P.A.'s, because all stand to benefit therefrom.
This may sound like a harsh judgment on attorneys, etc., but has anyone ever seen an attorney, etc.,
stand up in a congregation, or inform the church by letter, or other means, that they will not join a church
that incorporates???
And, before we cease the criticism of attorneys, etc., there is one more point that needs to be made,
because, in the broader sense, it is the most important point of all.
-First, all attorneys are bound by the rules of courts in which they practice. All C.P.A.'s are licensed
and regulated by the state and federal governments.
-Second, attorneys may draw up the papers to form the church as a 501(c)3 corporation, and write its
by-laws, the law of all corporate operations are controlled by state and federal governments, and the I.R.S.
Thus, all legal and accounting matters are controlled by governments and the I.R.S. from beginning to
end and in all operations between.
Even architects who design church buildings, along with surveyors, engineers, contractors, etc., are
licensed and controlled by city, county, and state governments!
Thus, the 501(c)3 corporation is a creature of the state and is controlled by the government and its
agents.
The evidence for this is found in every law dictionary published in the last two hundred years. Thus, in
Bouvier's (1914) we find that a corporation is:
"A body, consisting of one or more natural persons, established by law, usually for some specific
purpose, and continued by a succession of members.
"An artificial being created by law and composed of individuals who subsist as a body politic under a
special denomination with the capacity of perpetual succession and of acting within the scope of its
charter as a natural person. Fletsam vs. Hay, 133 Ill. 293. By fiction it is partly a person and partly a
citizen, yet it has not the inalienable rights of a natural person; Northern Securities Co. vs. United States,
193 U.S. 200, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679.
"A corporation aggregate is a collection of individuals united in one body by such a grant of privileges
as secures succession of members without changing the identity of the body and constitutes the members
for the time being one artificial person or legal being capable of transacting the corporate business like a
natural person. Bronson, J., People v. Assessors of Village of Watertown, 1 Hill (N.Y.) 620."
But, the privilege of being a corporation is not enough, the 501(c)3 corporation also has a "tax exempt"
status.
Note, the word 'exempt.' The hidden idea behind it is, all property of is potentially seizable or taxable,
but certain property or entities, i.e., churches, are exempt.
But, since the law of the corporation as well as the corporation itself, is a creature of the state, then
such corporations can have their status changed over night by an Executive Order of the President, a new
I.R.S. regulation, or an act of Congress. Suddenly, the church is no longer exempt anymore.
Note also, corporations are "fictions," "persons," and "natural persons," all of which are without
substance in law whose liberties and civil rights are controlled by the state. They are mere figments of the
mind of men.
But, it was not always so, as we shall see.
Thus, Bouvier's says:
"The corporation in England was the joint result of certain groups in ecclesiastical life and certain other
groups active in temporal affairs. For centuries the development of each was wholly independent of the
other. The boroughs first began to secure from the king franchises to hold their own courts, to their own
customs and freedom from toll... The franchises took the form of a grant from the king and were made to
the burgesses. No legal person was created, but the burgesses died and their privileges were continued to
their successors. When individual inhabitants of the borough offended the king by their acts, he took away
the franchise of the borough as a punishment, which punishment fell on the community..."
"The same idea developed in ecclesiastical life, for wholly different reasons, religious groups were
formed. The basic doctrines of the Christian church require co-operation and also continuity of thought
and effort. Monasteries, convents, and chapters were the result. It became evident that this indefinite
something produced by the association of several should be given a name and its status established. There
was much blind groping after the nature of this indefinite something. For a time the idea naturally
suggested by the analogy of the human body was applied to these groups. The chief officer, members were
the arms, legs, etc. This was called the anthropomorphic theory and for a long time obscured the true
corporate idea."
Note carefully the Apostle Pauls' words in his extended argument in his Letter to the Corinthians ( I
Cor. 12:12-25 ) where he says:
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not
one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were
hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it
hath pleased Him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many
members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the
head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be
more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon
these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our
comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor
to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have
the same care one for another."
Elsewhere in Scripture, we find extended argument on the law of the churches and the state. The object
is, to create a working entity in both church and state, which fulfills a Godly purpose and is organized
according to the Law of Scripture in such a way that no one single man or small group of men within
each, can control and compel the performance of another in violation of conscience and God's Law.
Pound continues with:
"Finally, however, the oneness of these groups was given a definite recognition,
not as a real, but as an ideal or legal person. The conception of an ideal person having legal rights and
duties was borrowed directly from the early English theory as to church ownership. In very early times,
several centuries at least before the reign of Edward I., there were in England what were vaguely known
as church lands. At first the land was given direct to God. Sometimes it was given to a particular saint.
who was supposed to guard and protect it. Little by little, the saint and the buildings became merged in
each other and the church itself was thought to be the property owner. The functions of ownership were
necessarily performed by human beings - by the clergy - and the theory was naturally extended to cases
where there was only one cleric. Thus was introduced the corporation sole, characterized as 'that unhappy
freak of English law'. In ecclesiastical affairs, the corporation aggregate was almost resolved into a mere
collection of corporations sole."
The real model of the corporation sole came from a theological understanding of how one should act in
a particular capacity within the church and state. Christian doctrine formed the essential core of meaning
in the corporation sole.
Some time later, the doctrine of the corporation sole would be confused and used by king's and other
powerful or power-seeking men.
"It was not until about the middle of the 15th century that it was settled as a matter of positive law that
the corporation must be created by the sovereign power, which rule arose simply from considerations of
political expediency. Recognizing that boroughs, organized communities and gilds might become
dangerous, the king made them a source of revenue by selling the privilege to exist. In 1440 the first
municipal charter was granted. The mayor, burgesses and their successors, mayors and burgesses of the
town of Kingston-upon-Hull, were incorporated so as to form "one perpetual corporate commonalty."
Note that the corporation is here gradually being co-opted by the kings, to serve the own ends, i.e., tax
revenues.
"What we call a corporation was first called un corps or a body, whence our 'body politic,' or 'body
corporate'; or, un gros, something that had existence in itself, apart from its constituents. Thus there was
gradually evolved the idea of an abstract artificial individuality, composed of members for the time being,
to be succeeded by others after them, but continuing after their death. This became the persona ficta of a
later time.... "There was no intention on either part to form a corporation, indeed neither knew what a
corporation was; for the name did not exist, but the thing itself was being gradually evolved."
Thus, before 1500, corporations religious or otherwise, were quasi-corporations defined by Anderson
as:
"... a body which exercises certain functions of a corporate character, but which has not been created a
corporation by any statute, general or specific."
There are two points to note here.
-First, the 'certain functions' exercised by the quasi-corporation consisted primarily of existing in
perpetuity and the succession of powers in offices, usually created by the corporate members themselves.
-Second, and very important, such corporations acted without receiving any benefit, privilege, or
opportunity from the king or civil government at any level.
The non-religious quasi-corporations existed by virtue of the customs and usages of the times.
But, religious quasi-corporations existed by the command of God in Scripture which pre-dates the legal
memory of man (1189 A.D.), and thus, they existed as a right given by God.
The one significant difference between these two types of quasi-corporations was, the non-religious type
could sue and be sued, but the Christian quasi-corporation could not.
The reason why church they could not sue or be sued is, there was no court in which the sovereign
could be brought to trial. How does one sue God, or bring Him into court?
Because modern church corporations are created by governments and granted certain benefits (tax
exempt), privileges (the leadership is immune to prosecution personally), and opportunities (the right to
engage in commercial activities that are otherwise illegal), has made all 501(c)3 churches vulnerable to
suit by anyone, for any reason, at any time, as recent history has shown.
The quasi-corporate idea, however, was co-opted by the kings as it applied to local boroughs and other
bodies politic, for revenue purposes, but there was no attempt by English kings or American government
that existed before the Constitution, to co-opt the Christian quasi-corporations until 1813, which we will
get to later.
An interesting perspective on church government and a major void in the understanding of modern
Christians, is the approach to the legal existence of the church, held by the Puritans.
This theological concept is most likely derived from the Apostle Paul's argument above. It not only
shaped the law governing the church, but the entire American system of jurisprudence. In sum, it acted
on both church and state.
"A fundamental proposition from which the Puritan proceeded was the doctrine of a willing covenant of
conscious faith made by the individual. Thus he put individual conscience and individuals in the first
place. No authority might rightfully coerce them; but everyone must assume and abide the consequences
of the choice he made. Applied to church polity, it led to a regime of consociation but not
subordination. 'We are not over one another,' said Robinson [Pastor of the Pilgrims in Holland], 'but
with one another.' Hence even church organization was a species of contract and a legal theory, a
legalism, attached even to religion. If men were to be free to act according to their consciences and to
contract with others for consociation in congregations, it was a necessary consequence that the state, as a
political congregation, was a matter of contract also; and liberty of contract was a further necessary
deduction. The early history of New England furnishes abundant applications of the idea that covenant or
compact with the consent of every individual to the formation and to the continuance of the community
was the basis of all communities, political as well as religious. The precedent of the covenant which made
Abraham and the children of Israel the people of God, furnished the religious basis for the doctrine. But it
was applied to civil as well as to ecclesiastical organization."
Thus we see the extension of the Puritan theological ideas to both church and state.
One plus in forming 501(c)3 corporations is that of leaving very little for the congregation to think
about in terms of internal church polity, i.e., church government. Thus, in most modern 501(c)3 church
corporations, congregations have little interest in the doctrines of the Biblical form of church worship.
The congregation doesn't want to be bothered with such matters. If they did, they might discover that
501(c)3 corporations are not a Biblical way for a church to operate. They might even discover that a
pastor of the church or (God forbid) elders and deacons are not maintaining their proper sphere of
authority.
And if, by some miracle, a congregation became intensely interested in a Biblical form of worship, to
implement the reforms, they would have to abandon 501(c)3 standing, because what the state demands
and what God demands are two entirely different things, especially when the state is a military
government and the states are all under martial rule, a consequence of the loss of theological basis of Law in America.
At any rate, a consequence of the idea of individual self-responsibility and legal consequences for our
acts was contradictory of "the feudal conception of referring to some relation. Contracts and voluntary
culpable conduct appeared to be the solving ideas for all problems and the law was to be apportioned
between the contractual and the delictual [crime or tort]. Another consequence was to make a moral
question of everything, and yet in such a way as to make it a legal question. For moral principles are of
individual and relative application. In applying them we must take account of circumstances and of
individuals. Hence if every question was treated as a moral question and controversies involving moral
questions were to be dealt with as concrete cases to be individualized in their solution, subordination of
those whose cases were decided to those who had the power of weighing the circumstances of the actual
case and individualizing the principle to meet the case, might result. The idea of consociation demanded
that a fixed, absolute, universal rule, by which the individual had contracted to abide, be resorted to;
and thus the moral and the legal principle were to be applied in the same way, and that the legal way."
As Pound concludes his dissertation, he says:
"... the conception of a maximum of abstract individual
self-assertion exempt from social control, to which his {Mr. Justice [David Dudley] Field,} vigorous and
learned opinions gave currency, is essentially the Puritan conception of consociation. We are to be with
one another but not over one another. The whole is to have no right of control over the individual beyond
the minimum necessary to keep the peace. Everything else is to be left to the free contract of a free man."
Note: "Free Man" is not "freeman."
Square that with the tyranny of modern 501(c)3 church pastors, their high salaries, privileges, cars,
television production facilities, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The point is, the early Puritan view of personal responsibility for ones acts led to a relationship between
members of a congregation that resulted in a consociation, not a corporation created by the fiat declaration
of any civil government.
Thus, early churches in America were created by the congregation through a covenant between the
members that sought to express the members idea of what the proper form of church worship and polity
was, according to Scripture. From this developed the civil governments based on the theology embraced in
the covenants.
Such congregations had -- as individuals -- to think for themselves and take responsibility before God
for the kind of covenant they entered into, one with another -- and they never even considered the
possibility that they should have to go to the state or federal government, to get permission to exist, or to
get a license for their pastors and teachers to fulfill their God-given mandates in the church.
Do modern Christian ever ask themselves whether or not a church can have two heads, Christ and the
state.
The Scripture answer loud and clear; "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)
This is especially telling when we realize that he modern military government and martial rule is
imposed on us to protect commerce. Remember, Mars and Mercury, the gods of war and commerce
respectively, always run together.
What we do not realize is, that the real law that governs the churches today, is the lex mercatoria, i.e.,
commercial law.
We now come to the year 1813 and the Presidency of James Madison.
In this year, for the first time since the adoption of the Constitution, Congress sent up a bill for Mr.
Madison's signature, that would have established a church corporation -- as a creature of the Federal
government -- in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Madison vetoed the bill immediately. His reasons were basically that:
a. The Christian church does not need the approval of any government in order to establish itself.
b. The incorporation of the church by any government constitutes a license that would give the federal
government control of the church.
Thereafter, there was no major push to incorporate the churches until after Lincoln's War Against All
States.
As the King's Men have tried to show for the last three years, the turning point for Law and liberty in
America came with Lincoln's War, wherein, the Christian communities and the Constitution for the
united States of America were done away with and martial law through a military government has been
put in its place.
The law which once governed this nation with its powerful Puritan and Christian basis has been done
away with and the old Roman law has been substituted with its emphasis on commerce. Thus, the above
reference to Mars, the god of war, and Mercury, the god of traders and thieves.
What the Christian community has utterly failed to realize is the nature and extent of the
transformation that has taken place in law since Lincoln's War. The issues that the history books belabor
so much is not the real outcome of what has happened, because the war was as much religious as anything
else in the sense that it replaced Christian theology as the underpinnings of Our law with that of the old
Roman , or pagan system of law. And when two systems of law compete for the same allegiance each
claims for itself, a political question is present.
Thus, we find that as early as the 11th century, in the works of St. Anselm (1033-1109) a doctrine of
the atonement that was to have a major impact on the history of western law.
"Anselm's theory of the atonement, although never officially adopted by the church, became the
predominant view in the West, not only from the twelfth to the fifteenth century but also (with
modifications) in later times, and not only in Roman Catholic but also (with modifications) in Protestant
thought. Moreover, it was this theory that first gave Western theology its distinctive character and its
distinctive connection with Western jurisprudence." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 176 -177.
With the connection established between theology and law, the door was opened for the complete
reform of law itself. With Henry of Bracton, known as the father of the common law, and others, the
customs and usages of the English Christians and Anglo-Saxons was merged, in a sense, with Christian
Canons, and the result was, the Christian common law of England and America.
In part, there was also an idea in Anselm's thought that helped later, to separate theology from law as
it was before Anselm. But, this trend did not become obvious until the twentieth century.
This twentieth century development is a historical consequence of the Western belief, of which St.
Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation. Anselm
had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once reason was separated from faith for
analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is
capable of functioning by itself, and ultimately this came to mean functioning without any fundamental
religious beliefs whatever.
Thus, between Anselm in the 11th century, and the Renaissance in 17th century, reason triumphed over
faith, and it was this factor that motivated The Great Reformation thinkers, who sought to restore all
things to a Biblical foundation, including the realm of law.
The law became almost totally theological in its underpinnings with the Puritans, as we have seen. This
system founded America and is the distinctive contribution of American Christians to Law until the early
1800's.
After the genocide of the Black Brigade in the Colonial War with England, in which the principle
intellectual power behind the War and the Constitution, was murdered by the British, a decline in the
purity and power of Christian thought began to be felt in all Christian circles. Within one generation,
cults began to form within American Christendom and a move began to 're-reform' law and make it more
consonent with reason, not theology.
Thus,
"... it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning
as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious
faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus not
only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their
spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon
them." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), pp. 197-198.
With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the
national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and
ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the
predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century
that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected.
The lack of traditional Christian values and morality in our legal institutions is predictable along with
the return to the old Roman system:
"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was
not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with
what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies. In the postclassical period, as
imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also
increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.
Perhaps now, we can see why the modern idea of 'justice' makes less and less sense. And, with the
enormous expansion of the Commerce Clause since Roosevelt, the logical consequence of the Roman law
restored by Lincoln and Co. during and after the War, is come home to us.
The commercial aspect is today, a literal fulfillment of what Berman means when he says that "as
imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also
increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions."
In the 1920's, however, with the growing power of the I.R.S., churches complained that the income tax
would deprive them of tithes. During this period and after the 501(c)3 non-profit, tax exempt corporation
was developed, to its present state to satisfy the demand -- within the churches -- for a king..
But, in the churches desire to convert their standing to 501(c)3 status, they, at the same time, polluted
their congregations because the wealthy, who had the money to contribute, now attended church and gave
handsomely, just to get a tax write-off. The influence of the wealthy began to be determinative of church
polity and policy. The quality of preaching in the pulpit, in other words, declined for sake of filthy lucre.
As Peter has said, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by
constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's
heritage, but being example to the flock."
With its new found money, the church expanded its so-called outreach which meant that they became
dependent on the wealthy to stay involved in the church and continue to contribute, so the outreach could
be sustained.
Today, we need only turn on the television to see the fruit of this rotten tree grown in the fields of
commerce. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt and thereafter, the growth in the number of
501(c)3 churches exploded, to the extent that, by 1980, almost every church in America was incorporated.
In some of the smaller denominations, such as the Holiness churches and a few others, the idea never
took root, and to this day such churches are not incorporated.
But, already by this time, another movement had begun in the Christian churches, that would expose to
a limited extent, just how much power the governments acquired over the churches that were
incorporated.
The precise date at which the movement began is not well known, but at least by the 1960's there was a
growing reaction in the Christian community, to the decline of the public school system. The lack of
traditional values in the public school curriculum, the growing violence and prevalence of drugs on public
school campuses, and a variety of other reasons, combined to spawn within the Christian community a
demand for their own school system, in their own churches. And, when the church would not, or could
not, provide a school, parents began to teach their children at home.
It became evident to many Christians in the Nebraska School case, after Pastor Siliven and many of his
parishoners were jailed, that perhaps there was something wrong with the way the church was organized.
In this case, the issue of separation of church and state was ignored from the outset, because the church
was organized under the 501(c)3 laws and regulations.
In this case, the State of Nebraska demanded that the Christian school set up in Pastor Siliven's church
be licensed in various ways, and they refused. Soon thereafter, the pastor and some members of the
congregation were arrested and the church padlocked.
When Pastor Siliven objected, and raised the issue of separation of church and state, he was informed
by the judge that in this case, there was no question of First Amendment Rights, because, as far as the
State of Nebraska was concerned, "the church was just another corporation."
In the aftermath of this case, which was one of the first to receive major media coverage, instead of
damping the growth of the private Christian school movement, the movement grew, almost exponentially.
Today, about 25% of all children in America are either educated in private Christian schools, or in a
home schools.
But, in the aftermath of the private Christian school movement, many pastors and congregations began
to realize that the 501(c)3 corporate standing of their church was not a good idea. Thus, began the
movement to dis-incorporate, or de-register among churches across America to the point that, nearly 10%
of all churches in America have now de-registered. This amounts to some 10 to 12,000 churches.
At the same time, these churches have begun to wake up to the real intent and motives of the present
military establishment known as the United States.
The possibilities inherent in a new reformation of America's Christian churches, are almost too
numerous to list.
One point needs to mentioned here. The power that the Christian church once had, is now atrophied,
because the church has been politicized, legalized, and compromised. The sheer power of the church as an
asylum state in law, which the church once had, can have enormous impact on where America goes in the
next century.
We've gone over the history of the church and its relationship to law and the 501(c)3 tax exempt
corporation. Next month, we will turn to an analysis of the current legal status of 501(c)3 churches, and
the arguments to justify their existence. Next month we will go over in detail the pros and cons of these
arguments.
Meantime, pray and ask your pastor a few questions. Do not get belligerent. Do not argue. Instead,
give them a copy of this article from The Christian Jural Society News.
Thomas Jefferson:
Friend or Foe of Christian America?
Part Two
(continued from Issue the Ninth)
The courtesies of dinner parties given me, as a stranger newly arrived among them, placed me at once
in their familiar society. But I cannot describe the wonder and mortification with which the table
conversations filled me. Politics were the chief topic, and a preference of a kingly over a republican
government, was evidently the favorite sentiment. An apostate I could not be, nor a hypocrite; and I found
myself, for the most part, the only advocate on the republican side of the question, unless among the
guests there chanced to be some members of that party from the legislative houses. Hamilton's financial
system had then passed. It had two objects: 1. As a puzzle, to exclude popular understanding and inquiry;
2. As a machine for the corruption of the legislature; for he avowed the opinion, that man could be
governed by one of two motives only, force, or interest; force, he observed, in this country, was out of the
question; and the interests, therefore, of the members, must be laid hold of to keep the legislature in
unison with the executive. And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not
without effect; that even in this, the birth of our government, some members were found sordid enough to
bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal, rather than public good.
Another measure of great importance, which Mr. Jefferson strongly disapproved, was the assumption of
the state debts. Nothing could be more just or more reasonable than this act of the general government.
The exertions of different states had necessarily been unequal, and in the same proportion their expenses
had been increased. But those expenses had all been incurred in the common cause; and that cause having
been successful, nothing could be more just than that the debts thus incurred should be borne by the
nation. Mr. Jefferson, however, stigmatizes the measure as corrupt. "The more debt," he says, "Hamilton
could rake up, the more plunder for his mercenaries." And he closes a long series of opprobrious remarks
upon the subject, and upon the manner in which, according to his opinion, it was carried, by saying - "
This added to the number of votaries to the Treasury, and made its chief the master of every vote in the
legislature, which might give to the government the direction suited to his political views.
The bank was another measure which did not meet with Mr. Jefferson's support.
After remarking on these various subjects, he says, "Nor was this an opposition to General Washington.
He was true to the republican charge confided to him, and has solemnly and repeatedly protested to me, in
our conversations, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it; and he did this the oftener,
and with the more earnestness, because he knew my suspicions of Hamilton's designs against it, and
wished to quiet them. For he was not aware of the drift, or of the effect of Hamilton's schemes. Unversed
in financial projects, and calculations, and budgets, his approbation of them was bottomed on his
confidence in the man.
But Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he then
gives an account of a conversation which he says took place at a meeting of the Vice-president and the
heads of departments, in the course of which the British constitution was alluded to; and in regard to
which he says - "Mr. Adams observed, 'Purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular
branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of
man.' Hamilton paused, and observed, 'Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of
representation, and it would become an impracticable government; as it stands at present, with all its
supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed.
The Funding System was one of the great measures that distinguished General Washington's
administration. It was devised by Hamilton, and has ever been considered as reflecting the highest credit
upon his talents and patriotism. No man labored with more zeal or ability to procure the adoption of the
constitution than this great statesman. The Federalist, of which he was one of the principal writers, and
contributed the largest share, has long been considered as a standard work on the constitution, and is now
resorted to as an authority of the highest respectability and character, respecting the true principles and
construction of that instrument. The system of revenue adopted under General Washington, was also the
work of this distinguished financier; and so nearly perfect was it found to be in practice, amidst all the
changes and violence of party, and under the administration of those individuals who were originally
opposed to its adoption, that they severally found it necessary, when placed at the head of the government,
to pursue the system which he had devised. Even Mr. Jefferson himself, during the eight years that he
held the office of chief magistrate, never ventured to adopt a new system of finance, but adhered, in all its
essential particulars, to that devised by Hamilton. And yet, from the moment he came into the executive
department of the government, and was associated with Hamilton and others in establishing the principles
of the constitution, it appears, by his own evidence, that lie was endeavoring to destroy the reputation and
influence of that great statesman, by secret slanders, and insidious suggestions against his political
integrity and orthodoxy. The article from which the foregoing citations are taken, was not written at the
moment - it was not the record of events as they occurred from day to day: it bears date in 1818-nearly
thirty years after most of those events took place, and fourteen years after General Hamilton had been
consigned to the tomb. A more extraordinary instance of vindictive, personal, or political hostility,
probably cannot be mentioned.
This work, however, has not been undertaken with the view of vindicating the character of General
Hamilton from the aspersions of Mr. Jefferson. That duty devolves on others; and it is a gratification to
know that the task is in a fair way to be performed by those, who, it is presumed, will see that it is done
faithfully. Mr. Jefferson's "Writings" have been referred to for the purpose of showing his original dislike
of the constitution, his opposition to the most important measures of the government at its first
organization, and his inveterate hostility to the most able, upright and disinterested expounders of the
constitution. Among these was Alexander Hamilton. The mode of attack upon this distinguished
individual, and equally distinguished public benefactor, was no less insidious than it was unjust and
calumnious. It was to represent him not only as unfriendly to the constitution, in the formation and
adoption of which he was one of the intelligent, active, and influential agents, but as a monarchist-an
enemy to republicanism itself. In the quotations which have already been made from his "Ana," he says
General Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." And he
professes to repeat declarations of a similar kind, made openly by General Hamilton at a dinner party,
when Mr. Jefferson himself was present. Assertions of this kind, unsupported by any other evidence than
his own declarations, are not worthy of credit. General Hamilton was too well acquainted with Mr.
Jefferson's feeling toward him, and of his disposition to undermine and destroy him, thus voluntarily and
unnecessarily to place himself in his power. In some instances, in the course of his "Ana," other names are
introduced as corroborating witnesses in support of some of the charges against General Hamilton. It is
difficult to disprove posthumous testimony by positive evidence, especially when the parties, as well as the
witnesses, are in their graves; but several of the individuals, named by Mr. Jefferson as the persons from
whom he derived a knowledge of the conversations and declarations of General Hamilton, will add no
strength to the evidence; they are not worthy of belief in a case of this kind.
That General Hamilton was an enemy to the very nature of the government, in the formation of which
he had assisted so zealously and so faithly, in procuring the adoption of which he had labored with as
much talent, and with as much effect, as any other man in the United States, and in developing and
establishing the great principles of which, his exertions were inferior to those of no other individual, will
not at this late period be credited.
That Mr. Jefferson wished, by secret measures, and a train of artful and insidious means, to destroy his
great rival, no person acquainted with his history, conduct, and character, can doubt. It comported with
his policy to lay the charge of monarchical feelings and sentiments against him, because his object was to
avail himself of the prejudices of the people against Great Britain, which the war of independence had
excited, and which time had not allayed, to raise himself to popularity and power. When the French
revolution had advanced far enough to enlist the feelings of a portion of our countrymen in their favour,
on the ground that the nation was endeavoring to throw off a despotism, and establish a republican
government, another portion of them considered the principles they avowed, and the course they pursued,
as dangerous to the very existence of civilized society. Mr. Jefferson declares in his "Ana," as above
quoted, that he "had left France in the first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights and zeal
for reformation." His devotion to those rights, he says, " could not be heightened, but it had been aroused
and excited by daily exercise. Accordingly he became, at a very early period, the leader of the party in this
country, who, in the utmost warmth of feeling, espoused the cause of revolutionary France. To render
himself the more conspicuous, he found it expedient to stigmatize those who entertained different
sentiments from himself, as the enemies of republicanism, and of course, as the friends of monarchy. The
meaning of this charge was, that they were the friends of Great Britain and the British government. Hence
proceeded the charges of a monarchical propensity in Mr. Adams and General Hamilton, specimens of
which have been already adduced. But it was soon found necessary to go greater lengths than this. To
pave the way for a gradual attempt to undermine the popularity of General Washington, and to shake the
public confidence in his patriotism and integrity, a similar effort was made to involve him in a similar
accusation The plan adopted to accomplish this object, was to represent him as having a bias toward
Great Britain, and against France. If Mr. Jefferson, who had espoused the side of revolutionary France,
could succeed in making the country believe that General Washington had taken sides with Great Britain
against France, in the great controversy that was then convulsing Europe, it would follow almost as a
necessary consequence, that he would be considered as the enemy of freedom, and the friend of
monarchical government. In his correspondence, published since his death, there is the following letter:
To P. MAZZET.
Monticello, April 24, 1796.
DEAR FRIEND; The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that
noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly through the war, an
Anglican monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the
substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government. The main body of our citizens,
however, remain true to their republican principles: the whole landed interest is republican, and so is a
great mass of talents. Against us are the EXECUTIVE, the judiciary, two out of three branches of the
legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the
calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants, and Americans trading on British
capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of
corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British
model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies,
men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by
the harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting
labors and perils. But we shall preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great,
as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake, and snap the
Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our
labors."
When this letter first appeared in the United States, it was in the following form:
"Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead of that noble love of liberty,
and that republican government which carried us through the dangers of the war, an anglo-monarchic-aristocratic party has arisen. Their avowed object is, to impose on us the substance, as they have already
given us the form, of the British government. Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens remain
faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents. We have against us (republicans) the executive
power, the judiciary, (two of the three branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all
who are seeking for offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of
liberty, the British merchants, and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons
interested in the bank, and public funds. [Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to
assimilate us to the British model in its worst parts.] I should give you a fever, if I should name the
apostates who have embraced these heresies, men who were Solomons in council, and Samsons in combat,
but whose hair has been cut off by the whore England.
"They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall
preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt
against us by force. It is sufficient that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which
they have bound us, in the first slumbers which have succeeded our labors. It suffices that we arrest the
progress of that system of ingratitude and injustice toward France, from which they would alienate us, to
bring us under British influence."
It may easily be imagined, that the appearance of this extraordinary article in the United States, was
calculated to disturb the feelings of Mr. Jefferson. Such an attack as it contained on the character of
General Washington, as well as upon his coadjutors, could not pass unnoticed; and it obviously placed the
writer of it in a perplexing and inextricable dilemma. Accordingly, in a letter addressed to Mr. Madison,
dated August 3d, 1797, he thus unbosomed himself:
"The variety of other topics the day I was with you, kept out of sight the letter to Mazzei imputed to me
in the papers, the general substance of which is mine, though the diction has been considerably altered
and varied in the course of its translations from French into Italian, from Italian into French, and from
French into English. I first met with it at Bladensburg, and for a moment conceived I must take the field
of the public papers. I could not disavow it wholly, because the greatest part was mine in substance,
though not in form. I could not avow it as it stood, because the form was not mine, and, in one place, the
substance was very materially falsified. This, then, would render explanations necessary; nay, it would
render proofs of the whole necessary, and draw me at length into a publication of all (even the secret)
transactions of the administration, while I was of it; and embroil me personally with every member of the
executive and the judiciary, and with others still. I soon decided in my own mind to be entirely silent. I
consulted with several friends at Philadelphia, who, every one of them, were clearly against my avowing
or disavowing, and some of them conjured me most earnestly to let nothing provoke me to it. I corrected,
in conversation with them, a substantial misrepresentation in the copy published. The original has a
sentiment like this, (for I have it not before me,) They are endeavoring to submit us to the substance, as
they already have to the forms of the British government; meaning by forms, the birthdays, levees,
processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. But the copy published says, 'as they have
already submitted us to the form of the British,' &c.; making me express hostility to the form of our
government, that is to say, to the constitution itself; for this is really the difference of the word form, used
in singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English language. Now it would be impossible for me to
explain this publicly, without bringing on a personal difference between General Washington and myself;
which nothing before the publication of this letter has ever done. It would embroil me also with all those
with whom his character is still popular, that is to say, with nine-tenths of the United States; and what
good would be obtained by avowing the letter with the necessary examinations? Very little, indeed, in my
opinion, to counterbalance a good deal of harm. From my silence in this instance, it cannot be inferred
that I am afraid to own the general sentiments of the letter. If I am subject to either imputation, it is to
avowing such sentiments too frankly both in private and public, often when there is no necessity for it,
merely because I disdain every thing like duplicity. Still, however, I am open to conviction. Think for me
on the occasion, and advise me what to do, and confer with Colonel Monroe on the subject."
This letter, take which version of it we may, discloses the secret of Mr. Jefferson's policy. It was to
represent the federal party as monarchists, and aristocrats, enemies to republicanism, and therefore
devoted to the interests of Great Britain, and hostile to those of France. No man ever understood more
perfectly the effect of names upon the minds of partisans, than this great champion of modern
republicanism; and hence he informs his friend Mazzei, that the Federalists were a body of Monarchic-Aristocrats, and himself and his friends were Republicans.
Nobody will be surprised to find, that the publication of his letter in the newspapers of the United
States, gave Mr. Jefferson uneasiness. The man who had the hardihood to accuse General Washington
with being an aristocrat and a monarchist, and particularly, with being devoted to British influence and
interests, must have possessed a degree of mental courage not often found in the human constitution. And
it is perfectly apparent that this was the circumstance which so greatly embarrassed him, when
determining the important question whether it would be most for his own advantage to come before the
public, and endeavour to explain away the obvious meaning of his letter, or to observe a strict, and more
prudent silence and leave the world to form their own conclusions. He finalIy resolved on the latter,
making his explanations only to his confidential friends, and leaving them in such a form, that they might
pass, with his other posthumous works, to future generations.
A little attention to the subject will show, that he adopted the most prudent course. Mr. Jefferson's
attempt to give a different meaning to his own language, is entirely unsatisfactory. In the letter, as first
published in the newspapers, it is said - "Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us."
In the version of it in his posthumous works, it is - "The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed
since you left us." Not having the original, either in Italian or French, it is not practicable at this time to
say which is most correct. But there is a material difference between the expressions "Our political
condition," and "the aspect of our politics." The first has an immediate and obvious reference to the
situation of the country at large, as connected with the general government, and the character of that
government; the other relates merely to the measures of the government. The first, if in any degree to be
deplored, must be considered as permanent; the last, as referring to mere legislative acts, which in their
nature were transitory. The next sentence shows, conclusively, that it was the character of the government,
and not merely its measures, that were alluded to. "Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that
republican government, which carried us through the dangers of the war, an Anglo-Monarchic-Aristocratic party has arisen." The "republican government which carried us through the dangers of the
war," was the "old confederation," as it is usually called. The change that had taken place was in the
system of government - in the substitution of something else in the place of the confederation. By turning
back to Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Adams, dated November 13th, 1787, we shall find him using the
following language - "How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger
all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed." He then enumerates several
objections, and says" I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four
new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabric, which should have been preserved even as
a religions relique." It is obvious, therefore, that his affections were placed on the "good, old"
confederation; and when he complains of the prodigious alteration that had taken place in our political
condition since Mr. Mazzei had left us, he must have had reference to the new constitution.
This is further manifest from the language which immediately follows. He declares in the letter as first
published, that the "avowed object of the party to which he has alluded, is, to impose on us the substance,
as they have already given us the form of the British government." In the letter as published in his works,
he blends the two sentences together, and after mentioning the Anglo party, varies the passage above
quoted, by saying - "whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the
forms, of the British government." The British government consists of three estates - a hereditary
monarchy, a hereditary House of Peers, and an elective House of Commons or in other words, of King,
Lords, and Commons. Our government consists of a President, Senate, and... (continued in Issue the
Eleventh).
The Dreaded Scott Decision
by The Staff of the Christian Jural Society News
Note: This article is designed to complement and supplement the article by John Joseph in last month's
News, entitled "Sanford v. The Justices of Maine."
Recently, a Reader in Northern California gave us some very interesting cites from a book called:
"Looking for America: The People's History." By Stanley I. Kutler, Volume 1, to 1865. Published by
Canfield Press, San Francisco.
The cites are manumission papers filed in various Virginia courts, wherein, black people freed black
slaves they owned.
Wait a minute! One black man owns a black slave, and sets him free? Yes, that is precisely what the
sources say, which, of course, is contrary to the modern view of history. Further, there are several such
manumission papers cited in the work - from a black slave-owners to their black slaves.
There is even a case where a black woman manumits her black slave. Imagine that, a woman owning
property - in those days - and the property happens to be a man, no less. This is certainly contrary to
modern experts view of history.
But, the bombshell is, the cites are writs found in the court records of Virginia. What??? In a Southern
state??? You heard right, in Virgina.
One manumission paper reads as follows:
"John Updike to Reuben Rhenalds.
Know all men by these presents that I John Updike (a free man of color) of the town of
Petersburg in the State of Virginia have manumitted, emancipated, and set free, and do by these
presents manumit, emancipate, and set free a certain Negro man named Rheuben Rhenalds, lately
purchased by me from Shadrach Brander, so that the said Rheuben Rhenalds shall be and remain
free from this time henceforth forever. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed
my seal and delivered to the said Rheuben Rhenalds this his deed of emancipation this 17th day of
November, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one."
John Updike
!!! That's pre-Civil War 1831 !!!
There are several key elements of this cite that are relevant to the infamous blasphemy of the Dred Scot
decision. First, note the slave owner is as a 'free man,' not freeman. The term 'free man,' is not the same
as freeman, or freedman, both of which mean a former slave or bondperson.
Second, note that the cite specifically says that the slave owner is not just a free man but, a 'free man of
color,' not negro, black, or African. Further, in other cites (pg. 303) involving 'free persons of color'
freeing their black slaves, such slave owners are also styled as 'people of color,' 'persons of color,' or a man
or woman 'of color.'
Thus, free black people, persons, men, or women, who owned property, that may include slaves, who
were free inhabitants, were denoted by the phrase 'of color.' Whether 'of color' applied to free inhabitants
who were yellow or red, is not yet confirmed in our research.
Third, note that the black slave was called a 'Negro slave.' The word 'Negro' was used in all these cites
when referring to the slave.
Clearly, in some state laws there was a distinct difference between the way black people were referred
to in the law, based upon whether they were free inhabitants, or slaves.
Is there another source wherein this same analysis holds, i.e., in court cases? Sure enough, in 44 Maine
505, we find a number of statements to support the notes we have made above.
The case came up after the infamous Dred Scott case. It was heard at the specific request of the Senate
of Maine, to determine if free colored persons of African descent had a right to vote in Maine as they had
been doing all along - before Dred Scott vs. Sanford.
The Maine case is key for a variety of reasons.
First, it details the fact that prior to the Constitution, while the states were still under the Articles of
Confederation, most state constitutions made no specific reference to a distinction between people of color
and everyone else, while some states did make such distinctions.
This was true in both the North and the South. Thus, a free inhabitant was a free inhabitant in every
sense of the word, without regard to their skin color. But, after the Constitution for the united States
became effective, several states made changes to their state constitutions that did make distinctions
between people of color and whites.
Such states were found both in the North and the South. Thus, in the orginal constitutions of New York
(1777), New Jersey (1776), and Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776) voting law was general and
liberal towards all. But, after the Constitution for the united States was passed, these same states amended
their constitutions with respect to people of color.
In New York (1821), New Jersey (1844), and Maryland (1801) and in other states, this was the case.
Maryland and North Carolina, however, in its amendments of 1801 and 1835 respectively, excluded non-whites from voting.
The reasons for these changes are not clear, except for the fact that many states were beginning to
worry that the Federal power may be over-stepping its boundaries in matters of state jurisdiction,
especially in the light of the growing abolitionist movements that were springing up. States that excluded
people of color may have done so as a reaction to these events.
But, Maine came into the union after the Constitution was adopted, in 1820, before which it was a part
of Massachusetts. In the debate over the Constitution of Maine, the color issue was raised and rejected.
In these debates, a Mr. Holmes summed up the position against provisions regarding color when he
said;
" ... I know of no difference between the rights of the negro and the white man; God Almighty has
made none - our declaration of rights has made none. That declares that 'all men' (without regard to
colors) 'are born equally free and independent.'"
At any rate, 44 Maine 505, in the majority opinion says:
"Free colored male persons, of African descent, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, having a
residence established in some town or plantation in this state three months next preceding any election,
and who are not paupers, aliens, nor persons under guardianship, are authorized under the provisions of
the constitution of this state, to be electors for governor, senators, and representatives."
This view of things was supported by five of the courts seven justices. Another justice, also in favor of
the elective rights of people of color also wrote an extended opinion in support of the majority opinion.
Only one justice in the Supreme Court of Maine wrote in defense of a contrary view, but, he was the
only justice who supported a denial of the elective right for people of color.
The point is, there was a distinct difference between free inhabitants who were black, and negro slaves,
and this distinction was clear in the Maine case and in other state constitutions.
Because of this distinction, people of color were viewed as citizens who could vote and hold all the
other rights of suffrage, etc..
Now, compare the Maine case with what was said in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wherein, we find Chief
Justice Taney saying the following in the case summary at the beginning of the decision.
"4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is
not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the
community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.'
Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not
being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a
court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit."
First, note that Taney uses the phrase 'free negro' when referring to black people, a term not used in any
of the state laws that we have seen on the elective rights of the states citizens.
Second, he says that such 'free negroes' are not a 'citizen,' again, in spite of clear evidence to the
contrary.
Third, Taney says that when the Constitution was adopted, 'they were not regarded in any of the States
as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or
citizens.'
It is clear from the evidence in the Maine case that they were regarded as members of the community
which constituted the State.
In other words, all three of Taney's statements in the above are patently false on the basis of clear
evidence to the contrary that he must have known about, because the evidence was seen in all the state's
constitutions that are mentioned in 44 Maine, 505.
Note also, that Taney blurs the distinction between free inhabitants 'of color' and the word 'negro' which
was applied almost exclusively to slaves.
Now, it has been the practice of the Supreme Court to take into account state laws, customs and usages,
from the inception of such Court. Yet, Taney makes no mention of the many states whose laws, customs,
and usages were contrary to his view of things.
There are many people today, who decry the Supreme Court's practice of legislating from the bench,
but, Taney's decision and reasoning here are clear evidence that such a practice has been going on far
longer than most people believe.
Next, there is the problem of the Court's ruling on 'political questions,' which the Court has sought to
distance itself from.
Thus, it is now, and has been the practice of the Supreme Court to steer clear of cases involving what
are deemed to be political questions. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court each time someone tries
to bring up the un-constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. They refuse to rule on such matters time and
again, because such a challenge is deemed by the Court to be a 'political question.'
Of course, the Supreme Court has also said that the 14th Amendment has been law too long to do away
with now, short of a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, the whole modern infra-structure of the
corporate federal, state, county, and city governments would collapse without the underpinnings of the
14th Amendment.
To put it bluntly, the entire humanistically based, military government that now is, would cease to have
any pretense of a right to exist, if the 14th Amendment was done away with.
But, as we have pointed out elsewhere, what the Supreme Court says, really doesn't matter, because it
has been a captive instrument of the Commander-in-Chief since the Merriman decision in 1863.
But, be that as it may, the Maine case is significant for at least one other reason. Because it gives
evidence that states in both the North and South would, when ever they sought to do so, contradict and
even defy the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Thus, the Maine case is evidence that there was not only discontent in the South with the government
in Washington, D.C., but in the North as well.
The Maine case was one more reason justifying A. Lincoln's usurpation of power in 1860-61. Without
the military arm of the federal government to call upon, it is evident that given a few more years, the
United States government would have ceased to exist as we now know it.
Only by wielding massive military power against the States in the bloodiest war this nation and its
people have ever been involved in, could the entity that was the Federal Government survive.
The Dred Scott decision, as specious and contrived as it is, was sufficient justification for everything the
abolitionists, Lincoln, and the Northern states wanted, to start the War Against All States, create a new
form of government, and suppress all resistance in the States.
We must ask ourselves why the Constitution was so inadequate to fulfil the purposes for which it was
designed?
The answer is, it was fully sufficient to do the job for which it was designed so long as - and only so
long as - the people of states were consistently and self-consciously Christian.
When Christian teaching began to die after the genocide of The Black Brigade, it was totally
inadequate to meet the exigencies of a growing nation and torrent of immigrants that flooded into the
land.
Only a full-orbed faith in Christ in which His Law is absolute in all areas of life, can any nation exist
without a military force to govern it.
The only alternatives are then, Christ or the gun.
There are many today who are calling for a new Constitutional convention, as if amending a piece of
'mere parchment' were the answer.
Assuming the military power that now resides in Washington , D.C., were to permit such a convention
to take place (and there is every reason to believe that they would not), what can possibly result from such
a convention except an even greater abomination, so long as the Christians in this land are so perverted in
their understanding and knowledge of the Scripture and the nature and purpose of civil government as
God has given it to us in His Word???
The whole point of the effort here at The Christian Jural Society News is not merely to inform, or
educate, but to promote and support in every possible way, the fostering of a reconstructed view of
Christian civil government.
This is why we promote and propagate information on Christian Jural Societies.
Without a full-orbed Christianity, in which the Law Word of Jesus Christ and the Scripture is applied -
without compromise - to every area of life - including civil government - then we will find Ourselves in
short order, in a new era of darkness and tyranny that is unprecedented in the world's history, and the
Dark Ages will be upon us, the Christians of the 21st Century.
Thomas Jefferson:
Friend or Foe of Christian America?
Part Three
(continued from Issue the Tenth)
...House of Representatives-all elective, though for different periods. One objection urged, on various
occasions, against the adoption of the constitution, was its resemblance, in the particulars just mentioned,
to the British government. Among others, Mr. Jefferson was pointedly opposed to the re-eligibility of the
executive. He compared it to the case of the king of Poland, and thought there ought to have been a
provition prohibiting the re-election of any individual to that office. The people of the states,
however,Concluded that their liberties would not be exposed to any imminent hazard, under a system
where all the officers, executive and legislative, were elective, and they took the constitution as it was.
And great as Mr. Jefferson's fears of danger to freedom were from this quarter, he eventually overcame
them so far as to suffer himself to bc placed in the office of chief magistrate twice, without any apparent
misgivings of mind or conscience. Now it is scarcely possible for any unbiased mind to believe, that lie
had not immediate reference to this part of our constitution, when he remarked, that the Anglo- Anarchic
- Aristocratic" party were endeavouring to impose upon the nation "the substance, as the~ had already
given it the form, of the British government." These three cardinal branches of the British government,
viz." Kings, Lords, and Commons," are all the form there is to that government. All the residue of what is
called by themselves their constitution, consists of unwritten and prescriptive usages, sometimes called
laws of parliament, which never were reduced to form, and certainly never were adopted in the form of a
constitution.
Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Mr. Madison, attempts to give a totally different meaning to this part of
his letter. He says, "The original has a sentiment like this, (for I have it riot before me,) They arc
endeavouring to submit us to the substance, as they already have to the forms, of the British government;
meaning by forms, the birth-days, levees, processions to parliament, inauguration pomposities, &c. For
this is really the meaning of the word form, used in the singular or plural, in that phrase, in the English
language." We do not believe that any person, well acquainted with the English language, ever made use
of such an awkward and senseless expression as that above cited - They are endeavouring to submit us to
the substance. As Mr. Jefferson always was considered a scholar, the internal evidence derived from this
singular phraseology is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that it was adopted here for the occasion.
But the application of the expression form, or even forms, of the British government, to the practise of
observing birth-days, holding levees, of moving in procession to parliament, or the pomposities of
inaugurations, is downright absurdity. These ceremonious customs are no part of the government, either
in Great Britain, or in the United States. They may be childish, they may be pompous, they may be servile
and adulatory, but they are not proceedings, either in form or substance, of the government. Nor has the
word form or forms any such legitimate meaning. This explanation was doubtless contrived for future use,
and not to be made public and it is not at all surprising that Mr. Jefferson found there were serious how
difficulties in the way of a public exposure of his meaning, if this was all the explanation he had to give.
The course he adopted, which was to observe a strict silence, was far more discreet. A more weak and
unsatisfactory attempt to evade a plain and obvious difficulty has rarely been made.
The next sentence in the letter as first published is, "Nevertheless, the principal body of our citizens
remain faithful to republican principles, as also the men of talents." In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works,
it stands thus "The main body of our citizens, ever, remain true to their republican principles; the whole
landed interest is republican, and so is a great mass of talents." Now it may be safely said, that no mistake
in translation can possibly account for the diversity that appears in these two sentences. Without noticing
the difference between the first and last members of the two sentences, the expression - "the whole landed
interest is republican" - is entirely wanting in the letter as first published. This must have been will- fully
suppressed in the first letter, if it was in the original circumstance that is not to be credited, because no
possible motive can be assigned for such an act. The inference then must be, that it was introduced into
the copy left for posthumous publication, to help the general appearance of mistranslation, and to counten-
ance and give plausibility to other alterations of more importance. The letter as first published, then
proceeds- " We have against us (republicans) the Executive Power, the Judiciary, (two of the three
branches of our government,) all the officers of government, all who are seeking for offices, all timid men,
who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty, the British merchants, and the
Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the Bank and Public
Funds, Establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its
corrupt parts.] In the letter in Mr. Jefferson's works, it stands thus- "Against us are the executive, the
judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all the officers of government, all who want to be
officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants,
and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a
contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as
well as the sound parts of the British model.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the article published in the form of a letter to Mazzei, in
Mr. Jefferson's works, from which the last extract is taken, is not a correct transcript of the original, but
was prepared to answer a specific purpose. No person will be persuaded that Mr. Jefferson ever called the
executive and the judiciary "two out of three branches of the legislature." The language of the letter first
published is correct- " two of the three branches of our government." Again he says, "speculators and
holders in the banks." There was but one national bank, and reference must be made to national banks
alone. The first letter has it correctly- the Bank. The fact that banks are mentioned in the last, is decisive
proof that the first is the most accurate translation.
There is an expression here which is so strikingly characteristic of the author, that it ought not to pass
unnoticed. Mr. Jefferson says, "We have against us republicans - all timid men who prefer the calm of
despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." In the second letter it is "the boisterous sea of liberty." It
will be borne in mind, the "timid men" here spoken of, were not inhabitants of France, or England, but of
these United States, then under the mild, and peaceable, and prosperous influence of the government
which they had so recently adopted, and the beneficial effects of which they were then realizing in a most
gratifying degree. That a man of his temperament should call such a state of things, under such a
government, the calm of despotism, is not a little extraordinary. But it will be recollected, that in a letter
quoted in the former part of this work, when speaking of the insurrection in Massachusetts, he said, "God
forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." "And what country can preserve its
liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms."- "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." After reading
these sentiments and expressions, no person can be surprised to find that Mr. Jefferson should prefer the
tumults, the distresses, and the bloodshed of insurrections, to the peace, the tranquillity, and the social
happiness, which are enjoyed under a mild, beneficent, ill-regulated, and well-administered government.
No man of sound mind, and virtuous principles, will envy him his choice.
But the most extraordinary expression in this letter is the declaration, that the republicans, that is, Mr.
Jefferson and his political partizans, were opposed by the executive and the judiciary. When this
allegation was made, and it is contained in both versions of the letter, the chief executive magistrate of the
United States was GEORGE WASHINGTON. George Washington led the armies of the United States
through the revolutionary war; and during the whole of that arduous and distressing conflict, discovered
military skill and talents of the highest order. Under all circumstances, and in all situations, he manifested
the most pure and devoted patriotism ; and after having seen his country victorious, and its independence
acknowledged, even by the adversary with whom be had so brig and so successfully contended, in a
manner that excited the surprise and the admiration not only of his own country, but of the civilized
world, he surrendered the power with which he had been clothed, and which he had so long exercised,
into the hands of those from whom he received it, and retired to private life amidst the applauses, and
loaded with the gratitude and benedictions of his fellow citizens. When it was found that the government
which had carried the nation through the war, was insufficient for the exigencies of peace, he again lent
his whole talents and influence to the formation and adoption of a new system, better calculated for the
wants, arid better suited to the promotion of the great interests of the union. As soon as that system was
adopted by the nation, he was called by the spontaneous, and unanimous voice of his countrymen, to the
office of chief magistrate; which call was renewed, with the same unanimity, on a second occasion; at the
end of which, after having addressed his fellow citizens in a train of the warmest affection, the purest
patriotism, and the most elevated political morality and eloquence, he declined being again a candidate for
office, and crowned with the highest honours which a free people could confer on their most respected and
revered citizen, bade a final adieu to all further active engagement in the public affairs of the government
and country. The life of this great man passed without a stain. The annals of nations contain no account of
a more unimpeachable character, either in military or civil life. And what adds much to the splendour of
his reputation, he was as highly distinguished as a statesman, as he had previously been as a soldier. In
both he was illustrious in the most exalted sense of the word; while in private life, lie was, in an
exemplary degree, amiable and virtuous, beloved by his most intimate friends, and respected and
venerated by an enlarged and highly respectable circle of neighbours arid acquaintance.
Such was the man who was stigmatized in this letter to a foreigner, residing in a distant quarter of the
globe, as a member of an "Anglo- monarchic-aristocratic party" in this country, whose "avowed object was
to impose on us the substance, as they had already given us the form, of the British government." General
Washington's republicanism is here expressly denied, notwithstanding he had risked more, suffered more,
and made greater exertions, to support and establish the republican character, principles, and government
of his country, than any other individual in it.
After having thus attempted to fix upon General Washington the reproach of being a monarchist, and
of enmity to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Jefferson proceeds to say of the monarchical party,
of which he obviously considered General Washington as the head.
They would wrest from us that liberty which we have obtained by so much labor and peril; but we shall
preserve it. Our mass of weight and riches are so powerful, that we have nothing to fear from any attempt
against us by force." In the letter, as published in his works, this passage stands thus : " In short, we are
likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall
preserve it; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force
will ever be attempted against us." In the first place, it may be again remarked, that no man, even of
ordinary understanding and capacity, Will ever believe that the difference of phraseology between these
two versions of this part of the letter, was caused by a mere mistake in the translation. The first implies a
full expectation that force might be used to destroy our liberties . It says, "They would wrest from us that
liberty," &C The second, that we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained," &c. without a
suggestion of any attempt to wrest it from us.
The letter, however, stales the manner in which our liberties are to be preserved. It says- "It is sufficient
that we guard ourselves, and that we break the Lilliputian ties by which they have bound us, in the first
slumbers which have succeeded our labours." In the letter in the published works, this sentence is thus
expressed- "We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling
us during the first step which succeeded our labors." This can be considered in no other light, than that of
referring to the Constitution of the United States. It has already appeared, by the language used in a
variety of instances in his letters that have been quoted, that Mr. Jefferson had strong objections to the
constitution, and that in his judgment, '' all that was good in it might have been included in three or four
aries," added to the old confederation. As it was, the government was too strong for his taste. The first
slumbers which succeeded the labours of the country in achieving its independence, must mean the period
between the peace of 1783, and the adoption of the constitution. This constitution was "the Lilliputian tie"
by which the nation had been bound, while in a fit of drowsiness; but which must be broken, to insure its
safety from bondage. This passage will assist the community in forming a just estimate of Mr. Jefferson's
regard for the constitution, and of the government which it provided, and over which he was destined at a
future day to preside. This constitution General Washington assisted in forming. He recommended it
strongly to the adoption of the country; and he devoted his great talents and influence for eight years to
the development of its principles, and the establishment of its operations; and was laboriously engaged in
these patriotic labours at the moment when Mr. Jefferson was thus secretly calumniating his character,
and impeaching his integrity; and at the same time declaring, that our liberties could only be preserved by
the destruction of the constitution.
But Mr. Jefferson had still another machine to make use of in accomplishing our deliverance from the
dangers with which our liberties were surrounded, and by which our freedom was threatened. "It suffices,"
says the letter first published, " that we arrest the progress of that system of ingratitude, and injustice
towards France, from which they would alienate us, to bring us under British influence," &c.
Here is to be found the great governing principle of Mr. Jefferson's political conduct. - It was
FRIENDSHIP FOR FRANCE and ENMITY TO GREAT BRITAIN. Those who did not adopt his
sentiments, and pursue his system of policy, were monarchists and aristocrats; and those who agreed with
him, and placed themselves under his direction and influence, were republicans.
It should he mentioned as one of the singular circumstances which attend this letter, that the sentence
last quoted from it is entirely omitted in that published in the posthumous works. It would seem very
strange that the person who translated Mr. Mazzci's letter, should not only have added this sentence, and
then finished with an as if there had been something still further, if as Mr. Jefferson would have it
understood by leaving a copy of it to be published after his death, no such sentence was in the original.
That this attack upon the reputation of General Washington, was the result of a political calculation,
and intended to answer the selfish and ambitious purposes of Mr. Jefferson, cannot for a moment be
doubted. It has been seen, that General Washington, at the first organization of the government, appointed
him Secretary of State. Mr. Jefferson's letters, on various occasions, are full of expressions of respect and
regard for General Washington. He left that office at the close of the year 1793, and retired to his
residence at Monticello, in Virginia . There he wrote, in 1818, the first article in that collection of "Ana,"
as it now stands in his book. This, it will be observed, was more than twenty years after the date of his
letter to Mazzei. In that, when speaking of General Hamilton's influence, arising from the Bank, and other
measures, and alluding to his monarchical principles, he says-" Here then was the real ground of the
opposition which was made to the course of his administration. Its object was to preserve the legislature
pure and independent of the executive, to restrain the administration to republican forms and principles,
and not permit the constitution to be construed into a monarchy, and to be warped in practice, into all the
principles and pollutions of their favorite English model. Nor was this an opposition to General
Washington. He was true to the republican charge confided to him; and has solemnly and repeatedly
protested to me, in our conversation, that he would lose the last drop of his blood in support of it."
In the month of February, 1791, the House of Representatives of the United States passed a resolution
calling on the Secretary of State [Mr. Jefferson] "to report to congress the nature and extent of the
privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the
measures which be should think proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and
navigation of the same." This report was not delivered until December, 1793; and on the last day of that
month Mr. Jefferson resigned his office. On the 4th of January following, the house resolved itself into a
committee of the whole on the report above alluded to, "when Mr. Madison laid on the table a series of
resolutions for the consideration of the members."
"These memorable resolutions," says Judge Marshall, in his Life of Washington, " almost completely
embraced the idea of the report. They imposed an additional duty on the manufactures, and on the tonnage
of vessels, of nations having no commercial treaty with the United States; while they reduced the duties
already imposed by law on the tonnage of vessels belonging to nations having such commercial treaty; and
they reciprocated the restrictions which were imposed on American navigation."
Mr. Pitkin, in his " Political and Civil History of the United States," when alluding to this subject,
says,"This report of Mr. Jefferson formed the basis of the celebrated commercial resolutions, as they were
called, submitted to the house by Mr. Madison early in January, 1794. The substance of the first of these
resolutions was, that the interest of the United States would be promoted by further restrictions and higher
duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations. The additional duties were
to be laid on certain articles manufactured by those European nations which had no commercial treaties
with the United States." The last of the resolutions declared, that provision ought to be made for
ascertaining the losses sustained by American citizens, from the operation of particular regulations of any
country contravening the law of nations; and that these losses be reimbursed, in the first instance, out of
the additional duties on the manufactures and vessels of the nations establishing such regulations.''
A long debate ensued on these resolutions, in the course of which, Mr. Fitzsimmons, a member from
Pennsylvania, moved that in their operations they should extend to all nations. The motion was met by
one from Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, the object of which was to exempt all nations from their operation
except Great Britain.
"In discussing these resolutions," says Mr. Pitkin, " a wide range was taken; their political as well as
commercial effects upon foreign nations, were brought into view. In the course of the debate it was soon
apparent, that their political bearing was considered as the most important, particularly on that nation to
which its operation was finally limited, by the motion of Mr. ~Nicholas."
Judge Marshall gives a more extended sketch of the debate. The advocates of the resolutions said, they
"conceived it impracticable to do justice to the interests of the United States without some allusion to
politics;" and after a long discussion of the character and effects of the resolutions, "It was denied that any
real advantage was derived from the extensive credit given by the merchants of Great Britain. On the
contrary the use made of British capital was pronounced a great political evil. It increased the
unfavourable balance of trade, discouraged domestic manufactures, and promoted luxury. But its greatest
mischief was, that it favored a system of British influence, which was dangerous to their political
security."
"It was said to be proper in deciding the question under debate, to take into view political, as well as
commercial considerations. Ill will and jealousy had at all times been the predominant features of the
conduct of England to the United States. That government had grossly violated the treaty of peace, had
declined a commercial...
(to be continued in Issue the Twelfth)
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
by Jonathan Edwards
This is one of the most famous Sermons ever preached by a Pastor in America. It has inspired
Christians and Condemned Humanists for over two centuries. If you are tired of modern preaching,
sample some of the best from the past.
Jonathan Edwards was one of the movers and shakers during The Great Awakening which sparked the
War for Christian Liberty (1776-83).
"Their foot shall slide in due time." Deuteronomy 32:35
In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God's
visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God's wonderful
works towards them, remained (as ver. 28.) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all
the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next
preceding the text. The expression I have chosen for my text, Their foot shall slide in due time, seems to
imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites
were exposed.
1. That they were always exposed to Destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is
always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being
represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in
slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction."
2. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in
slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall
the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18,
19. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they
brought into desolation as in a moment!"
3. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall OF THEMSELVES, without being thrown down
by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to
throw him down.
4. That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God's appointed time
is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, THEIR FOOT SHALL
SLIDE. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up
in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into
destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand
alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.
The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. "There is nothing that keeps
wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." By the MERE pleasure of God,
I mean his SOVEREIGN pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner
of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect
whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. The truth of this observation may
appear by the following considerations.
1. There is no want of POWER in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands
cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of
his hands. He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an
earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify
himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is
no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of
God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps
of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it
easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a
slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down
to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and
before whom the rocks are thrown down?
2. They DESERVE to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no
objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls
aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes
of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every
moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere
will, that holds it back.
3. They are already under a sentence of CONDEMNATION to hell. They do not only justly deserve to
be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness
that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that
they are bound over already to hell. John 3:18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." So that every
unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. "Ye are from
beneath:" And thither he is bound; it is the place that justice, and God's word, and the sentence of his
unchangeable law assign to him.
4. They are now the objects of that very same ANGER and wrath of God, that is expressed in the
torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in
whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now
tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry
with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation,
who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.
So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not
let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may
imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is
prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage
and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hash opened its mouth under
them.
5. The DEVIL stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall
permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The
scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 11:12. The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their
right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it,
but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they
would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth
wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.
6. There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish PRINCIPLES reigning, that would presently kindle
and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal
men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them,
and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful,
exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would
soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity
does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of
the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isaiah 57:20. For the present, God restrains their
wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt
thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all
before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it
without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of
the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked me live here, it is like fire
pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the
heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into fiery oven,
or a furnace of fire and brimstone.
7. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is
no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now
immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his
circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence,
that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The
unseen, unthought-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and
inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable
places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The
arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different
unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing
to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of
his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going
out of the world, are so in God's hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and
determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any
moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.
8. Natural men's prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them,
do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony.
There is this clear evidence that men's own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were
otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with
regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Ecclesiastes 2:16. "How
dieth the wise man? even as the fool."
9. All wicked men's pains and CONTRIVANCE which they use to escape hell, while they continue to
reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural
man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own
security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every
one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives
well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that
the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out
matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of
torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself
as not to fail. But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in
confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those
who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to
hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did
not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and
inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell,
ever to be the subjects of misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, "No, I never intended
to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself I
thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look
for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief, Death outwitted me: God's wrath was too quick
for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what
I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction came upon me."
10. God has laid himself under no OBLIGATION, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell
one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or
preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are
given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the
promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of
the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.
So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest
seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion,
whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a
moment from eternal destruction.
So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved
the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards
them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they
have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any
promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames
gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in
their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means
within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all
that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of
an incensed God.
APPLICATION
The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that
you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of
burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the
wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing
to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of
God that holds you up.
You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in
it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the
means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his
hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is
suspended in it.
Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and
pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and
plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best
contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of
hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God,
the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the
creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine
upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy
your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve
you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's
enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly
subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their
nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath
subjected it in hope. There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full
of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would
immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind;
otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be
like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.
The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more,
and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and
mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been
executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is
constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising,
and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the
waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw
his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and
wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent
power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater
than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.
The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at
your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God,
without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with
your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit
of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from
being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether inexperienced light and life, are in the hands of
an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious
affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is
nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting
destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be
fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so
with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while
they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and
safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over
the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you
as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his
sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is
in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is
nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing
else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you
closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell
since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given
why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by
your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given
as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.
O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless
pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and
incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with
the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and
you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the
flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce
God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly,
1. WHOSE wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it
were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very
much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects
wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Proverbs 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the
roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very
much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent,
or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and
when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the
great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth.
It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury.
All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both
their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible
than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4, 5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them
that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall
fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
2. It is the FIERCENESS of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in
Isaiah 59:18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isaiah
66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his
anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Revelation 19:15, we
read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If
it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful:
but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful
that must be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness
and wrath of ALMIGHTY God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty
power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were
enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then,
what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can
be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery
must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this! Consider this, you that are here present,
that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that
he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees
your torment to be so fastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and
sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear
the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor
will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest
you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall NOT SUFFER BEYOND WHAT
STRICT JUSTICE REQUIRES. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezekiel
8:18.
"Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they
cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a
day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of
mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost
and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to
suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to
destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far
from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Proverbs 1:25, 26,
etc.
How awful are those words, Isaiah 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in
mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I
will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater
manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to
God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or
favor, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot
bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under
his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his
garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost
contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the
streets.
3. The MISERY you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what
that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his
love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their
wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them.
Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his
wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the
burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the
utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his
wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Romans
9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much
longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has
determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he
will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a
witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor
sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God
call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isaiah
33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire.
Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in
Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," etc. Thus it will be with you that are in an
unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent
God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of
suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may
see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and
adore that great power and majesty. Isaiah 66:23, 24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon
to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.
And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for
their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all
flesh."
4. It is EVERLASTING wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God
one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery.
When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow
up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance,
any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages,
millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then
when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will
know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can
express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a
very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of
God's anger?" How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath
and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born
again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider
it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now
hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not
who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease,
and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not
the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but
one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be
to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all
the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how
many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now
present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder
if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should
be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall
keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come
swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are
not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved
hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you.
Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in
the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would
not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!
And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy
wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are
flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north
and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy
state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his
own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To
see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for
joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can
you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at
Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?
Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up
wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your
guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are
passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need
to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the
infinite God. And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you
now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ?
You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as
with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful
pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are
going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and
every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land
are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?
And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men
and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God's
word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favor to some, will doubtless be
a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a
day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up
to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts
of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now
in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the
apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you
will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the
pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now
undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the ax is in an extraordinary manner laid at the
root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the
fire.
Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of
Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of
Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be
consumed."
Pursuing Your Christian Calling
vs.
Engaging in Commercial Activity
by Randy Lee
The purpose of this article is to display the subtle differences between 'engaging in commercial activity'
and 'pursuing your Christian calling.' I hope and pray that the following will provide the basics for a
better grasp on this vital subject matter. To supplement this article, please read 'Commerce vs.
Unalienable Rights,' (Parts One and Two) from Issues the Fifth and Sixth. As always, the full answers will
be found in Scripture and The Word of God.
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is called,
therein abide with God."
I Cor. 7:23-24
"Nothing is more complex than commerce"; 6 Webster's Wks. 8.
'Modern commerce' being a non-christian form of activity, one must go all the way 'round the barn in
order to understand why it is so complex. Non-christian thought constantly modifies its position and with
each modification it must redefine the words and terms it uses, which introduces confusion in the minds
of everyone except those who create it, i.e., the secular lawyers.
Each time a modification takes place, the new 'creation' becomes more confused than previously. Thus,
abstraction from reality is an on-going process in non-christian thought.
The most important thing to understand, is that the term 'commercial activity' is a recently created term
governed by the Law Merchant (lex mercatoria). Using that law's customs and usages (commercial
instruments, a business license, profit and loss records, balance sheets, advertising, receipts, business
cards, insurance policies, social security number, driver's license, commercial speech, extended credit,
limited liability, free mail service, ownership, etc.) is what determines whether you are in 'their' activity or
not. The use of such modes and instruments makes you subject and regulatable under the Uniform
Commercial Code (a privately copy- righted 'law' by The American Law Institute).
A general definition of 'commercial activity' may be stated as:
'any form of express or implied economic
activity contrary to God's Law.'
In this definition, is included all forms of debt and suretyship to man, and benefits, privileges, and
opportunities, contrary to God's Law, acquired from secular 'civil' government.
As simple as the above definition is, it is still difficult to understand, because many modern Christians
do not know God's Laws concerning economic activity. To these 'moderns', obedience to God's Law is not
required because "you may sink into the nasty pit of 'legalism'."
For those of you who don't know, 'legalism' is the belief that one's works gain salvation. This was the
view of Jews in the first century.
But, Christians know, or should know, that we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, so the
'legalism' charge cannot apply to Christians. The charge is leveled against Us, by those who do not want
to obey God, and prefer to take the easy, broad way, by obeying the secular governments rather than God.
Category One
Buying, selling or trading
Buying, selling or trading is not necessarily 'commercial activity' or contrary to Scripture. How, for what
purpose and with whom that buying, selling or trading is transacted, determines whether it is considered a
'commercial activity' and contrary to The Law of God. Creating a record, such as the giving or receiving
of a receipt, profit and loss records, balance sheets, etc., constitutes commercial activity. Buying, selling or
trading with someone other than your neighbor (fellow-Christian) or outside of your community (outside
of Christendom), constitutes commercial activity and is not favored in Scripture. Calling yourself 'the
owner' (which is a commercial term) constitutes commercial activity, for God is 'The Owner' of every
thing (The earth is the LORDS and the fullness thereof). Charging or paying interest through extended
credit for such transactions constitutes commercial activity through 'suretyship' and is contrary to
Scripture ('Owe no man any thing, but to love one another'... Rom.13:8). Advertising to the 'general
public' (the secular world, i.e., non-christians, atheists, and other infidels), to sell a product or your labor,
constitutes commercial activity and is not favored by God.
"The power of Congress to regulate commerce confers no power to declare the status which any person
shall sustain within a State." Lemmon v. People (1857), 26 Barb. (N.Y.) 270.
It simply has to do with venue and jurisdiction... (are you living the Law in accordance with the One True
God of Scripture or the god Mercury, who is the god of commerce?).
"Mercury was not only the messenger of the gods, but was also appointed god of eloquence, commerce,
rain, wind, and the special patron of travelers, shepherds, cheats, and thieves." Myths of Greece and Rome (1893), p. 134.
As Christ said,
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15.
Therefore, 'love' is: living the Law of God.
As The Apostle Paul said,
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10.
When operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians ( your community and brethren) -
receipts, records, advertising, profiteering for abundant gain, the free government benefit of home mail
delivery, charging or paying interest etc., is not necessary and therefore should not be used if you wish to
remain non- commercial. All Christians should be operating by word of mouth within their community
and supporting one another (...for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Rom. 13:8).
It should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal, to remove him or herself from transacting any kind
of business with the secular world; only accept mail matter at General Delivery; and stay within
Christendom only. This will not be an easy thing to do, considering the current commercial world we find
ourselves surrounded by. This will not be done 'overnight' and it is suggested that one does not try to do it
overnight. It will take much sacrifice, but it will be Honored and Rewarded by God if there is repentance
taking place in these areas.
"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful
hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25.
Little steps can become giant ones in time. As an example of this, see Issue the Eleventh of The News,
'The Long Road Out of Commerce.'
"According to the multitude of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto
the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee.
According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness
of years thou shalt diminish the price of it: for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he
sell unto thee.
Ye shall not therefore oppress (take advantage) one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the
LORD your God." Leviticus 25:15-17.
Category Two
Employment and Your Christian Calling
Under commercial law, all employee-employ- er relationships are considered 'master-servant'
relationships. When one works for or is employed by an individual or company that gets its privilege to
operate from the State through business licenses, incorporation, etc., that person becomes, as the company
has become, subject to regulation, taxation, etc., through the master-servant doctrine (rendering unto
Caesar). Social Security Numbers, Driver's Licenses, Insurance Policies and all of the other indicators of
commercial activity are required and made a matter of record for commercial tracking purposes.
This 'master-servant' relationship only occurs when one is 'hired' on a 'day-to-day' basis. In contrast,
when one is payed daily, it is considered 'casual labor,' and is not subject to taxation and regulation. This
just 'happens' to be Biblical (see James 4:13-17, Mat. 6:34).
In reality, when you work for someone that pays you on a weekly or monthly basis or after the sun sets,
you are extending credit to that employer. For you expend your labor daily, but extend the payment for
that labor to a future date. This is clearly commercial activity (for the standard, see Mat. 6:11 and Luke
11:3).
Again, as with buying, selling and trading, it should be every Good and Lawful Christian's goal to work
for only those of like mind and heart that will 'give you this day, your daily bread (the 'bread' produced
from your labor, in contrast to God's Spiritual Bread) or 'an honest day's pay for an honest day's work,'
daily.
You should work for or with only another Good and Lawful Christian that doesn't look to the State for
his or her right to pursue their Christian Calling, whatever that form of 'business,' gift or talent might be.
It's a matter of finding and remaining with those of like mind that are educated in these matters and who
fear The LORD and not the State.
In this way, you will remain out of commercial activity and you will be trading your labor for your
sustainance according to Scripture.
Again,
"Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man wherein he is
called, therein abide with God." I Cor. 7:23-24
Pursuing Your Christian Calling is, therefore:
Working and operating within Christendom and with fellow-Christians for The Glory of God, wherein
all obey The Law of God.
The talents and gifts that God has given you can only be used to that end. This is love.
Category Three
Traveling vs. Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways
Traveling is a purely commercial term (see Issue the Ninth, "Myths of the Patriot Movement").
Therefore, for one to be involved in 'moving about on the military roads,' the term used, should be,
'exercising your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways.' As Scripture says;
"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillippians 4:13.
Only in this way, will you import 'your' Law into a potential situation with the 'military police.'
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by
love serve one another." Galatians 5:13.
In other words, that activity can not be of a commercial nature, but limited to only two purposes. For
going to church and market. To church for spiritual sustainance, which includes fellowship with fellow-Christians anywhere and other activity for the edification of the church (Christendom), and to market
(with Christians only) for physical sustainance.
Your King James Family Bible and your Baptismal Certificate should be carried with you at all times
when you venture out on the 'military roads.' If you are stopped and asked for your 'drivers license,' simply
hand them your Bible and say that you have something better than that, and repeat Phillipians 4:13. Use
your Baptismal Certicate if they want to know who you are, your age, etc. Point out to them that you are
not out there to hurt anyone or profit from anyone, and that you have a Higher Law you have to answer to.
"Each principal is entitled to the agent's undivided loyalty, for the law recognizes 'that no man can serve
two masters.' Mechem on Agency, 3d. ed., sec. 298. Rotwein, Law of Agency, page 40.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold
to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. See also Luke
16:13.
If you choose to 'travel' for 'financial profit' through sales calls, a delivery service, transporting
passengers or goods for a price, etc., then you will be under the jurisdiction of and regulated by the god of
commercial roads, Mercury.
"We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, that
no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God.
All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly if persons refuse to comply with any legal
establishment of religion.Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety is, that no
government is to be submitted to at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government--the
common good and safety of society." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon titled "Unlimited Submission,"
cited in Clinton Rossiter's, 'Seedtime of the Republic,' p. 241. [These parts of Mayhew's discourse
concern Romans 13:1.]
With the current situation of martial rule in America, expect be to treated as follows when engaged in
commercial activity:
"In the war with Mexico, declared by Congress to exist by the act of Mexico, (see 9 Statutes-at-Large,
page 9,) the Supreme Court have maintained, in two cases, that the President, without any act of
Congress, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, could exert the belligerent right of levying
contributions on the enemy to annoy and weaken him. In the case of Fleming et al. v. Page, 9 Howard
615, the present Chief Justice says, 'As Commander-in-Chief he is authorized to direct the movements of
the naval and military forces, placed by law, at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may
deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy;' again and page 616, 'The person who
acted in the character of collector [judge] in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military
commander, and in obedience to his orders, and the duties he exacted, and the regulations he adopted
were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as Commander-in-Chief. The Custom House [municipal court] was established in an enemy's country as one of the weapons of war. It
was established not for the purpose of giving the people of Tamaulipas the benefit of commerce with the
United States or with other countries, but a measure of hostility, and as a part of the military operations
in Mexico, it was a mode of exacting of contributions from the enemy to support our army, and intended
also to cripple the resources of Mexico, and make it feel the evils and the burdens of the war. The duties
required to be paid were regulated with this view, and were nothing more than contributions levied upon
the enemy which the usages of war justify when an army is operating in the enemy's country.' United
States et al. v. "Tropic Wind" (1861), 2 D.C. 374.
In contrast, God's Promise to Christians:
"And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to
come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing.
And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe
in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and
delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beast of the land devour them; but
they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid.
And I shall raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall no more be consumed with hunger in the
land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more." Ezekiel 34:26-29
Being Christians, we are sojourners with God. If you are walking with Mercurius,
God does not sojourn with you.
Land vs. Real Property
Part Two
by John Joseph
(continued from Issue the Eleventh)
"The principle of emphyteusis furnishes a connecting link between the Roman imperial system of land
tenure and the medieval system. It arose out of the custom whereby land taken in war [Lincoln, Lieber,
and Co. v.. All Christian states] was rented by the State on long leases. The rent paid in such cases was
called vectigal, and the land was called ager vectigalis. It was a form of leasehold property especially
advantageous to corporations of all kinds, as they were relieved from all duties and cares as landlords and
were assured of a fixed income.
When this form was employed by private persons and corporations, it was known as emphyteusis, the land as [*312] fundus emphyteuticarius, and the person to whom the land was given as emphyteuta. An emphyteusis was a grant of land or houses forever, or for a long period, on the condition that an annual sum (canon or pensio) [property tax] should be paid to the owner--dominus--or his successors, and that if such sum was not duly paid, the grant should be forfeited. According to the law
of the Emperor Zeno (475-491), emphyteusis was neither a sale nor a lease, but a special form of contract
[equity].
The rights of emphyteuta were, first of all, the right of use and enjoyment. But he was better off than a
mere usufructuary. He was rather the bona fide possessor of the property. The only restriction to his use of
the land was that he must not cause depreciation in value of the property. Furthermore, he could, subject
to certain restrictions, alienate property. It passed to his heirs [subject to inheritance taxes on the property
of the deceased]; it could be mortgaged or hypothecated; and it could be burdened with servitudes.
But these rights depended upon the fulfillment of certain duties. If the canon [property tax] was not paid for
three years (in the case of Church lands, for two years), or if the land tax remained unpaid for the same
period, the grant was forfeited. Here his position was different from that of the usufructuary, for the latter
paid no rent. The original rent of the land granted could not be increased by the owner, but on the other
hand it was not diminished by any partial loss of the property. The emphyteuta had to pay all the burdens
attached to the land, and deliver all tax receipts to the owner.
The method of alienating the property was as follows: 'The emphyteuta ought to transmit to the dominus formal notice of the sum that a purchaser is willing to give for it. The owner has two months to decide whether he will take the emphyteusis at that
sum; and if he wishes it, the transfer must be made to him. If he does not buy at the price named within
two months, the [*313] emphyteuta can sell to any fit and proper person without the consent of the
dominus. If such a person is found, the dominus must accept him as his emphyteuta, and admit him into
possession either personally, by written authority, or by attestation, before notaries or a magistrate [County
Recorder]. For this trouble, the dominus is entitled to charge a sum (laudenium) [closing costs] not
exceeding two per cent on the purchase money. If the owner does not make acknowledgment within two
months, then the emphyteuta can, without his consent, transfer his right and give him possession.
[Hunter, Roman Law, p. 429.]" Guy Carleton Lee, Historical Jurisprudence (1922), pp. 311-313. [Ed.
note: This excellent reference is available from Randy Lee. Call 818 347-7080 for information; or fax
requests to 818 313-8814.]
Remember, we all were warned:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecc 1:9. [Emphasis added.]
Note bona fide use meant you continued to pay your yearly use fees, now called "property taxes"
(vectigal), thus showing your good faith:
"VECTIGAL, -ALIS, n. [vect-is]. (A thing pertaining to carrying goods, etc., into a country; hence) I.
Prop.: A toll, tax, impost paid to the State: Cic. II. Meton.: Of private affairs: Revenue, rents, income, etc.:
Cic.; Hor.
"VECTIGAL-IS, E, adj. [vectigal] I. Prop.: A. Of, or belonging to, imposts or taxes; tribute: pecunia,
Cic.--B. Tributary, or paying tribute: civitas, Cic.--As Subst.: vectigalis, is m. (sc. homo) one paying
tribute, a tributary: Caes.; Liv. II. Meton.: Of or belonging to, the revenue; that brings in revenue or
income equi, Cic." White, A Complete Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary (1872), p. 633.
Thus, you could use and enjoy the property against all others, except the State--eminent domain
doctrine. But how could this be, "in the land of the free?" The answer is that an equitable, though not
feudal, relationship has been set up between you and the State.
"Lex fingit ubi subsistit aequitas --Law creates a fiction where equity exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2143;
"In fictione juris semper subsistit aequitas --In a legal fiction equity always exists." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914),
"Maxim," p. 2138.
Where? I can tell you it is not the purported Fourteenth Amendment. You will have to
go back a few years before the Fourteenth Amendment to find the answer. The thread or chain is there,
unbroken. It hinges on the acts of the lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, and Associates, Inc. to ascend
the throne of perfidy. Now to the coup de grace:
"84. Of Entry.
"The act, by which the owner of an estate in corporeal real property takes physical possession of the
same, is known as entry. If his estate is created by actual livery of seisin [not by mortgage under the
person acting as commander-in-chief], his reception of the seisin on the land, from the grantor [God],
constitutes his entry. If his estate is otherwise created, or if it descends to him from a deceased ancestor, or
if, once having had possession, he has been disseised, or if estates, whose possession takes precedence of
his own, have been determined, his entry consists of going on the land and [*47] claiming it as his,
according to the nature of his actual estate [by Inheritance from God through Jesus Christ]. Read 2 Bl.
Comm., p. 312; 3 Bl. Comm., pp. 174-179; 1 Cruise Dig., Tit. I, 24-28; 2 Cruise Dig., Tit. xiii, Ch. ii,
41-55; 1 Wash. R. P., B. I, Ch. ii, 66; 2 Wash. R. P. B. I, Ch. xiv, 15, 16; 3 Wash. R. P., B. iii,
Ch. ii, Sec. 7, 12." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), pp. 46-47. [Insertions added.]
"As time goes on a great variety of writs of entry is devised. At first the writ recounts all the hands
through which the land has passed since the original defect, although there were limits placed upon the
number of changes (whether alienations or descents) which could be alleged; finally, by statute
demandants were allowed to say that the tenant had no entry save after (post) a particular defective title;
dealings in the land subsequent to that event and leading down to the entry of the tenant no longer need
be specified in the writ [Statute of Marlborough, c. 29 (1267); Pollock and Maitland, ii. 71; Plucknett,
Statutes and their Interpretation, 80.]." Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law (1956), pp.
361-362.
What does it all mean? It means this: Whatever act(s) of usurpation Lincoln committed during his term
in office, affecting any land titles or property rights in land, which are carried forward through codes,
rules, and regulations can only give defective, but "marketable [commercial, lex mercatoria]" title, under
the cognizance of the State franchised governments, which are under the person acting as commander-in-chief. Generally speaking, if you used the means [remember title is the means or manner of acquisition] of
a Federal Reserve System sponsored bank mortgage, which is under the cognizance of that same person,
to "purchase" "your" "real estate," the title ab origine is defective and polluted--human beings, because
they know not God, needed the handout of that person, who is a thief walking with Mercurius and entered
by some other way, to get "property."
Now, notice another thing here. How did this person get the title in
the first place? Did God vacate His Throne? Can any one Lawfully convey what he does not Lawfully
possess? See how the god of the venue changes everything? He gave you a "commercial interest", i.e. "real
estate," but never gave you the right to have and hold the land under God! Only a government ordained by
God can do such. Thus, You never entered the land. What was it that Adam lost in Eden--Dominion, by
Inheritance from God? They cannot give true perfect title to land, because land was never theirs to give. It
is imperfect or defective but "commercially marketable title" which needs "title insurance" under the
Roman doctrine of emphyteusis, ante. Now do you get the story???
And the present equity, by deceit, exists as long as you do nothing to remove or destroy the evidence of
it:
"Where performance [payment of vectigal] depends on existence of a given thing [civil right,
consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement [to "own" property], performance is excused
to extent that thing ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent." Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert
(1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.
[Abatement any one?] For it is also written,
"Fictio legis neminem laedit --A fiction of law injures no
one." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2134.
"Longa patientia trahitur ad consensum --Long sufferance is construed as consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914),
"Maxim," p. 2144.
"Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit, non intelligitur damnum sentire --He who
suffers a damage by his own fault is not held to suffer damage." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914),
"Maxim," p. 2159.
In other words, as long as you do nothing about the presumption imposing equity and
the fiction of law, you are consenting to whatever burdens it places upon you, and cannot claim any
damage, including, but not limited to deceit or fraud.
"Negligentia semper habet infortuniam comitem --Negligence always has misfortune for a companion." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146.
See how honest Abe really was? I will leave you to find the rest of the evidence,
because the Course and Speed have been determined by God Himself. May He richly Bless You in this
righteous Endeavor to reclaiming Your Inheritance. I leave you with some thoughts from a relatively
unknown Good and Lawful Christian:
"If a Man invades my Property, he becomes an Aggressor, and puts himself into a State of War with me:
I have a Right to oppose this Invader; If I have not Strength to repel him, I must submit, but he acquires
no Right to my Estate which he has usurped. Whenever I recover Strength I may renew my Claim, and
attempt to regain my Possession; if I am never strong enough, my Son, or his Son, when able, may
recover the natural Right of his Ancestor which has been unjustly taken from him." Richard Bland, in the
Inquiry, 1775. See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196.
But how will today's de facto government, with its de facto courts, decide the political question? The de
facto courts have no standing in Law to make such adjudications, because:
One, courts do not decide political questions; and,
Two, "There is no principle of law under which a de facto court can be sustained. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 6 S.Ct.Rep. 1121." Gorman v. People (1892), 17 Colo. 596, 31 P. 335.
In deciding a political question, it is necessary to understand the nature of all political questions: if it
involves two or more diametrically opposed systems of law competing for the allegiance or obedience
either of land or people, it is political:
"War is simply the exercise of force of bodies politic against each other for the purpose of coercion."
Lewis v. Ludwick (1869), 46 Tenn.(Coldw.) 368, 98 Am.Dec. 454.
This goes back to the question of venue which Christ had in the exchanges noted above.
"[A government is] sovereign within its own territories. There necessarily its jurisdiction is exclusive
and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. This is the result of its independence.
It may be conceded that its actions should accord with natural justice and equity. If they do not, however,
our courts are not competent to review them. They may not bring a foreign sovereign before our bar, not
because of comity, but because he has not submitted himself to our laws. Without his consent he is not
subject to them. Concededly, that is so as to a foreign government that has received recognition. The
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cranch 116, 3 L.Ed. 287; Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S.
270, 33 S.Ct. 352, 57 L.Ed. 507; Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 38 S.Ct. 309, 62 L.Ed.
726; Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 18 S.Ct. 83, 42 L.Ed. 456; American Banana Co. v. United
Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, 16 Ann.Cas. 1026; Ricaud v. American Metal Co.,
246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733; Hassard v. United States of Mexico, 29 Misc.Rep. 511, 61
N.Y.Supp. 939, aff'd 173 N.Y. 645, 66 N.E. 1110; Mason v. Intercolonial Railway of Canada, 197 Mass.
349, 83 N.E. 876, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 276, 125 Am.St.Rep. 371, 14 Ann.Cas. 574; Wadsworth v. Queen of
Spain, 17 Q.B. 171; Vavasseur v. Krupp, L.R. 9 Ch.Div. 351; Strousberg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 44
L.T. 199.
"But whether recognized or not, the evil of such an attempt would be the same. 'To cite a foreign
potentate into a municipal court for any complaint against him in his public capacity is contrary to the law
of nations, and an insult which he is entitled to resent.' De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q.B. 171. In
either case, to do so would `vex the peace of nations.'The question is a political one, not confided to the
courts, but to another department of government. Whenever an act done by a sovereign in his sovereign
character is questioned, it becomes a matter of negotiations, or reprisals, or of war." Wulfsohn v. Russian
Soviet Socialist Federated Republic (1923), 234 N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24. [Emphasis added.] [This is the
authority for using "reasonable means" to abate an action, i.e. writs of right and entry.]
How then can they possibly summon your Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
under Whom you claim?
Part III
Notice the basis of the land issue--sojourning. What does that mean?
"SOJOURN. Reside, stay. XIII (S. Eng. (Leg.) ME. Sorjourni soiourni -OF. sorjorner, sojorner (mod.
Sejourner)=Pr. Sorjornar, It. soggiornare:-Rom. Sub diurnare 'spend the day', f. L. sub-+late L. diurnare
day (cf. JOURNAL). So sojourn sb. XIII. -AN. su(r)jurn, OF. sojor, etc. (Mod. Sejour), f. the vb." Oxford
Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 843.
It obviously means to conduct your affairs as though you could be leaving this earth at any time:
"SOJOURN, v.i.; sojourned, pt., pp.; sojourning, ppr. [Ofr. sojorner, sojourner; It. Soggiornare, from
LL. (Hyp.) subdiurnare; sub, under, and diurnus, pertaining to a day, from dies, a day.] to dwell for a
time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident, or as a stranger, not considering the place as a
permanent habitation; as, Abraham sojourned in Egypt.
"Syn.--abide, tarry, dwell, stay, live." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged
(World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1725.
Which means that you are merely transient with respect to your time here on earth:
"TRANSIENT. Passing by or away. XVII. -L. transiens (obl. transeunt-, repr. In some uses by
transeunt), prp. of transire pass over, f. trans TRANS-+ire go; cf. AMBIENT." Oxford Dictionary of
English Etymology (1966), p. 936.
It does not mean you are "on the run" or "on the move." See Genesis 1:1-31 and nota bona how God in
the Creation finished each day's work. Is God a "sojourner?" Now this has much to do with the present
state of affairs in respect to your "real estate." If You are a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman,
You are located at General Delivery, because this is where God's Court is: everywhere in general and
nowhere in specific. It also means that His Court closes at the close of every day at sundown. If You are
here, how can You conduct Your affairs for longer than a day? This is what it means to "sojourn."
Now this has to do with the land issue, because when You are "landed," the land is free from all
encumbering servitudes, and You are depending on God to complete His Work with respect to You and
the land in Your care in that day. This is the reason for Christ testifying, "Take therefore no thought for
the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof." Mt 6:34. If you are walking with Mercurius, God does not sojourn with you.
In the coming year, Writs of Entry to Land.
Let This Mind Be In You,
Part One
by John Quade
Scripture tells us clearly, that in order to be Christ-like, we must learn to think and reason as Christ
did. This does not mean that we are to be omniscient or to take on the extent of God's attributes. We are
told, however, to "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:..." Phil. 2:5, and Paul says that,
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and
every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ."
The closer we get to this state of thinking in interpreting the world about us, the more we glorify God.
The problem is, modern Christians do not think in such terms because their Christianity occupies one part
of their mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another. This is what Dr. Rushdoony has
called, 'intellectual schizophrenia.' We know that a mind or house divided against itself cannot stand, or
be effective against the world's ideas.
Many Christians make a great deal of the literal interpretation of the Scripture, but when it comes to
taking into captivity every thought, they divide their minds into the secular and profane and thus live in
intellectual schizophrenia and a constant state of contradiction and what is worse, they never know it.
Recently on a tour stop back east, I was cornered in the hall by a group of people and their pastor, all
from the same church. They proceeded to beat me about the head and shoulders with something I had said
during an earlier address to the group, which was: "One may be a pre-millenialist and totally committed
to the 'rapture fever, scare and share' doctrines that are being taught in the churches today, but one cannot
at the same time work for reform without contradicting himself."
The pastor and his group proceeded to argue that they were both pre-mil, rapture fever types and also
worked for reform, which is why they were at Our conference.
Note carefully, I did not say one could not work for reform if he were a pre-mil, rapture fever type, but
that, one could not be consistently pre-mil, rapture fever, etc., and also work for reform.
My point had to do with consistent thinking, not whether one could in fact do or not do a thing. To this
day, I still hold that one cannot - consistently - look for the Lord's return next Wednesday at 12:15 or
12:28, and still work for the reform of the world about him..
As a footnote to this incident, I received a message from one of the pastor's people who was present
during the incident and he said that, time brought the pastor to his senses and my prediction came true.
Given enough time, the errors of one's thinking will manifest themselves whether we like it or not.
The point in bringing up this incident is to illustrate that today, with all the intellectual tools at man's
disposal, Christians are typically the most inconsistent, self-contradictory, and self-refuting thinkers of the
day. Yet, these characteristics are supposed to be indicative of humanistic thought, not Christian thought.
If this movement we are involved in is to have any real long term success, then a radical change must
take place in the quality of Christian thought if we are to have any long-term hope of reformation and
reconstuction.
Two men who have perhaps, more than any others in America, pointed us in the right direction and to
right thinking as Christians - are Dr. Cornelius Van Til, former Professor of Apologetics at Westminster
Seminary, in Philadelphia, and Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation in
Vallecito, California, who is recognized as the father of Christian Reconstruction, the fastest growing
movement of its kind in Christendom around the world.
In this article I want to focus on the thinking of Dr. Van Til, who passed on to be with the Lord a few
years ago, on a Good Friday. His works indeed live after him in the minds and hearts of millions of
laymen and also in the present works of many men of the cloth.
I met Dr. Van Til just a few years before his death and with Dr. Rushdoony, they have had a greater
impact on my thinking than all the others I've read outside Scripture. I love them both as father's in the
faith. It is my belief that these two men will, in the future, be recognized as the men that initiated the New
Reformation now beginning in the land. We owe them both a great deal and ought to be on Our knees
thanking God for His blessing us with their great learning (see Page fourteen for a sample of Rushdoony).
Though Van Til confined himself to apologetics, i.e., the defense of the faith, his thought was so
fundamental that it sparked a new philosophy for Christians. Van Til's apologetics, when applied to
philosophy is called Christian Presuppositional Philosophy, for reasons that will become clearer as we
progress. His most important works are, "The Defense of the Faith," and "Common Grace." His widest
influence on the greatest number of people, however, has come through his class syllabi, short works that
summarize his teaching in his apologetics classes at Westminster.
Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching impact on every area of Christian
thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be reduced to one of two starting points
or, presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers mind in order for him to say what he
does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless one's ultimate starting point or
presuppositon is Christian.
Thus, it does not matter whether one is a Christian or not; all ideas are derived ultimately from one of
the two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins
with, if one is consistent, his presupposition will govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes
and how he will act on his belief. In a sense, over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition
is.
Thus, one's presuppostion predestines the nature and meaning of one's life. Von Hayek, the noted
Austrian economists said something similar when he said that 'all ideas have consequences.' Rushdoony
described the same thing in his own thought and called it 'the given.' Therefore, everyone begins from
some ultimate starting point in all their thinking and that ultimate starting point determines the meaning
and consequences of our thought in everything we say, do, feel, and think.
The difference in Van Til' (and Rushdoony) that caused such an uproar was, he said that both of these
two starting points or presuppositions, are religious. The thought of all men is predestined by the ultimate,
religious presupposition the man holds to. In theology, philosophy, law, science, biology, education,
politics, the family, and all other things, a man who holds to one of the two possible starting points comes
to one conclusion as to what these things are, while the man who holds to the opposing presupposition
comes to an entirely different conclusion as to what they are.
If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the
consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent with his own presupposition. If one can
predict the general outcome of an idea implemented on a specific presupposition, held self-consciously,
one has a very powerful intellectual tool that can be used to great effect in propagating the Gospel and in
combating humanism in the culture about us.
Now, when we say 'self-consciously' we mean that, one knows consciously, what his presupposition is
and he knows consciously, the connection between his ideas and his presupposition and that his idea is
consistent with his presupposition. One has a good idea of where it will all lead. The key is, he knows all
this - consciously.
To be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus,
the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do something because it makes him feel good, or because it
gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but, because he knows that he does what he does because of
his desire to be consistent with his ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that
he himself knows about, consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his
authority and even when men advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition.
This will be clearer if we define the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all
his life.
Presupposition One begins and ends with the idea that God is who He claims to be in Scripture, which
is His own inspired revelation to Man. This is the presupposition of the Christian.
Presupposition Two holds to the idea that all knowledge is derived solely from man's reason which is a
law unto itself. He does not believe that one needs or should harken to any revelation outside his own
mind. This is autonomous reason at work in the religion of humanism.
At no point does either presupposition share a common starting point, and thus, they are called
'mutually exclusive ultimates' because, each denies the validity of the other, logically and in fact.
Both are religious in the sense that religion is the reverence or worship of an ultimate ground of appeal.
The Christian appeals to God and Scripture, while the Humanist appeals to his own autonomous reason.
They are similar in that each presupposes an ultimate starting point for all their thinking.
To show the importance of presuppositional study, consider the following.
A talks with B about some subject or idea and B comes to a conclusion. In the discussion, no mention of
presuppositions is made. The idea and its consequence stated by B hangs in a vacuum and is mere
opinion.
Why? Because there is no context for interpreting what man A or B says.
But, 'A does not allow B's conclusion to stand in a vacuum and he questions 'B' about his
presuppositions. B does likewise to A. Now, we find that A and B are both Christian. The next move on
the part of A is to determine if B's conclusion is valid on Christian presuppositions. If B's conclusion is
consistent with his Christian presupposition, the conclusion no longer hangs in a vacuum, but rests on a
solid foundation, because both sides are now speaking within the context of their presuppositions.
In the end, B's conclusion is tested by the law of Scripture if A is consistent with his own
presuppositions.
But, suppose we now interject a specific idea, such as abortion. If B is pro-abortion, he is no longer
thinking, consistently, as a Christian, because the Scripture opposes abortion. At this point, A knows that
B is not thinking like a Christian, but like a humanist. B may still profess to be a Christian, but his ideas
contradict him, and know A knows something about B, i.e., that 'B' is a double-minded man.
Now, if B is a humanist, his pro-abortion stand is more consistent with his avowed presupposition, but
it is still not the right consequence, because abortion is contrary to God's Law. But, if B were pro-life and
an avowed humanist, there is the inconistency all over again, because the pro-life conclusion is only
possible on Christian presuppositions.
The point of all this discussion about A and B is, to illustrate how all men, most without knowing it,
always argue questions that are important to them, on the basis of specific presuppositons, whether they
are aware of it or not. And, most haven't got a clue as to whether or not they are being consistent with
their presuppositions. The man who is consciously aware of the importance of knowing which
presuppositon lies behind a specific idea, is in a position to know a great deal more than his friend who
suffers from epistemological myopia.
Another premise of Van Til, equally radical, was, that the humanist never knows truth unless he
smuggles God into his equation somewhere. In simple terms, the humanist may deny God's existence, or
redefine His nature and attributes to eliminate His presence in humanistic thought, but, he must at the
same time presuppose that God exists, or he would not even be able to communicate with other humanists.
For example, since 1900, there have been many continental philosophers who have sought to create
'new' philosophies, based upon the possibility of inventing languages that are devoid of so-called 'God-words.' Wittgenstein was typical of these. But, all such attempts have failed and the linguistic philosophers have given up for one simple reason. Language and communication between men is
impossible without presupposing God's hand in the creation of languages.
In science, if a humanist conducts a scientific experiment and then expects that the experiment can be
repeated with the same results, he presupposes on one hand that God has created a consistent universe of
Law, while at the same time he posits, in his public speaking, that all is relative and chance rules in his
theory of evolution. In other words, he wants his cake and he wants to eat it as well.
In this case, the humanist contradicts himself. What he says in his writings and speeches may be
evolutionary in nature, but when he does real work, he must presuppose that God is in the background
upholding and sustaining all things by His power. To think otherwise provides no justification for doing
the experiment a second time and expecting his results to be the same in both cases.
Thus, to use an oft-quoted phrase of Van Til's, "the humanist possesses knowledge as a thief possesses
goods." He steals knowledge from the very God whose existence makes knowledge possible in the first
place and never admits it.
Van Til has also pointed out that it does not matter if a man knows his thought is religious or not, or
whether he admits to his religious stance or not, he is still a religious being and thinker, even in his own
ignorance of himself.
As Paul has said so tellingly, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Because that which may be known of God
is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse.: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their follish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Van Til took Paul literally, as he should have. This means that the atheist, agnostic, buddhist, and all
others who deny the God of Scripture and His existence, still know in fact, that He does exist, whether
their heart has been darkened or not. One can travel to the furtherest reaches of the universe and still not
avoid the revelation of God that surrounds him, 'in Whom he lives, and moves, and has his being.'
Thus, a denial of God is an act of will that is ethical in nature and content. Evidence has nothing to do
with it. Men deny that God is, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and suppress their real
knowledge of Him as a conscious act, knowingly, willingly, and deliberately to advance their own agenda
while suppressing their true knowledge of Him.
Stop for a moment and think about this.
If Christians dealt with Non-christians, in their day to day dealings as if Paul's statement of fact is true,
i.e., if this presupposition was the Christians' presupposition, then the Christian would know something
about the Non-christian that the Non-christian believes he has hidden. What an enormous intellectual and
psychological advantage this should be for the Christian!!!
More importantly, if Christians knew, consciously, that this was the case and acted consistently with
this stance, and put into practice Van Til's extension of Pauls statement, what a difference it would make
in the way Christians think.
How is this possible?
First, we have been talking about knowing. The sub-set of philosophy that deals with the problems of
knowing is called epistemology. The word comes from 'episteme' (knowing) and 'ology' (the study of ...)
Epistemology is the study of how we know, but also the basis of certainty in knowing. It asks the
questions, 'how do you know, you know?'
And, if we look at today's philosophy teaching in universities, we find that while there is always an
overview of what the great philosophers have said about epistemology, there is never any attempt to
answer how one knows which system of philosophy really answers the problem of knowledge.
This is because humanist philosophic thought has given up trying to answer the questions of
epistemology, because no sooner does the humanist attempt to answer it, than another humanist comes
along and blows up the argument. This in-fighting between humanists, has destroyed all real philosophic
study in the humanist controlled schools, because given their presupposition about knowing, i.e., that it
proceeds from the autonomous reason of man, there is no solution to the problem of knowing. And,
whether they know it or not, in their system, all knowledge is purely a matter of opinion.
The Christian, however, already has an answer to the problem of knowledge, knowing, and knowing
how and why he knows. His answer is found in the Godhead, and in the words used to define God in
Genesis 1:1.
But, first, let us look a little more closely at the nature of the problem of knowledge that epistemology
tries to answer, for this problem has plagued philosophers since the Greeks and on the answer to the
problem whole systems of government and civilizations have floundered and collapsed.
The solution to the problem of knowledge lies in solving the relationship between the whole and the
parts, the one and the many, the universal and the particular.
An example of how the solution is applied might explain the seriousness of the effort to solve the
problem. Thus, in civil government, we have the government (the one) and the people (the many). How do
we balance the two ends of the spectrum here? Is a balance even desirable? If we cannot answer the
problem of the relationship between the one and the many in civil government, then we are left in the
following quandry:
If the scales favor civil government, then we will have some form of socialism, communism, a
dictatorship, or other tyranny, that will be supported by the military, and there will be great bloodshed.
If the scales favor the power of the people, then we will have a democracy, autocracy, and finally,
anarchy, and great bloodshed.
These two extremes are the history of civil government in the world, until the formation of the
Constitution of the united States of America, which was the first instrument of civl government that
explicitly sought to create a balance between the civil power and the power of the people. Needless to say,
in the entire history of man, no Non-christian philosopher has ever set forth a solution to the problem of
knowledge that lasted more than one generation. The basic reason why, is; they could not decide whether
the one, or the many should dominate. Any idea of the two being balanced was out of the question, for no
such thing was possible - given their presuppositions.
That the founders of America were aware of the problem of knowledge is well known. That modern
man, including the modern Christian could care less, changes nothing. The problem of the one and the
many in epistemology is of vital interest to all of us, whether we know it or not. Examples could be shown
in virtually every area of life, in the family, the church, in one's calling, and so on.
Genesis 1:1, says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Of specific interest is the
Hebrew word for 'God,' which is 'elohim.' Elohim means, literally, 'unity and diversity, equally ultimate.'
As many commentators have pointed out, this says that God in His unity as God, is equally ultimate
with God in His diversity as Father, Son, and spirit. In God, there is a perfect balance between Himself as
One and as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Thus, in the name of God in the very first verse of the Scripture, there is the key for the Christian, to
the problem of knowledge and the answer to the epistemological question of 'how do we know we know.'
Again, we see a telling example of the importance of the presupposition to all of our thought, including
the answers we give to problems that face us. In Greek thought, the possibility of balancing the one and
the many never occurred to them, because given the starting point of the autonomy of reason, they could
only see the two extremes, the one, or the many, and because they knew not the God of Scripture, it never
occurred to them that there was even a remote possibility that they could be balanced.
This is the reason why Greek thought vacillated between Socialism and Communism and ultimately
collapsed. This is the reason why all subsequent systems of thought that began from the presupposition of
autonomous reason also collapsed.
If the Scripture is the Christians' alpha and omega in all his thought, all facts, regardless of what they
look like at first glance, must be interpreted by Scripture. No fact interprets itself. There is no brute fact,
i.e., one that speaks for itself, because all facts can only have meaning when interpreted and understood in
the light of God's Word, for the omniscient God of Scripture knows every fact that is, exhaustively.
For the non-believer, facts are only interpreted in the light of his own reason. This presents major
problems for him, because he cannot know if his view of the facts is the true view. Another humanist will
have a different view of the same fact. Neither has any standard by which to measure the truth or falsity of
either view. Who knows, the meaning of the fact may change tomorrow, or next week, or next year. As to
who's interpretation is actually put to use, well, that's all a matter of who has the greater power and
influence. Truth has nothing to do with it.
This is why all humanistic systems of government can only maintain control by military force. And,
why all power in humanism flows from the top down, not the bottom up.
Conversely, Christian civil governments de-emphasize military power and emphasize the rule of Law.
And, why in Christian systems, power flows from the bottom up? "Not by power, but by My Spirit," sayeth
the Lord.
Second, since the Christian knows that God created man in His own image and created all that is, then
its possible for a Christian who thinks like God, analogically, to truely interpret the facts before him. All
facts are created by the same God, including God's earthly interpreter, i.e., the Christian.
As Van Til would say, "we must learn to think God's thoughts after him." If this becomes our goal, to
see and interpret all facts as God has already interpreted them, then the Christian can know truth and
properly interpret reality, but he cannot know it exhaustively, as God does.
Third, in humanism, as suggested above, all facts are subject to change and hence there can never be
any confidence in the humanistic view of any fact. This was the failing of Plato's view of the facts. By his
own admission, Plato could not conceive of the ultimate idea of 'mud, hair, and filth.' He believed that he
could conceive of the ideas of good, beauty, right, and justice, but he could not handle mud, hair, and filth,
and for this reason, Platonic and Neo-platonic thought floundered on the rocks of skepticism. For one
never knew when a fact such as mud, hair, and filth might turn up to change everything.
The Christian, however, with the Holy Spirit as his teacher and Scripture as his textbook of life and
reality, can take confidence in the fact that God would not deceive him. Though he may not know any
more than the humanist, what the Christian does know he can know truly and take confidence in it. The
future for the Christian may not be known in great detail, but he knows also that God is in control and
that all things work together for the Chritians good. As the Scripture says, "Or what man is there of you,
whom if his son ask for bread, will he give him a stone?" Matthew 7:9.
Fourth, with humanism, dominated as it is by relativism, uncertainty, and so on, we see that over time,
the level of confusion and chaos must increase and the system must eventually collapse. Thus, a humanist
may put a certain view of the facts into practice, but, as time goes on, his view will increasingly interpret
the outcome of his view of the facts - incorrectly. He may see quite clearly, that there is something wrong,
but he cannot possibly know, truly, how to fix it. He will then try something else, which will be just as
wrong as his first view of the facts, because his relativistic reason cannot do otherwise. His second view
will also be fraught with error as his first view was, and thus he will merely add error to error and the
confusion level will rise accordingly.
When civil govrnments are dominated by humanism, the ideas never fail because they are wrong, but
only because the civil power hasn't enough money or power to do it right. The result: at the next session of
the legislature, more power and taxes will be demanded to fix the problems, "so that it will never happen
again."
How many times do we hear the modern politician make a 'guarantee' to the people, that with only a
little more power and taxes, 'thus and so, will never happen again.'
This process is further aggravated by the humanists' own ego that cannot admit that its interpretation of
the facts was wrong the first time. No, such an admission would be tantamount to an admission that
reason has failed with the obvious conclusion being, that for the answer we must turn to God, which in the
humanists heart, he knows is always there. In short, he will not willingly repent of his first error, because
he has no basis upon which repentence is possible.
We must not forget that there is no forgiveness for error (sin) in the humanistic system. How often have
we seen them savage their own people, like pyrannha, when their mistake becomes public.
The Christian can, however, move forward with confidence in his interpretation of the facts, knowing
all the time that he will likely have to modify his position as time goes on. We assume here, that the
Christian has made a full study of the facts, both sacred and profane and that he has interpreted them by
the Holy Spirit and Scripture. And, when he or a brother or sister in Christ, sees error in the first view of
the facts, there can be an immediate repentence of the error, the view of the facts can be modified and one
moves on. The Christian knows that in all he does, the Lord is guiding him, teaching him, and reproving
him, because the Lord God loves him and cares for him.
Fifth, the humanist has great difficulty communicating his view of the facts to all men, both humanist
and Christian. This is because he has no standard of meaning and content for his thinking that he can
appeal to, or point to, to illustrate his meaning. In short, he has no Scripture. Thus, no matter how hard he
tries, other humanists and Christians will always mis-interpret his view of the facts. The humanist is
therefore constantly put in the position of explaining and justifying himself, especially as time goes on and
more and more error is seen by all, in his original interpretation of the facts.
Humanistic egos will modify word meanings that depart from accepted meanings and the dictionary
meanings. This is why humanistic thought, over time, constantly re-defines every area of life and thought
in terms of its own god (reason). All ideas must be re-made in its own image, not conformed to the image
of God that he bears within himself. This is no where more evident than in the humanist idea of law and
justice, evidence of which is all about us, today.
But, for a Christian, the meaning of the words he uses are always controlled by Scripture.
Communication between Christians and the meaning a Christian imparts to the humanist, should always
be the same, because God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Law is thus always the same in its
meaning and hence true justice is always available.
The form in which the law is applied by Christians, changes with time, but its meaning and God's
intent in His Law, never changes.
Sixth, since the humanist cannot make up his mind whether the one or the many is ultimate, and he
ignores the answer found in a balance of the two in the Godhead, he is also bound up in arguing over
whether his method of reasoning is inductive, or deductive.
Deductive reasoning, reasons from the general, the one, to the particulars, or the many.
Inductive reasoning, reasons from facts, particulars, or the many, to some general premise, i.e., the
one.
In other words, the method of reasoning one uses will likely be determined by whether we are reasoning
from the one or the many. The battle over which method is valid, especially in the sciences, has been long
and bitter for centuries.
But, Van Til has made it clear, that given the solution to the problem of knowledge in the Godhead, the
Christian is free to use both with equal emphasis and utility.
In sum, one can argue from the one to the many and back to the one or from the many to the one and
back again. Both processes of reasoning are used without conflict. And, thus, deductive and inductive
reasoning are compliments, not opposites.
Seventh, the realm of science and its prevailing whims have often been called upon to lead us in the
right paths, and usually this means that one infers from certain facts, some new alleged truth about the
meaning of the facts before us.
But, within the sciences, there is a pre-occupation with cause and effect. And, it is because of this
doctrine of cause and effect that science has always sought some 'mechanical' solution to the problem of
the orbits of planets.
On the one hand, science wants a cause for the planetary rotation, allegedly about the sun, but in his
seeking for the cause to account for the rotational effect of the planets, he invariably leaves out of his
equations, the fact of agency.
As Christians, we know, for example, that nothing happens without God's hand in it. In this age, God's
agent is the Holy Spirit. And, we know that God sustains all things by his power. We also know that all
things were created through Christ in whom we live and move and have Our being.
Thus, for the Christian, there is no bare cause and effect without God acting as the agent to keep
everything in order and sustain it.
Thus, the problems that science faces in the doctrine of cause and effect, will often be sustained with
great intellectual force, which are problems created by the scientist himself who has bought into a false
dichotomy.
By the scientists attempting to account for the relationships between things and explaining it on the
basis of cause and effect only, without God's hand in the picture, is to posit a false premise from the
outset.
Eighth, is the problem of limits. Commonly, modern man asserts that he must have unlimited
possibilities for finding a solution to any problem. This means, that he wants a world without limits to the
possible paths down which his thinking may take him.
Yet, it is obvious to every man, great thinker or not, that man lives and moves and has his being in a
world of limits.
The problem for the humanist is that, if he admits to limits on the possibilities for his thoughts or acts,
he must tell us what those limits are and where the boundary lines are drawn, whether we speak of the
intellectual world of the mind, or of the concrete world that we live in.
But, modern man and his humanistic leaders want to live in a world that has no defined limits, because
the limits may get in the way of his freedoms, or the free exercise of intellecutal possibility. Apparently
life is not complex enough for these people; they want to make it more complex.
This raises the subject of a talk show I saw many years ago, in which, Charles Williams, the brilliant
black economist was being interviewed. Mr. Williams gave an answer to a question asked by the host that
was very simple and direct. The host replied, "But, isn't the solution much more complex than that."
Mr. Williams looked the host in the eye and said: "Tyranny always takes refuge in complexity."
This telling destruction of the host's typical answer led me to think of what a great blessing it was to
have the Law of God and all the statements of the historic creeds and doctrines that have come down to us
from The Great Reformation.
God's revelation and the historic work of the church has defined for us the limits of possibility in the
most crucial areas of Our thought and this is just one reason why the study of Scripture and great works of
the church are so important.
God has, in effect told us, 'don't bother to look over there, you won't find the answers.' It is amazing
that in the era of humanistic dominance and its obsession with 'freedoms,' that many books have been
written on the subject ofpower of limits.
Ninth, the mind of man is a unity with yet great diversity of thought in a thousand areas of life. This is
vital to understand the confusion in the world of thought, for it relates directly to the problems of
correspondence and coherence.
These problems are concernced with some very simple questions, such as: does my thought really
correspond to what's out there? How are my thoughts related to things about me? What does
correspondence and coherence have to do with my presuppositions? If my thoughts correspond to things
as they are, does that mean my thought is coherent?
Without a solution to the problems of correspondence and coherence we are mired in doubt,
uncertainty, and indecision. It is these problems, that have plagued all modern philosophers since
Immanuel Kant (1724-1802) and his "Critique of Pure Reason."
Since Non-christian philosophers have utterly failed to satisfactorily answer the problems, they no
longer even raise questions about whether or not the image in my mind really corresponds to what's out
there, or not .
If the image I have in my mind of the object out there, is not really what's out there, then there is no
possibility of my thought and ideas being coherent.
The Christian, has no problem with either correspondence or coherence, because he knows that God
has created all things, including the Christian, and thus everything is already coherent and related in a
logical way. And, the questions of whether the object out there corresponds to the image I have of the
object in my mind never comes up, because God has created us in His image and likeness and placed us
within His creation in which we were designed to function.
Again, God would not deceive us and place us in an environment that he did not want us to understand.
At this point, we must realize that the process of being a Christian carries with it certain obligations
that are usually ignored, if not deprecated, by the modern Christian; the goal of which is the 'renewing' of
Our minds, and this means, changing the way we think.
Next month, we will move from the theoretical to the concrete and show how Dr. Van Til's view point
can be applied towards the renewing of Our minds.
We can 'bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.'
(continued in Issue the Thirteenth)
Thomas Jefferson:
Friend or Foe of Christian America?
Part Four
(continued from Issue the Eleventh)
...treaty, had instigated the Indians to raise the tomahawk and scalping knife against American citizens,
had let loose the Algerines upon their unprotected commerce, and had insulted their flag, and pillaged
their trade in every quarter of the world. These facts being notorious, it was astonishing to hear gentlemen
ask how had Britain injured their commerce?
The conduct of France, on the contrary, had been warm and friendly. That nation had respected
American rights, and had offered to enter into commercial arrangements on the liberal basis of perfect
reciprocity.
"In contrasting the ability of the two nations to support a commercial conflict, it was said Great Britain,
tottering under the weight of a king, a court, a nobility, a priesthood, armies, navies, debts, and all the
complicated machinery of oppression which serves to increase the number of unproductive, and lessen the
number of productive hands; at this moment engaged in a foreign war; taxation already carried to the
ultimatum of financial device; the ability of the people already displayed in the payment of taxes
constituting a political phenomenon; all prove the debility of the system and the decrepitude of old age.
On the other hand, the United States, in the flower of youth; increasing in hands; increasing in wealth;
and although an imitative policy has unfortunately prevailed in the erection of a funded debt, in the
establishment of an army, in the establishment of a navy, and all the paper machinery for increasing the
number of unproductive, and lessening the number of productive hands; yet the operation of natural
causes has, as yet, in some degree, countervailed their influence, and still furnishes a great superiority in
comparison with Great Britain."
"The present time was declared to be peculiarly favourable to the views of the United States. It was only
while their enemy was embarrassed with a dangerous foreign war, that they could hope for the
establishment of just and equal principles."
The real object of this report by the Secretary of State, and of the resolutions introduced by Mr.
Madison, was stated in the course of the debate upon the latter. "The discussion of this subject, it was said,
"has assumed an appearance which must be surprising to a stranger, and painful in the extreme to
ourselves. The supreme legislatore of the United States is seriously deliberating, not upon the welfare of
our own citizens, but upon the relative circumstances of two European nations; and this deliberation has
not for its object the relative benefits of their markets to us, but which form of government is best and
most like our own, which people feel the greatest affection for us, and what measures we can adopt which
will best humble one, and exalt the other.
"The primary motive of these resolutions, as acknowledged by their defenders, is not the increase of our
agriculture, manufactures, or navigation but to humble Great Britain, and build up France."
And such was unquestionably their real character and object. But the intended operation of them, and
of the language and sentiments uttered respecting them in debate, was so clear and explicit, that they
could not be mistaken, and therefore they could not fail of producing their designed effect upon the
feelings of the British government and people. Nor could they be viewed in any other light, than as
expressing great hostility to the interests of that nation, and strong partiality to those of France. And
hence may be discerned the first traces of that system of policy towards Great Britain, which originated
with Mr. Jefferson, and was steadily pursued by him through the remainder of his political life, and by his
immediate successor in the administration of the national government, until it terminated in the war of
1812.
To establish the truth of the position just advanced, it will be necessary to give a historical account of
the measures of the government, relating to the general subject, under the administrations of Mr. Jefferson
and Mr. Madison. The facts which will be adduced, will be derived from the public records and state
papers, or from other sources equally authentic and creditable.
In April, 1794, Mr. Jay, then Chief Justice of the United states, was appointed minister extraordinary to
the court of Great Britain. This mission was strongly disliked by the party of which Mr. Jefferson was the
acknowledged leader. But notwithstanding their disapprobation it was pursued; and in November
following, a treaty was concluded, in which the great causes of uneasiness and animosity between the two
nations were adjusted, and a foundation laid for their future peace, harmony, and friendship. As soon as
the news reached this country that such a treaty had been concluded and signed, and long before its
contents were known, there was a great degree of excitement among what Mr. Jefferson called the
republican party. Notwithstanding all the clamour, the treaty was submitted to the Senate, who advised its
ratification, with the exception of one article. One member of that body, however, in violation of the
injunction of secrecy under which they acted, and before the treaty was signed by the President, published
it in a newspaper. Immediately upon its appearance, the country was thrown into a ferment, and every
possible effort was made to induce the President to reject it. Meetings were held, violent resolutions were
passed, and inflammatory addresses were made, and circulated, with the hope, if not the expectation, of
overawing that dignified and inflexible magistrate and patriot, and of inducing him to withhold his final
approbation from the treaty. The attempts all failed; - the treaty was ratified; and the nation derived from
it numerous and substantial benefits.
But it met the most decided disapprobation of Mr. Jefferson. In a letter to Mann Page, dated August
80th, 1795, he says - "I do not believe with the Rochefoucaults and Montaignes, that fourteen out of
fifteen men are rogues. I believe a great abatement from that proportion may be made in favour of general
honesty. But I have always found that rogues would be uppermost, and I do not know that the proportion
is too strong for the highest orders, and for those who, rising above the swinish multitude, always contrive
to nestle themselves into the places of power and profit. These rogues set out with stealing the people's
good opinion, and then steal from them the right of withdrawing it, by contriving laws and associations
against the power of the people themselves. Our part of the country is in a considerable fermentation on
what they suspect to be a recent roguery of this kind. They say that while all hands were below deck,
mending sails, splicing ropes, and every one at his own business, and the captain in his cabin attending to
his log-book and chart, a rogue of a pilot has run them into an enemy's port. But metaphor apart, there is
much dissatisfaction with Mr. Jay and his treaty." In a letter to William B. Giles, dated December 31,
1795, he says- "I am well pleased with the manner in which your house have testified their sense of the
treaty: while their refusal to pass the original clause of the reported answer proved their condemnation,
the contrivance to let it disappear silently respected appearances in favour of the president, who errs as
other men do, but errs with integrity." In a letter to Edward Rutledge, dated November 30th, 1795, he
says- "I join with you in thinking the treaty an execrable thing. But both negotiators must have
understood, that as there were articles in it which could not be carried into execution without the aid of
the legislatures on both sides, therefore it must be referred to them, and that these legislatures, being free
agents, would not give it their support if they disappproved of it. I trust the popular branch of our
legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of an infamous act, which is really nothing more than a
treaty of alliance between England and the Anglomen of this country, against the legislature and people of
the United States."
This animosity against the treaty cannot be counted for, on the ground that it was not a beneficial
measure to the nation. After the excitement which its publication and ratification produced had subsided,
its advantages were realized and acknowledged; and it may be said with safety, that no subsequent
arrangement between the two nations has ever been as beneficial to the United States as this. But it
removed many sources of difficulty - the western posts, which the British had retained in violation of the
treaty of 1783, were surrendered; and the commerce of the country was greatly benefited. And it was
calculated to remove a variety of causes of uneasiness, of complaint, of interference, and of recrimination,
between the nations, and therefore was thoroughly reprobated by Mr. Jefferson. And it appears, by the last
quotation from his letters, that rather than have it established, and go into operation, he would have
rejoiced if the House of Representatives had encroached upon the constitutional prerogative of the
President and Senate, and withheld the necessary legislative aid to carry its provisions into effect. The
constitution authorizes the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties;
and treaties, when constitutionally made, are declared to be the supreme law of the land. Of course, when
thus made, if they require legislative acts to carry them into effect, the legislature are bound by their
constitutional duty, to pass such laws; otherwise the supreme law of the land may be rendered inoperative,
and be defeated, by one branch of the government. This bold experiment, Mr. Jefferson would have been
gratified to see made, rather than have peace and friendship established between this country and Great
Britain.
Nor is the coarse attack upon Mr. Jay's character, by Mr. Jefferson, in his letter above quoted, the least
reprehensible circumstance in his conduct in relation to this treaty. Mr. Jay was one of the most pure and
virtuous patriots that this country ever produced. His talents were of a very high order, his public services
were of the most meritorious and disinterested description, and his public and private reputation without
reproach. Yet, with an air of levity, approaching jocularity, he is represented by Mr. Jefferson as one of
those fortunate "rogues," who contrive to keep themselves uppermost in the world, - one who had been
guilty of an "infamous act " in making the treaty. Happy would it have been for his calumniator, if his
character had been equally pure, and his services equally disinterested and patriotic.
When Mr. Jefferson came into office as chief magistrate of the Union, in 1801, Rufus King was
minister from the United States to Great Britain. In June, 1802, that gentleman was instructed to adjust
the boundary line between the two nations; and in May, 1803, in pursuance of his instructions, he
concluded a convention with that government. A dispute on this subject had existed between the two
countries, from the ratification of the treaty of peace in 1783, to the date of the above mentioned
convention. In forming this convention, it is known that Mr. King's views were fully acceded to by the
British commissioner, Lord Hawkesbury, the latter having left the draft of the convention to Mr. King,
and fully approved of that which he prepared. In a message of the President of the United States to
Congress, dated October 17, 1803, is the following passage- "A further knowledge of the ground, in the
north-eastern and north-western angles of the United States, has evinced that the boundaries established
by the treaty of Paris, between the British territories and ours in those parts, were too imperfectly
described to be susceptive of execution. It has therefore been thought worthy of attention for preserving
and cherishing the harmony and useful intercourse subsisting between the two nations, to remove by
timely arrangements, what unfavourable incidents might otherwise render a ground of future
misunderstanding. A convention has therefore been entered into, which provides for a practicable
demarcation of those limits, to the satisfaction of both parties. The following is a copy of a letter from Mr.
King, which accompanied the convention, when it was transmitted to the United States government
"London, ] May 13, 1803.
"SIR,--I have the honour to transmit herewith the convention which I yesterday signed in triplicate
with Lord Hawkesbury relative to our boundaries. The convention does not vary in any thing material
from the tenour of my instructions. The line through the bay of Passamaquoddy secures our interest in that
quarter. The provision for running, instead of describing, the line between the northwest corner of Nova
Scotia and the source of Connecticut river, has been inserted as well on account of the progress of the
British settlements towards the source of the Connecticut, as of the difficulty in agreeing upon any new
description of the manner of running this line without more exact information than is at present possessed
of the geography of the country.
"The source of the Mississippi nearest to the Lake of the Woods, according to Mackenzie's report, will
be found about twenty-nine miles to the westward of any part of that lake, which is represented to be
nearly circular. Hence a direct line between the northwesternmost part of the lake, and the nearest source
of the Mississippi, which is preferred by this government, has appeared to me equally advantageous with
the lines we had proposed." signed "RUFUS KING."
On the 24th of October, one week after the delivery of the message to Congress, from which the passage
above quoted is taken, Mr. Jefferson submitted this convention to the Senate, accompanied by the
following message "I lay before you the convention signed on the 12th day of May last, between the
United States and Great Britain, for settling their boundaries in the north-eastern and north-western parts
of the United States, which was mentioned in my general message of the 17th instant; together with such
papers relating thereto as may enable you to determine whether you will advise and consent to its
ratification."
A letter from Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, minister at Great Britain, dated February
14th, 1801, contains the following passage:
"You will herewith receive the ratification, by the President and Senate, of the convention with the
British government, signed on the 12th of May, 1803, with an exception of the 5th article. Should the
British government accede to this change in the instrument, you will proceed to an exchange of
ratifications, and transmit the one received without delay, in order that the proper steps may be taken for
carrying the convention into effect."
"The objection to the fifth article appears to have arisen from the posteriority of the signature and
ratification of this convention to those of the last convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the United
States, and from a presumption that the line to be run in pursuance of the fifth article, might thence be
found or alleged to abridge the northern extent of that acquisition."
Then follow a series of reasons intended to show why the British government ought not to make
objections to the alterations proposed by ours.
"First. It would be unreasonable that any advantage against the United States should be constructively
authorized by the posteriority of the dates in question, the instructions given to enter into the convention,
and the understanding of the parties at the time of signing it, having no reference whatever to any
territorial rights of the United States acquired by the previous convention with France, but referring
merely to the territorial rights as understood at the date of the instructions for and signature of the British
convention. The copy of a letter from Mr. King, hereto annexed, is precise and conclusive on this subject.
"Secondly. If the fifth article be expunged, the north boundary of Louisiana will, as is reasonable,
remain the same in the hands of the United States as it was in the bands of France, and may be adjusted
and established according to the principles and authorities which would in that case have been applicable.
"Fourthly. Laying aside, however, all the objections to the fifth article, the proper extension of a
dividing line in that quarter will be equally open for friendly negotiating after, as without, agreeing to the
other parts of the convention, and considering the remoteness of the time at which such a line will become
actually necessary, the postponement of it is of little consequence. The truth is that the British government
seemed at one time to favour this delay, and the instructions given by the United States readily acquiesced
in it."
It will be recollected, that in the message to Congress, on the 17th of October, 1803, from which we
have just quoted a passage, Mr. Jefferson speaks of this convention as one that would give satisfaction to
all parties. It seems, however, not to have been ratified, although it was submitted to the Senate for their
approbation only one week after the date of the abovementioned message to Congress. All that can be
ascertained respecting the causes of its rejection, are to be found in the above cited letter from the
Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, where the principal ground appears to be that it might in some way
affect our concerns with France. By its rejection, however, the dispute about the boundary line was left
unadjusted, and has remained so to this day.
Mr. Jay's treaty expired in 1804. As the country had experienced its beneficial effects for ten years, it
was reasonable to expect that it would have been renewed at the earliest opportunity. On the 7th of
August, 1804, Mr. Monroe, then ambassador from the United States to Great Britain, wrote a letter on
that subject to Mr. Madison, then Secretary of State, from which the following are extracts.
I received a note from Lord Harrowby on the 3d instant, requesting me to call on him at his office the
next day, which I did. His lordship asked me, in what light was our treaty viewed by our government? I
replied that it had been ratified with the exception of the fifth article, as I had informed him on a former
occasion. He observed that he meant the treaty of 1794, which by one of its stipulations was to expire two
years after the signature of preliminary articles for concluding the then existing war between Great Britain
and France. He wished to know whether we considered the treaty as actually expired. I said that I did
presume there could be but one opinion on that point in respect to the commercial part of the treaty, which
was, that it had expired: that the first ten articles were made permanent; that other articles had been
executed, but then, being limited to a definite period which had passed, must be considered as having
expired with it."
After a further detail of the conversation, the letter proceeds--
"He asked, how far it would be agreeable to our government to stipulate, that the treaty of 1794 should
remain in force until two years should expire after the conclusion of the present war? I told his lordship
that I had no power to agree to such a proposal; that the President, animated by a sincere desire to cherish
and perpetuate the friendly relations subsisting between the two countries, had been disposed to postpone
the regulation of their general commercial system till the period should arrive, when each party, enjoying
the blessings of peace, might find itself at liberty to pay the subject the attention it merited; that he wished
those regulations to be founded in the permanent interests, justly and liberally viewed, of both countries;
that he sought for the present only to remove certain topics which produced irritation in the intercourse,
such as the impressment of seamen, and in our commerce with other powers, parties to the present war,
according to a project which I had the honor to present to his predecessor some months since, with which
I presumed his lordship was acquainted. He seemed desirous to decline any conversation on this latter
subject, though it was clearly to be inferred, from what he said, to be his opinion, that the policy which
our government seemed disposed to pursue in respect to the general system, could not otherwise than be
agreeable to his. He then added, that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty of
1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to duties on importations from our country, and, as I
understood him, all other subjects to which it extended; in which case, he said, if the treaty had expired,
the ministry would take the responsibility on itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure: that
in so doing, he presumed that the measure would be well received by our government, and a similar
practice, in what concerned Great Britain, reciprocated. I observed, that on that particular topic I had no
authority to say any thing specially, the proposal being altogether new and unexpected; that I should
communicate it to you; and that I doubted not that it would be considered by the President with the
attention it merited. Not wishing, however, to authorize an inference, that that treaty should ever form a
basis of a future one between the two countries, I repeated some remarks which I had made to Lord
Hawkesbury in the interview which we had just before he left the department of foreign affairs, by
observing that in forming a new treaty we must begin de novo; that America was a young and thriving
country; that at the time that treaty was formed, she had little experience of her relations with foreign
powers; that ten years had since elapsed, a great portion of the term within which she had held the rank of
a separate and independent nation, and exercised the powers belonging to it; that our interests were better
understood on both sides at this time than they then were; that the treaty was known to contain things that
neither liked; that I spoke with confidence on that point on our part; that in making a new treaty we might
ingraft from that into it what suited us, omit what we disliked, and add what the experience of our
respective interests might suggest to be proper; and being equally anxious to preclude the inference of any
sanction to the maritime pretensions under that treaty, in respect to neutral commerce, I deemed it proper
to advert again to the project, which I had presented some time since, for the regulation of those points, to
notice its contents, and express an earnest wish that his lordship would find leisure, and be disposed to act
on it. He excused himself again from entering into this subject, from the weight and urgency of other
business, the difficulty of the subject, and other general remarks of the kind."
By this correspondence it appears, that it was a part of Mr. Jefferson's policy, whenever Mr. Jay's treaty
should expire, not to renew it. There were undoubtedly personal reasons for the adoption of this course.
Mr. Jefferson, as has been seen, considered that treaty as an execrable measure, and regarded its
ratification as opposed to the interests of revolutionary France, to which he was, in heart and soul,
devoted. The advantages of the treaty had been so fully realized, that it was natural to expect that our
government would have yielded at once to the offer of the British ministry to renew it. Their willingness
to form a new treaty, upon the principles of Mr. Jay's, was repeatedly expressed, first by Lord Hawkesbury,
in April, 1804, and afterwards by Lord Harrowby, in August of the same year....
Conclusion and comments in Issue the Thirteenth
A Christian Stand Against Licensure
by Greg Loren: Durand
Editor's Note
Today, We at the Christian Jural Society News greet with open arms our Brother in Christ, Greg
Loren: Durand, who has written the following article on "State Licensure," which We find, as We hope
you will, most edifying. The basis of his argument centers around two basic tenets dear to Us, and All
Brothers in Christ: One, "What is required to fulfill the Law?; And, Two, "By whose authority do the
'licensors' do the things they do?" The answers can be summed up in two Scripture verses.
Turning to Romans 13:8, The Apostle Paul writes to our Brothers at Rome:
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another; for he that loveth another, hath fulfilled the law."
When you have fulfilled the Law of God, what other duty is there outside of the love which the Word of God addresses? Have you not
done your duty already when you came to Christ, and had a renewing of your mind and heart? Everything
else is an interposition between your Self and God. Thus, licensure is such an interposition, because it
creates a new obligation to another outside of love, and God; and becomes an addition to the Word of
God. Licensure is not love; licensure is loveless and lawless.
And to answer the second question, We need look no further than The Word of Our Sovereign Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, in John 3:17-18:
"For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he
that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God."
Can the condemned create law? Can one who believes in the limited reason of man found in
Constitutions, proclamations, codes, rules, and regulations be fulfilling the Law of God? Greg Loren
leaves no doubt to what the answer is!!!
The Biblical Truth of Christ's Present Reign
Scripture openly and without equivocation proclaims the rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary
to the Premillennial/Dispensational views which are so popular in modern Evangelicalism, this rulership
is not limited to the future when Christ will allegedly return to earth to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem.
According to Psalm 2:8, the nations have been given to Christ by the Father as His inheritance. We are
told that this inheritance went into effect at Christ's resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the
Father (Psalm 2:7; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:33-35, 13:33-34; I Corinthians 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:20-22;
Hebrews 1:5, 8, 13). Consequently, "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord
and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15b). This rulership is not spoken of
in the future tense, but as an established fact in the heavenlies which will continue to manifest itself
throughout history and into eternity:
"Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over
His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever."
(Isaiah 9:7).
Contrary to the Amillennial position, this rulership of the Lord Jesus Christ is also not limited to the
Church. The kingship of Christ over the nations implies much more than merely the preaching of the
Gospel; it necessarily involves the implementation of His Law in society as a whole, for a king who does
not require obedience from his subjects is certainly no true king. Returning to Psalm 2, we find that both
kings (civil magistrates) and judges are instructed to "serve the LORD with fear" (verse 11) and to "kiss the
Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way" (verse 12). Those civil rulers who rebel "against the
LORD and against His Anointed" and "take counsel together" to "break Their bonds in pieces and cast
away Their cords," are warned that Christ "shall break them with a rod of iron" and "shall dash them to
pieces like a potter's vessel" (verse 9). There is no ethical neutrality in God's government; there is no
middle ground between God's Law and man's law; there is no philosophical "cease fire" between the
victorious and advancing Kingdom of Christ and the defeated and retreating kingdom of fallen men. The
only terms that Christ offers the rulers of the vanquished nations is either unconditional surrender or utter
destruction; there will be no prisoners of war when the battle is over.
Christians are Ambassadors of King Jesus
So how does the established reign of the Lord Jesus Christ over the nations relate to Good and Lawful
Christian Men and Women who have been adopted as Heirs of the Father and made Citizens of His
Kingdom? Christ's instructions to His Church in Matthew 28:18-20 gives us the answer:
"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
The so-called "Great Commission" is firmly founded on the fact that Christ rules all nations in fullness
of power here and now - in history. Christians are "deputized" by Christ in this passage and entrusted
with His power and His authority. As "ambassadors of Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20) and "good soldier[s]
of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3), we are to be actively involved in "mop up" operations in this world: in
the heavenly realm, all things are already accounted as being placed "under His feet" (Ephesians 1:22;
Hebrews 2:8); in the earthly realm, this spiritual fact is made an actual fact through the work of individual
Christians in taking dominion over the earth in Christ's Name (Genesis 1:28). God has "raised us up
together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6), and He has
"made us kings and priests" with Christ (Revelation 1:6).
If we are deputies of Christ, who has conquered the nations, what does this have to say about our
relationship to the current martial powers occupying this country? Do we surrender our legal status as
"joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17) and forfeit His Dominion for permits to do and to own those
things which are already given to us by our Father? Are we to exchange, as did Esau, our birth right for a
"morsel of food" (Hebrews 12:16)?
Psalm 24:1 states:
"The earth is the LORD's and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein."
The LORD God through His Son Jesus Christ is the sole owner of all things, and even all people, in this
world. His are "every beast of the forest... and the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psalm 50:10). His is the day
and His is the night (Psalm 74:16). His is "the kingdom, the power and the glory forever" (Matthew 6:13).
"He does whatever He pleases" (Psalm 115:3) with that which is His own, and He has graciously given us
all things in Christ and instructed us to possess the land in His Name (Deuteronomy 1:8; Isaiah 57:13b).
We are therefore the Caretakers of our Father's world and the Stewards of His possessions (Psalm 115:16).
In demanding licensure from Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, the State is asking that we
render to it the submission and tribute that Scripture requires us to give to God alone (Deuteronomy 6:13-14; Matthew 4:10). In its wicked rebellion, the modern State attempts to usurp the throne of the Lord
Jesus Christ and sets itself up as the "gold image" to which all its subjects are expected to bow. However,
we as servants of Christ need to realize that there is no neutrality in life; everything we do has an
underlying religious implication. When we succumb to intimidation from the godless rulers of our time to
submit our private property, our household pets, and even our children to licensure from the State, we are
acting as if Christ the King no longer owns and rules over all things, but has been Himself vanquished by
His enemies. Simply put, we are violating the very First Commandment, which tells us, "You shall have
no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3).
The Ungodly State is a "Beast"
In the book of Revelation, the ungodly State is pictured as a "beast" which, in claiming for itself the
prerogatives of God, is described as "speaking great things and blasphemies" (Revelation 13:5). The
Christians of the first-century were under the military authority of Rome - a nation which openly
proclaimed its rulers, the Caesars, to be divine. All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by
law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is
Lord." Upon compliance with this law, the citizens and subjects were given a papyrus document called a
"libellus," which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to
engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace. In this way, Roman society became, for all intents and
purposes, closed to anyone not willing to adhere himself and his family to the established religion of
Caesar-worship (statism). To be "a friend of the world" was, in a very real sense, to be "an enemy of God"
(James 4:4b). This is the essence of Scripture's warnings to the early Christians against taking upon
themselves the "mark of the beast":
"All who dwell on the earth will worship [the beast], whose names have not been written in the Book of
Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world...
"He causes all, both small and great, rich or poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand
or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the
beast, or the number of his name...
If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he
himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of
His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in
the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest
day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of
Jesus (Revelation 13:8, 16-17, 14:9b-12).
It should be remembered that "it was granted to [Caesar] to make war with the saints and to overcome
them" (Revelation 13:7a). Our Brothers and Sisters were torn apart by wild animals in the Roman
Coliseum and used as living candles in the gardens of Nero because they refused to offer up even a tiny
pinch of incense in his name and proclaim that he, not Christ, was Lord. In essence, they refused to
submit to licensure (permission) from the State to live and worship as God had commanded them.
Modern imperial America is very similar, in both its 'laws' and its social climate, to ancient imperial
Rome. We are, as were the Christians of the first century, commanded by the godless "powers that be" to
obtain the "mark of the beast" in our "right hand or forehead" by submitting to fictitious creation as
commercial "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment. We are confronted, as they were, with the
increasing difficulty of "buying or selling" without Social Security enumeration, which is the modern
"number of his name." It may very well be that our Lord has decreed that we shall soon suffer for His
Crown and Covenant as did His servants before us and pay the ultimate price for our obedience. Because
of this possibility, we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with the story of the three Hebrew youths
in Daniel 3. They were, as we in America are today, subjects of the mightiest military power on earth. The
pagan Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, like our current Federal government, had proclaimed himself to
be the only god to whom the people were to submit and had even set up a golden image to which they
were commanded to bow in symbolic worship of his name. When brought before the king and threatened
with death in a furnace of fire for their disobedience to this edict, their response was respectful yet
unwavering:
"O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom
we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O
king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the
gold image which you have set up" (Daniel 3:16b-18).
We as Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women are commanded by our Commander-in-Chief to be
His witnesses before the nations (Isaiah 43:10; Matthew 10:32; Acts 1:8). Contrary to the proponents of
the so-called "Patriot movement," we are not to be about the vain work of asserting our own personal
sovereignty, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is His flag which we are to follow and it is
Citizenship in His State which we are to proclaim. In the faithful exercise of this duty, we are
assured a great reward, if not in this life, then certainly in that which is to come. Though we may be
persecuted by the haters of our Lord and even "beheaded for [our] witness to Jesus and for the word of
God" (Revelation 20:4), we are not to "fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" but rather
"Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
Conclusion
Contrary once again to the secular patriotism ("Americanism") so prevalent in the tax-protest, state
Citizenship, and sovereignty movements, America deserves to live on in history only if its people return to
the Lord Jesus Christ and submit themselves once again to His Law. And since the Church is called to be
"the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matthew 5:13-14), such will never happen until
individual Christians begin to abandon their Federal benefits, revoke their licenses, forsake their
corporations, and stand faithfully upon the promises of God's Word. A generation that is more enamored
with the "cradle to grave" guarantees of "Egypt" than with the challenges of "the Promised Land" ahead,
is a generation which God will judge and whose "corpses [will fall] in the wilderness" (Hebrews 3:17).
Our King asks of such a people, "[Y]ou lift up your eyes toward your idols.... Should you then possess the
land?" (Ezekiel 33:25). May the Lord grant that our children will remember us as those who stood as bold
champions for the Crown Rights of King Jesus rather than those who grovelled at the feet of His enemies
for a handout.
Let us conclude by returning once again to Psalm 2:
"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us."
"He who sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to
them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure." (Psalm 2:1-5).
Admissions and Confessions
Part One:
Written and compiled by John Joseph
The Bankruptcy of The United States
The following begins the series, 'Admissions and Confessions,' which is intended to document full
disclosures by 'government officials.'
John Joseph's commentary is in italics.
Robert Bork once said that the majority of people who are in vinculis (in chains), are in jail because of
the admissions and confessions they made to those seeking them out. They, however, are not alone. All
admissions and confessions are usable, and We keep a record of these admissions and confessions to help
Us understand their pre-suppositions, perspective, and eschatology. Their admissions and confessions are
full disclosure, making 'fraud' very hard to prove, and the burden of proving any issue is on those who
affirm the issue, not on those who deny it.
For the same reason, God has given His Word in Scripture to light and guide the Christians path in
their lives here on earth. Whatever is not prohibited by Scripture is permitted. Whatever is condemned by
Scripture is prohibited. We are then left with this: because Scripture has been notice to all, then all are
without excuse, which includes any allegation of deceit or fraud. So, bringing actions or accusations of
fraud, when these disclosures have been fully made and approved of by the public, are for naught.
The Congressional Record
March 17, 1993---H1303
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.
Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government.
We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report
that will lead to our demise.
Mr. Trafficant has openly admitted that the United States, i.e., the federal corporation established in
1871, is bankrupt, and that Congress is merely managing the bankruptcy, the largest such bankruptcy in
history. But, who are They Trustees for? The bondholders of the national debt!! What is being used as
collateral for the bondholders, in order to avoid receivership? These are the questions we must find the
answers to in other admissions and confessions that are yet to be found and understood.
The point is, this bankruptcy would not have happened if the Scriptures, God's Word, had not been
abandoned by Christians.
"Nunquam res humanae prospere succedunt ubi negliguntur divinae, or Human
things never prosper when divine things are neglected." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p.
2151.
We are without excuse. It is up to Us to set things right for our Posterity, in order to give them a better
start in Christian living than what We may or may not have been enjoined with.
Letter from the CEO and
Postmaster General, Marvin Runyon
excerpts from 1997 Postal Service Employee Brochure
"I am pleased to introduce to you the indicator that we will be using from now on to measure our
financial performance - Economic Value Added, known as EVA.
"An important part of our mission is in our name--the United States Postal Service. We serve the
American public. Like shareholders in a private, for-profit business, the American people are our
stakeholders.
You are critical to the success of EVA. Examine what you do, devise ways to do it better, and use EVA
to measure the effectiveness of your ideas. Working together, we must review how we do things, how we
invest capital--both dollars and people--to get things done. Think of ways to improve how we move
the mail, get more out of our product line, use capital more effectively, and maximize the return on
the capital we use".
So, Mr. Runyon considers the American people stakeholders!! What is a stakeholder?
In Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., pg. 1404:
Stakeholder. "Generally, a stakeholder is a third party
chosen by two or more persons to keep on deposit property or money, the right or possession of which is
contested between them and to be delivered to one who shall establish his right to it; and it is one who is
entitled to interplead rival or contesting claimants to property or funds in his hands. Cochran v. Bank
Hancock County, 118 Ga.App. 100, 162 S.E.2d 765, 770. A person who is or may be exposed to
multiple liability as the result of adverse claims. A stakeholder may commence an action of interpleader
against two or more claimants. New York C.P.L. R. Sec. 1006. See also Interpleader.
A person with whom money is deposited pending the decision of a bet or wager (q.v.) His function is to
receive the sums wagered and hold them against the determining event, whether that event be a horse race
or otherwise, and then pay them over to the winner."
It appears that the American people have been reduced, through the bankruptcy, to 'multiple liability'
and holders of the fictions in a giant krap shoot.
Mr. Runyon also admits that not only dollars, but also people, are capital. So, what is capital?
From the same Law Dictionary, page 208:
Capital. "Accumulated goods, possessions, and assets used for the production of profits and wealth.
Often used equally correctly to mean the total assets of a business. Sometimes used to mean capital
assets."
How does it feel to be considered 'accumulated goods, possessions and assets,' of Commercial Babylon
and the bondholders thereof?
State Insolvency and Foreign Bondholders
by Edwin Borchard, pp. 123-128,
published by Yale University Press, 1951
State or National Insolvency
"State insolvency may take various forms, some mild, some drastic; it may be open and acknowledged or
disguised, such as devaluation of the currency or unit of payment; it may relate only to interest, principal,
or sinking fund, or to some or all of these in combination; it may be in good faith or bad, unavoidable or
willful; it may be formally acknowledged by legislation or be undeclared and left to inference. It may
involve discrimination among different creditors or among different groups of creditors, nationals, or
foreigners, or among foreigners of different nationality. [As in the case of Germany, which claimed in
1933 that its favorable trade balance with Holland and Switzerland enabled the Reich to treat bondholders
of those countries more favorably than American bondholders. See Charles R. S. Harris, Germany's
Foreign Indebtedness (London, Oxford University Press, 1935), p. 53.] It may involve discrimination
between large and small bondholders, between holders of the floating debt and long-term bondholders,
between secured and unsecured creditors, according to or in violation of the terms of the loan.
"The types of state insolvency have been classified as follows: state bankruptcy may be divided into (1)
the total nonperformance of (a) the obligation to pay the principal, (b) the duty to pay interest, or (c) of
both duties simultaneously; (2) the partial nonperformance of the obligations mentioned under (a), (b), (c).
[For other classifications of the types of state insolvency, see Madden and Nadler, Foreign Securities, pp.
264 ff., who distinguish between defaults as to interest; suspension of interest; reduction of interest
without consent of the lender; cancellation of interest and agreement to pay principal only; imposing of
new coupon taxes which reduce the interest on the loan; and defaults as to principal; forced conversion of
loan without consent of the lender; suspension of amortization charges; alienation of pledged revenues;
compulsory prolongation of a loan that has matured].
Korner, Staatsschuldentilgung und Staatsbankrott, pp. 80, 87, Jeze, loc. Cit., says:
'History affords many examples of States failing to fulfill their engagements. Thus, States may suspend
the payment of interest or sinking fund; they may perform their obligations in a currency different from
the one stipulated in the contract; or they divert revenues assigned for the service of the debt to other
purposes.' Feilchenfeld, in Quindry, Bonds and Bondholders, Rights and Remedies, Vol. II, sc. 647,
distinguishes between default, quasi confiscatory measures, confiscation and repudiation, voiding.
Winkler 'Defaults and Repudiation of Foreign Loans,' Foreign Policy Association, Information Service,
August 3, 1928, IV, 235, enumerates the following forms of government default: (1) reduction of the rate
of interest; (2) delay in the payment of interest; (3) suspension of payment of interest; (4) reduction in the
rate of interest through the levy (subsequent to the flotation of the loan) of taxes upon the rate of interest
agreed upon; (5) delay in payment of principal; (6) forced conversion of loans; (7) reduction in the
principal amount of loans; (8) payment of 'gold' loans in depreciated currency; (9) reduction in the amount
of sinking fund payments; (10) suspension of the sinking fund; (11) reduction of both interest and sinking
fund; (12) repudiation of both interest and principal.]
1. Nonpayment of interest--by reducing the rate, by postponing the payment for a period, by complete
and indefinite suspension of interest payments, by reduction of the coupon interest by a special tax on the
coupons in breach of the [loan] contract.
2. A failure to fulfill the obligations as to repayment of principal, either by postponing the duty to repay,
by transforming the obligation in to a different type, including compulsory conversion, by reducing the
capital amount of the debt, by depreciation of the prescribed standard of payment either through
devaluation, through going off a metallic standard on to an inconvertible paper basis.
This type of insolvency was known even in ancient Rome. In ancient times the amount of metal in the
coin was debased so as to make it less valuable. In modern times, the unit of currency is depreciated
["debased"] or "devalued" or a promise to redeem in gold is repudiated by redeeming in paper of an
arbitrary or uncertain value. Thus, under the French law of June 28, 1928, the French franc lost four fifths
of its value. The devaluation may confirm an existing depreciation, as in France, or it may deliberately
and suddenly depreciate or "go off gold" as in England in 1931 and the United States in 1933. From 1864
to 1879 the United States currency was not redeemable in gold. The French assignats of the French
Revolution, bonds issued as currency and "secured" on state lands, became worthless. Managed currency
has left the paper without a reliable basis for
in any fixed value. Excessive issues of paper
constitute a method of depreciating the monetary unit in which a debt is "repaid." The unit retains its
character as legal tender. Germany had this experience in 1922, and the German courts, down to the time
in 1923 when the currency was completely destroyed, held that "a mark is a mark." Foreign bondholders
of German marks had to bear the loss as did nationals. Ginlini v. The Reich, R. G. IV, 359/26, January 27,
1927. Mortgages, insurance policies, and other obligations were by statute revived or revalued
(Aufwertung) at 12% of their face amount.
After World War I the payment in an inflated paper currency of an obligation contracted in a metal
currency became common throughout many of the exbelligerent countries. It is a form of confiscation and
admission of insolvency. Russia entered on such a transaction in 1839, though in Russia it affected
practically only Russian creditors. This Russian affair has been characterized by writers as an
intentionally fraudulent transaction, for they took silver away from the people and gave them worthless
paper in its place.] or through a marked inflation. [Sometimes a combination of all three.]
"3. A reduction or repudiation of interest payments and the simultaneous reduction or repudiation of the
capital debt.
"4. The 'blocking of foreign exchange' by transfer prohibitions or licenses, with a deposit in
untransferable currency of funds representing the debt charges. This amounts to a retardation or
suspension of payment, possibly for an indefinite period, although the debt is not repudiated nor open
insolvency admitted."
In effect, martial law is used to secure the bondholder's rights to the payment of the bonds. This is one
of the 'reasons' for the continued 'permanent state of emergency' since 1933.
The most important question is: Is the bankruptcy real and legitimate or a created fiction by 'the
powers that be.'
Only through diligent research and the sharing of information by all who seek The Truth, will there be
a re-establishment of the inherited Dominions which Our Lord and Saviour has given Us, to be Good
Stewards over.
(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)
Let This Mind Be In You
Part Two
by John Quade
(continued from Issue the Twelfth)
The Flaw in Modern Christian Thought
In the so-called golden Age of Scholasticism (the 10th to 13th centuries), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Roman Catholic scholar, tried to merge the thought of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) and Christ. He
sought to take the best of what he found in Aristotle and merge it with the best of Christianity, and thereby
create a system of thought that would account for both the inner and outer world of man's existence.
Aquinas set forth his ideas in a very large work, called Summa Theologica.
Thomas failed to realize that he was not thinking like a Christian, because he depended on his own
reason to tell him where Aristotle's thought ended and Christianity began. It never occurred to Thomas to
see Aristotle in the light of Christianity and Scripture and by so doing, discover major flaws in Greek
philosophy. He merely assumed that Christianity was limited to the inner man, the realm of grace, and
that the outer man in the realm of nature, was under reason. Most important of all, Aquinas never asked
whether it was even possible for such a merger of two mutually exclusive systems, in the first place. His
first presupposition was--that his own reason was capable of achieving such a thing.
The result was, Thomas bifurcated man's existence by splitting man's mind into two different realms,
with each under a different authority, neither of which came under the authority of Christ and Scripture.
The inner man literally came under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, while the outer man, in
the world of nature, was under the authority of Aristotle and reason. The Roman Church thought so much
of Aquinas' work, that he and his work were canonized and became the accepted doctrine of the Church at
Rome.
Thomism began to collapse, however, as the victim of its own bifurcation, and it fell, as Aristotle's idea
of reason was applied by later generations of thinkers that revealed the hidden flaws, or presuppositions of
Thomas Aquinas. The problem was then, and still is--if Christ has nothing authoritative to say about the
world of nature, perhaps He has nothing authoritative to say about anything else. Christianity became
increasingly irrelevant to the new humanism that gave birth to the Renaissance and autonomous reason
was enthroned as king, in principal.
The Reformation reacted against the Renaissance. We have all heard how the Reformation began with
Martin Luther (1483-1546) nailing his Ninety-six Thesis to the door of the Wittenburg church in
Germany, but, what most do not know is, the Reformation asserted that Christ was King over the inner
and outer man, over both Grace and Nature. The Great Reformation rejected any bifurcation of man
existence, and asserted the contrary, by calling the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church into question
on the authority of Christ and Scripture alone.
This is the background to the popular phrase of Our founding father's: "No King but Christ." This is the
core of John Calvin's (1509-1564) great work, "The Institutes of the Christian Religion," first published in
1536. Calvin's work called all thought into question that did not conform to the Scriptures of God. It is
Calvinism that is embodied in the marginal references of the Geneva Bible, the Bible of the Reformation
and the early Puritans.
Interestingly, Leonardo Da Vinci, the chief example of Renaissance man, spent the last two years of his
life wallowing in skepticism as the guest of the King of France. Ironically, this great icon of the
Renaissance arrived at the French Court at the same time as Calvin's Institutes.
Calvin's body was barely cold in his grave, when a challenge to his views came down the pike in the
works of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) who said that Calvin's idea of predestination did not do justice to
reason and free will. It was ignored by Arminius's followers that Calvin wrote very little about
predestination. Luther's "Bondage of the Will," was an earlier and larger work on predestination.
At any rate, Arminius's followers wrote a Remonstrance against Calvin and the Calvinists responded
with a Counter-remonstrance. A heated debate followed that led to a split in the Reformation into the
Calvinists who held to the Sovereignty of God and the Arminians who asserted the sovereignty of free
will. A total of five points of disagreement stood between the two camps.
Key to Arminian doctrine is the assertion that man cannot be responsible for sin unless he has a free
will. Appealing not to Scripture, but to the ego of man, Arminians assert that man's will is free to resist
God's Will which is beyond the sovereign power of God.
It has apparently never occurred to the Arminians that the phrase free will nor its equivalent never
appears in Scripture nor has another more telling question ever arose, i.e., would or could God, ever create
something that was beyond his power to control???
Thus, as Aquinas asserted that nature was under the authority of reason and not under the authority of
God and Scripture, so also did Arminius assert that man's will was under his own control and guided by
his own reason. Today, more than ninety percent of the modern Protestant Evangelical churches are
Arminian in doctrine, if not explicitly, then implicitly.
The result is, Christ occupies one part of mind and thought, while the worldly side occupies another.
This is what Dr. Rushdoony has called, 'intellectual schizophrenia' and it is this intellectual schizophrenia
that is the primary reason why the Christian church has become so ineffective against the advance of
humanism.
Until the work of Cornelius Van Til and his contemporaries, no one bothered to seriously challenge
whether or not the question of responsibility vs. free will, vs. predestination, vs. etc., etc., was even a valid
question.
In other words, is man responsible because he has a free will, or is man responsible for some other
reason? If it can be shown that man is responsible whether he has a so-called free will or not, then the
whole of Arminianism goes out the window, and here is where Van Til comes to the defense of the
Christian position, for reasons which will become clearer further on.
Just as surely as quantities equal to the same thing are equal to each other, the form, language, and
even the meaning of words may be altered, but the essential core of an idea, its meaning or content, never
change the way it is manifest in history, and the same consequences always follow the same idea.
If we assume that any part of a man's life or thought is outside the power and authority of God, then it
will not be long, before other aspects of life are removed from God's authority. Once the toe is in the door,
the foot soon follows, and one area of life after another is all of a sudden thought of as outside the
authority of Scripture and Our King, Jesus Christ. "As a man thinketh, so is he." Man does what he
thinks. As Aquinas, so also Arminius, and so also the modern Christian church.
Thus, the rule confirmed by the history of thought is, grant the exception in one case and there is no
reason why the exception cannot be granted in every case. This is the inescapable consequence of any idea
that seeks to assert itself as being based in some area outside the realm of God's Power and Authority.
In concluding this part, we say; if this law reform movement we are involved in is to have any real hope
for long term success, then a radical change must take place in the type and quality of Christian thought
that we apply to the problems that face us, and Our righteousness must exceed that of the fathers if we are
to stand any hope of success.
Enter Presuppositional Philosophy
As we have mentioned before, Van Til begins with a very simple idea that has a very far reaching
impact on every area of Christian thought. Basically, it is this: all systems of thought or ideas can be
reduced to one of two starting points or presuppositions as he called them that must be in the thinkers
mind in order for him to say what he does. For example, one does not say 'praise the Lord Jesus,' unless
one's ultimate starting point or presupposition is Christian. Or, to put it another way, Non-christians do
not knowingly make statements in support of Christianity, if they understand what they are saying, in the
first place.
It is not a matter that some, or only the most important ideas are derived from an ultimate
presupposition; all ideas are presuppositionally based, and all Our ideas can only be derived from one of
two fundamental starting points or, presuppositions. Regardless of which presupposition one begins with,
a specific idea with a specific meaning or content is always derived from the same presupposition. The
presupposition behind an idea and its meaning is not arbitrary. Thus, we may speak of law, as an idea, but
the meaning of law and its consequence in practice, is absolutely determined by one's presupposition. One
kind of law always stems from a particular presupposition and a different kind of law stems from the
opposing presupposition.
The presupposition behind an idea and its consequence must be consistently maintained. Often, one
may begin with an idea of law based on a very specific presupposition, but while applying the idea, one
can be side-tracked, without realizing it, or one may know that one has deviated from his original idea's
meaning and still continue without a return to his original meaning. Usually, this is justified by asserting
the necessity to be practical, or in the interests of compromise, or some similar excuse. The fact remains
that one has contradicted ones self and is now working on a new presupposition that will change the
intended consequence of the idea over the long term.
It takes courage to be consistent with one's presupposition and follow it to its logical consequence.
There are always influences about us which demand that we go along to get along. But, if one is to be
honest to ones self and to his compatriots, he must maintain consistency, and then his presupposition will
truly govern the meaning of his ideas and what he believes and how he will act on his belief. In a sense,
over time and history, one becomes what his presupposition is--if the presupposition is maintained
consistently and acts as a real check on one's thinking.
As shown last month, all thoughts of all men are predestined by the ultimate, religious presupposition
one holds to. In theology (or atheology), philosophy, law, science, biology, education, politics, the family,
and all other things, this is the case. And, in the end, one who holds to one presupposition comes to one
conclusion as to what these things are, while one who holds to the opposing presupposition comes to an
entirely different conclusion as to what they are.
If one knows which presupposition lies behind a thought or idea, one can predict - generally - the
consequence of the idea in time and history, if one is consistent. Yet, one must know, self-consciously,
what his own presupposition is, how it is put into practice, and what impact to expect from his
presupposition over time. And, when we say one must know, self-consciously, we do not mean it in the
sense that one 'suspects' or feels good about his presupposition, nor do we mean that the presupposition is
held in a subjective, or emotional sense. One must know everything possible about his own presupposition
in as much detail as possible, and know how it differs from an opposing presupposition.
To know self-consciously means, to know consciously, to be self-conscious of one's own thoughts is to
know what one knows, and why one knows it. Thus, the self-conscious presuppositionalist does not do
something because it makes him feel good, or because it gives him gratification, or gives him a thrill, but,
because he knows, consciously, that he does what he does because of his desire to be consistent with his
ultimate presupposition. He does everything for a specific reason, that he himself knows about,
consciously, and believes is true. He is not dependent on other men for his authority and even when men
advise him, he will interpret the advice in the light of his presupposition. This will be clearer if we define
the two basic presuppositions that Van Til talked and wrote about all his life.
Again, harking back to last month's article, we know that the two basic presuppositions of all men are
either; one, God is Who He claims to be in Scripture, and two, the reason of man is autonomous and can
know all truth without any reference to God or revelation.
At no point does either presuppositions share a common starting point, as each mutually excludes the
other from its own system. Both are religious in the sense that both appeal to an ultimate.
In the discussion last month between Man 'A' and 'B' we also pointed out the importance of
presuppositional analysis and how all of us think in terms of Our presuppositions whether we know it or
not.
Theology vs. Atheology
Since all men are created in the image and likeness of their Creator, potentially, all men could think in
such a way that their thought would correspond to the way things are, be coherent and consistent with
God's view of reality. Further, the concatenation of ideas, i.e., a sequence of, or string of ideas put
together, line upon line, would make logical sense and there would be no contradiction.
But, one effect of sin is the corruption of the image of God in man which divides men and introduces
confusion and contradiction that is only corrected, potentially, by the regeneration of man's spirit through
salvation by the Grace of God.
We use the word 'potentially,' to emphasize the difference between what is possible and what in fact
exists at the moment. Man may be saved by God in an instant, but sanctification takes a lifetime. We may
plant the seed of an apple and say that it is an apple tree, but, it will take a good many years and
considerable care before it actually becomes a tree that produces apples, assuming all the necessary pre-conditions are in place, i.e., good soil, plenty of water, etc.
At any rate, men divide on presuppositions. Yet, all need the same things that are basic to their
existence because all are created by the same God. Whether one is a Christian or humanist, the over-whelming need of man is to fulfill the image and likeness of God impressed on his nature. The Christian
can fulfill his needs and realize his potential through sanctification, the study of Scripture, and the agency
of the Holy Spirit, the humanist cannot because his only tool is his own reason, which is confused by his
effort to suppress the image of God impressed on his nature.
Like the blind man, the humanist will grope in the dark, trying to fulfill the image of God within him,
but on his own terms and presuppositions, not on Godly terms and presuppositions. Humanists need
salvation, sanctification, justification, and fulfillment of all the other God-placed needs within him, but he
has no potential to achieve them, in fact and in a way that corresponds to the way things are.
And, while all men have the same needs, two entirely separate means are applied to fulfill them. For
the Christian, needs are fulfilled by God, while, for the humanist, needs are fulfilled by autonomous
reason.
At the bottom of this page is a chart of ideas classified by whether the idea is based upon the Christian
or humanistic presupposition. The chart can be extended to include as many ideas and related categories
of ideas as one can think of. Additional ideas of a general nature can be added to this list, but enough is
shown to illustrate the point. We can now take any of the general ideas and break them down into more
specific sub-categories, which can in turn, be broken down into greater and greater detail. In this chart,
the impact of the presuppositions are more clearly seen. Since the primary focus of this study is to arrive
at a systematic Christian approach to Law and civil government through the right system of thought, some
detail has been added to the idea of the State in the chart on Page seven. Note, under the humanist idea of
the State, the State takes on the nature and attributes of God. As long as such a State exists, it will seek to
fulfill its presupposition as 'the State is God walking on earth,' and it will attempt to emulate in the State,
all the nature and attributes of the image of God that is stamped on the humanists nature.
There is a very subtle difference between humanistic States before and after Christ that is worth noting.
Before Christ, the principal form of civil government was a monarchy bound to an official state religion
that was often polytheistic in its expression. The king was expected to promote and publicly support the
State religion and was often the head of both church and state.
The king was more or less deified and autonomous reason dominated, especially with the Greeks who
sought to bring the idea of autonomous reason more to the forefront in the idea of philosopher kings.
Alexander the Great was typical of this type of ruler. In each state, military power was essential and since
much of this power was drawn from mercenary armies, the king must have a very healthy treasury in
order to secure the allegiance of his armies and navies. Since resources within a state are limited, the need
to sustain military power meant that kings coveted the wealth of other nations and kings. Thus, for most
states in this period before Christ, conquest was a way of life.
After Christ, there began to be a tension between church and state under the growing influence of
Christianity. In the Hebrew republics based on Scripture, there was a separation between church and state,
i.e., Moses was head of the state and Aaron was head of the church. Both adhered to the Law of God but
the church had only the power of excommunication, although it could bring charges from its ecclesiastical
courts. This remained true in the Christian West until the 19th and early 20th centuries when the
churches sacrificed their authority in these areas for the sake of evangelism.
In humanistic states after Christ, from about 400 A.D., kings justified their authority by right of
inheritance and divine right, which was still supported by a very healthy military power.
But, from the time of Wycliffe (1320-1384), Christians began to challenge divine right and the
doctrines of primogeniture (the laws of inheritance), on Biblical grounds. Wycliffe asserted that even
kings were subject to the Law of God and thus, as in the best Hebrew states, the final authority in both
church and state was Scripture, with the result that, humanism declined. It is worth noting that the best
Hebrew states existed before the reign of kings, i.e., under the judges, and only rarely after that. Indeed,
after the installation of Saul as King of Israel, the reign of kings was erratic and often the reign of one or
another was as different as night and day.
With the re-emergence of humanism in the Renaissance and again in the mid-nineteenth century,
autonomous reason is disguised because of the recognized power of Christian thought. Autonomous
reason, as a general concept implements its ideas in the State, but under the guise of compassion and
concern for the welfare of those less fortunate.
Here we must digress a bit to make a very important observation.
First, both the Roman and modern state's begin from the same presupposition, i.e., that the State is god
walking on earth.
Second, both engage in bread and circuses, i.e., social welfare. Both even had widespread abortion
practiced.
But, the Roman state made no pretenses that its reason for welfare was compassion and concern for the
less fortunate. In Rome, state welfare was the only way the masses could be kept in line and not openly
rebel against the Army and the Emperors. Yet, the idea of compassion and concern for the less fortunate is
an idea that originated in the Old and New Testaments, and no where else. In all pagan states before
Christ, social welfare was implemented purely as a tactical move by the state, to keep the masses in tow,
i.e., to help the masses enjoy their slavery.
The modern welfare state, however, has borrowed an idea from Christianity and incorporated it as a
major component of justification for a social welfare state, but the end result is the same as it was under
the Roman Imperial powers--high tax rates and only a thinly disguised slavery for both rich and poor.
The point of this digression is simply to provide yet another example of what we have been saying
throughout this series of articles. The appearance or form may change from one era to another, but the
same ideas, implemented on the same presuppositions, always end with the same consequences. And, it
does not matter one whit whether the idea is ancient or modern.
The modern disguises began by borrowing Christian buzz-words, especially in the Abolitionist
Movement. By 1860 and Lincoln's War Against Christianity, the disguise didn't have to be very good
because already the church had lost its ability to think in a consistently Christian manner and discern the
times.
Thus, pre-Christian ideas of the state were manifest as monarchies based on autonomous reason,
modern states embody autonomous reason in a President or Prime Minister. Humanistic states still seek to
realize the all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent god/State. And as with the Pre-christian states, it can
never realize itself fully, because invariably, as the power of the State increases, other factors begin to
build that undermine a states ability to govern.
Notes on Income Taxes
While it is not mathematically definable as yet, it is clear that there is a maximum point at which a
state may tax--Lawfully. Any tax beyond this maximum Lawful tax rate (MLTR) must be illegal as a
form of theft, however it is disguised.
States may tax well beyond the MLTR for years. But, this short term gain solution--if
continued--produces long term pain, because the state is consuming so many resources out of a finite
potential populace, that it adversely affects the economy as a whole and the entire system just implodes on
itself.
The question is, is there some idea of what the maximum Lawful tax rate should be???
At this point, we cannot say. However, Drs. Rushdoony and Young have written a book entitled
"Tithing and Dominion," which, with careful study, may bear something more than a mere guideline for
taxes. The MLTR for purposes of sustaining civil government, seems to be about four percent (4%).
This is based upon a systematic breakdown of how the mandatory Biblical Tithe was distributed in
ancient Israel. Roughly, it is as follows:
Four percent for civil government,
Four percent for education,
One percent for the pastor,
One percent for the church or synagogue buildings. This total equals the tithe, or tenth as it was known.
Americans now pay about fifty-one (51%) percent of their income in taxes and the Founding Fathers
went to war over an annual per capita tax rate of three percent (3%)!!!
What is more interesting is, once upon a time, Americans paid income taxes that amounted to 21% of
the Federal Budget when the tax rate was about 18% per capita.
Now, the tax rate exceeds fifty percent, but, only accounts for about eleven percent (11%) of the total
Federal Budget. In other words, the tax rate goes up by nearly sixty percent (60%), but accounts for only
half of what it once took care of in the Federal Budget! What's going on here!!!
Most people believe that without income taxes the government would go belly-up, but as these numbers
(available from government sources) show, as the tax rate goes up, the effective percentage of the Federal
Budget paid by personal income taxes goes down. Imagine that!!!
Knowing these things, it should surprise no one that the modern states under the old Roman Imperial
system (still supported by a vast military power) can never collect enough taxes or power to have enough
to meet their needs as the humanistic state begins to crumble from the vacuum of its own presuppositions.
Over time, humanistic states become less efficient, failures become more obvious, the consumption of
resources cripples a states economy, corruption rises, it is more and more arbitrary, and so on. But, as with
Pre-christian states, so also with the modern states with respect to their military power which is always
considerable, and conquest continues and expands until the bitter end of it all.
Thus, all Non-christian systems of civil power must become tyrannies supported by military force for a
state that has no Law.
The will in humanism is the glorification of man whose principal agent in achieving this is always a
state of Godly proportions and powers that can never be realized. They must centralize power in the One
(the State), at the expense of the Many (the people) because the humanistic state never has enough power
to make certain that it will not fail.
A tyrant merely seeks to realize the alleged potential of his presuppositions. The irony is, that such can
never be realized in fact and reality over the long term, but the tyrants presuppositions blind him to this
fact. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that no matter what the humanistic state does, it
cannot erase the image of God in man that always lies in the background as a latent conscience, as a
thorn, to annoy and remind the humanist that he is failing to realize his presuppositional fantasy.
The Christian on the other hand knows the state is not God and that it must be controlled by laws
rigidly defined according to Scripture. The Christian knows that all the Laws of the state must conform to
God's Law, or, as Blackstone has said, they are no law at all. The Christian knows that when the state is
properly defined and its nature and purposes limited by Scripture, that its goal of justice for the poor, the
widowed, and the orphaned and the protection of life, liberty, and property is achievable to such an extent
that the Spirit of truth will lead the people into all righteousness and prosperity and that the Glory of God
will be manifest where ever man casts his eye.
Then all men will know that Christ is on His throne and all is right with the world above and the world
here and now. Then peace will walk among us in the Spirit of Him in Whom We live and move and Our
being.
Chart 'A'
General Ideas
Christianity/Humanism
Theology/Atheology
Philosophy/Autonomous Reason
The Christian state/The secular State
The Family/The Resource Unit
God's Law/man's law
In next month's issue, we will begin the task of defining the details of Chart B and thereby bring some
substance in Our system of thinking.
(continued in Issue the Fourteenth)
Thomas Jefferson:
Friend or Foe of Christian America?
Conclusion
(continued from Issue the Twelfth)
The following will conclude this series on The Hartford Convention's investigation into the policy of
The United States Government that led to The War of 1812 and Thomas Jefferson's role thereof.
For those interested in this subject, 'The History of The Hartford Convention' 447 pages, written in
1833 by the Secretary of that Convention, Theodore Dwight, is available on special request from the
Christian Jural Society Press, in re-copied book form.
The Hartford Resolutions and John Quade's comments on the full book, follow on Pages eleven, twelve
and thirteen.
...and Lord Hawkesbury, in a conversation with Mr. Monroe, "went so far as to express a wish that the
principles of the treaty of 1794 might be adopted in the convention, which it was then proposed to make;
and Lord Harrowby informed him, "that his government might probably, for the present, adopt the treaty
of 1794, as the rule in its own concerns, or in respect to importations from our country, and as he
understood him, all other subjects to which it extended." He even went further, and said, if the treaty had
expired (about which Lord Harrowby appeared to doubt) the ministry would take the responsibility on
itself, as there would be no law to sanction the measure." But Mr. Monroe, acting under his instructions,
was not willing to authorize even an inference, that the treaty of 1794 should ever form the basis of a
future one, repeated to him the remarks he had previously made to Lord Hawkesbury, and observed, that
in forming a new one, we must begin de novo -- that we were then but little experienced in our relations
with foreign countries; that our interests were better understood on both sides than when the treaty was
made--and that in making a new one, we might introduce into it what suited us, omit what we disliked,
and add what experience might suggest to be proper.
The idea that the agents on the part of the United States, in this attempt at negotiation, understood the
interests of their country more thoroughly than those connected with the negotiation of 1794, is but little
short of ludicrous. The treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay, in its operation and effects, proved to be a most
beneficial one to the country; and it is a little remarkable, that no subsequent arrangement with Great
Britain has been equally advantageous. Under Mr. Jefferson's directions, an effort was constantly made to
procure some provision against impressment--an object, certainly of great importance to our country. But,
when it was found impracticable to induce the British government to enter into stipulations on that
subject, it might well be doubted whether it was good policy, by insisting upon an impracticable measure,
to sacrifice all the other advantages which must necessarily arise from a just and reasonable commercial
treaty with that nation. To this day such a stipulation has not been obtained; but the disadvantages
experienced by the trade of the United States, for the want of a treaty like that negotiated by Mr. Jay, have
been numerous, and greatly detrimental. Those advantages were lost by not renewing that treaty; and the
treaty was not renewed, it is believed the facts will warrant the declaration, because it comported with Mr.
Jefferson's policy, at all times, to keep alive a controversy with Great Britain.
In April, 1806, William Pinkney, of Maryland, was appointed joint commissioner with Mr. Monroe, for
the purpose of settling all matters of difference between the United States and Great Britain, "relative to
wrongs committed between the parties on the high seas, or other waters, and for establishing the
principles of navigation and commerce between them." Their negotiations were held under the ministry
of Mr. Fox, who was considered as a great friend to the United States. Owing to his sickness, the business
on the part of the British government was placed in the hands of his nephew, Lord Holland, and Lord
Auckland. On the 11th of September, 1806, the American commissioners wrote to the secretary of state,
giving him an account of their first interview with the noblemen abovementioned, in which, when
noticing the matter of impressment, they say- "On the impressment subject it was soon apparent they
(Lords Holland and Auckland) felt the strongest repugnance to a formal renunciation or abandonment of
their claim to take from our vessels on the high seas such seamen as should appear to be their own
subjects." And such was the answer, from first to last, to every attempt to come to a formal arrangement
on this perplexing subject. Every ministry of Great Britain, however differently disposed on many other
subjects, on this thought and acted alike. With all the evidence that they possessed of the impracticability
of negotiating successfully on this topic, Mr. Jefferson made it the turning point of all his efforts. In
pursuance of this determination, on the 3d of February, 1807, Mr. Madison, secretary of state, wrote to
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, and after having alluded to the matter of impressments, said- "In the mean
time, the President has, with all those friendly and conciliatory dispositions which produced your mission,
and pervade your instructions, weighed the arrangement held out in your last letter, which contemplates a
formal adjustment of the other topics under discussion, and an informal understanding only on that of
impressment. The result of his deliberations which I am now to state to you, is, that it does not comport
with his views of the national sentiment, or the legislative policy, that any treaty should be entered into
with the British government which, whilst on every other point it is limited to, or short of strict right,
would include no article providing for a case which both in principle and practice, is so feelingly
connected with the honour and sovereignty of the nation, as well as with its fair interests; and indeed with
the peace of both nations.
"The President thinks it more eligible, under all circumstances, that if no satisfactory or formal
stipulation on the subject of impressment be attainable, the negotiation should be made to terminate
without any formal compact whatever."
On the 3d of January, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney wrote to the Secretary of State, saying- "We
have the honour to transmit to you a treaty, which we concluded with the British commissioners on the
31st of December. Although we had entertained great confidence from the commencement of the
negotiation, that such would be its result, it was not till the 27th, that we were able to make any
satisfactory arrangement of several of the most important points that were involved in it. A large
proportion of the provisions of this treaty,--no less than eleven of its articles--was taken from that of
1794." After giving an account of the various articles, those gentlemen say--
"We are sorry to add that this treaty contains no provision against the impressment of our seamen. Our
despatch of the 11th of November, communicated to you the result of our labours on that subject, and our
opinion that, although this government did not feel itself at liberty to relinquish, formally by treaty, its
claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen, its practice would, nevertheless, be essentially, if
not completely abandoned. That opinion has been since confirmed by frequent conferences on the subject
with the British commissioners, who have repeatedly assured us, that, in their judgment, we were made as
secure against the exercise of their pretension by the policy which their government had adopted in regard
to that very delicate and important question, as we could have been made by treaty."
This treaty was received at Washington the beginning of March, 1807, but was never even submitted to
the Senate for their advice and consent to its ratification. On the 20th of May following, Mr. Madison
wrote to Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney on the subject. The following is an extract from his letter:--
"The President has seen in your exertions to accomplish the great objects of your instructions, ample
proofs of that zeal and patriotism in which he confided; and feels deep regret that your success has not
corresponded with the reasonableness of your propositions, and the ability with which they were
supported. He laments more especially that the British government has not yielded to the just and cogent
considerations which forbid the practice of its cruisers in visiting and impressing the crews of our vessels,
covered by an independent flag, and guarded by the laws of the high seas, which ought to be sacred with
all nations.
"The President continues to regard this subject in the light in which it has been pressed on the justice
and friendship of Great Britain. He cannot reconcile it with his duty to our sea-faring citizens, or with the
sensibility or sovereignty of the nation to recognize even constructively, a principle that would expose on
the high seas their liberty, their lives, every thing, in a word, that is dearest to the human heart, to the
capricious or interested sentences which may be pronounced against their allegiance by officers of a
foreign government, whom neither the laws of nations, nor even the laws of that government, will allow to
decide on the ownership or character of the minutest article of property found in a like situation."
"It is considered, moreover, by the President, the more reasonable, that the necessary concession in this
case should be made by Great Britain, rather than by the United States, on the double consideration, first,
that a concession on our part would violate both a moral and political duty of the government to our
citizens, which would not be the case on the other side; secondly, that a greater number of American
citizens, than of British subjects, are in fact impressed from our vessels; and that, consequently more of
wrong is done to the United States than of right to Great Britain, taking even her own claim for the
criterion.
"On these grounds, the President is constrained to decline any arrangement, formal or informal, which
does not comprise a provision against impressments from American vessels on the high seas, and which
would, notwithstanding, be a bar to legislative measures, such as Congress have thought, or may think
proper to adopt for controlling that species of aggression."
"That you may the more fully understand his impressions and purposes, I will explain the alterations
which are to be regarded as essential, and proceed then to such observations on the several articles as will
show the other alterations which are to be attempted, and the degree of importance respectively attached
to them.
"Without a provision against impressments, substantially such as is contemplated in your original
instructions, no treaty is to be concluded."
After a long series of instructions, and remarks, relative to the manner of conducting the negotiation,
and of the concessions that may, if necessary, be made, it is said--
"Should the concession, (relating to the employment of seamen belonging to the respective countries,)
contrary to all expectation, not succeed, even as to the essential objects, the course prescribed by prudence
will be to signify your purpose of transmitting the result to your government, avoiding carefully any
language or appearance of hostile anticipations; and receiving and transmitting, at the same time, any
overtures which may be made on the other side, with a view to bring about an accommodation. As long as
negotiation can be honourably protracted, it is a resource to be preferred under existing circumstances, to
the peremptory alternative of improper concessions, or inevitable collisions."
Thus, it is apparent, that this treaty was rejected primarily on the ground, that no arrangement was
made in it to prevent the impressment of seamen. Of the importance of such an arrangement, had it been
practicable, there can be no difference of opinion among the inhabitants of the United States. But when it
was perfectly ascertained, that no stipulations on that subject could be obtained, that every successive
cabinet in England had agreed on this point, and the question only remained for our administration to
determine, whether all the relations of the two nations, and impressments with them, should be left in a
loose, undefined, and irritating condition, or all except that should be satisfactorily adjusted, leaving that
for future consideration, no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the latter course should have been
pursued. It will be recollected that the standing reason urged by Great Britain, against yielding the
principle that our flag should protect the crew was, that she was struggling against the power of
revolutionary France for her existence, and depended on her navy for her safety; and that under such
circumstances she could not admit the force of mere abstract principles--self-preservation being with her
the highest object of consideration. There certainly was much force in this objection on her part, to
treating on that specific point, at that critical period. That Mr. Jefferson should feel differently from the
British statesmen, was perfectly natural. It has been shown that his governing principle in politics was,
animosity against Great Britain, and attachment to France. It was well known, that from the strong
national resemblance between Britons and Americans, and particularly from the identity of language,
great difficulty would exist in distinguishing between American citizens and British subjects; and this was
one argument strongly urged against negotiation on this subject. But a clue to Mr. Jefferson's feelings
towards that nation, may be discovered in his works published since his death, beyond the passages
already quoted. The following is a letter to William B. Giles :--
"Monticello, April 27, 1795.
" DEAR SIR, - Your favour of the 16th came to hand by the last post. I sincerely congratulate you on
the great prosperity of our two first allies, the French and the Dutch. If I could but see them now at peace
with the rest of their continent, I should have but little doubt of dining with Pichegru in London next
autumn; for I believe I should be tempted to leave my clover for awhile, to go and hail the dawn of liberty
and republicanism in that island."
This is the language of Mr. Jefferson, when writing to an intimate and confidential friend. What must
have been the principles and the heart of the man, who, from mere political feelings and resentments,
could talk with such an air of levity, on such a subject? Wishing to dine with Pichegru in London,
necessarily implied a wish that he might, as well as a belief that he would, be able to invade, overrun, and
conquer Great Britain. That is, because the people of that nation preferred the government under which
they lived, and which had been the means of elevating their country to a far greater height of freedom,
prosperity, power, and renown, than any other European nation ever enjoyed, to Mr. Jefferson's notions of
republicanism, he would have subjected them to all the miseries and horrors of an invading and victorious
army, and to the tremendous consequences which must necessarily follow such a state of things, in such a
country . Fortunately for Europe, and the interests of the civilized world, he was disappointed of the
pleasure to be derived from such a festive entertainment. The French were not able to conquer Great
Britain, and of course Pichegru had no opportunity of inviting his republican friends in other parts of the
world to dine with him in London, and to heighten the hilarity of the entertainment, by witnessing the
pillage and butcheries which must have attended a conquest over such a city.
The Hartford Resolutions
15th day of December, 1814
The delegates from the legislatures of the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island, and from the
counties of Graflon and Cheshire in the state of New-Hampshire and the county of Windham in the state of Vermont,
assembled in convention, beg leave to report the following result of their conference.
"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the several states represented in
this Convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said
states from the operation and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the
United States, which shall contain provisions, subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts,
conscriptions, or impressments, not authorized by the constitution of the United States.
"Resolved, That it be and hereby is recommended to the said Legislatures, to authorize an immediate
a:nd earnest application to be made to the government of the United States, requesting their consent to
some arrangement, whereby the said states may, separately or in concert, be empowered to assume upon
themselves the defence of their territory against the enemy; and a reasonable portion of the taxes, collected
within said States, may be paid into the respective treasuries thereof, and appropriated to the payment of
the balance due said states, and to the future defence of the same. The amount so paid into the said
treasuries to be credited, and the disbursements made as aforesaid to be charged to the United States.
"Resolved, That it be, and hereby is, recommended to the legislatures of the aforesaid states, to pass
laws (where it has not already been done) authorizing the governors or commanders-in- chief of their
militia to make detachments from the same, or to form voluntary corps, as shall be most convenient and
conformable to their constitutions, and to cause the same to be well armed, equipped, and disciplined, and
held in readiness for service; and upon the request of the governor of either of the other states to employ
the whole of such detachment or corps, as well as the regular forces of the state, or such part thereof as
may be required and can be spared consistently with the safety of the state, in assisting the state, making
such request to repel any invasion thereof which shall be made or attempted by the public enemy.
"Resolved, That the following amendments of the constitution of the United States be recommended to
the states represented as aforesaid, to be proposed by them for adoption by the state legislatures, and in
such cases as may be deemed expedient by a convention chosen by the people of each state.
"And it is further recommended, that the said states shall persevere in their efforts to obtain such
amendments, until the same shall be effected.
"First. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective numbers of free persons, including those bound
to serve for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, and all other persons.
"Second. No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by
the constitution, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses.
Third. Congress shall riot have power to lay any embargo on the ships or vessels of the citizens of the
United States, in the ports or harbours thereof, for more than sixty days.
"Fourth. Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, to
interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and any foreign nation, or the
dependencies thereof.
"Fifth. Congress shall not make or declare war, or authorize acts of hostility against any foreign
nation, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses, except such acts of hostility be in defence of
the territories of the United States when actually invaded.
"Sixth. No person who shall hereafter be naturalized, shall be eligible as a member of the senate or
house of representatives of the United States, nor capable of holding any civil office under the authority of
the United States.
"Seventh. The same person shall not be elected president of the United States a second time nor shall
the president be elected from the same state two terms in succession.
"Resolved, That if the application of these states to the government of the United States, recommended
in a foregoing resolution, should be unsuccessful, and peace should not be concluded, and the defence of
these states should be neglected, as it has been since the commencement of the war, it will, in the opinion
of this convention, be expedient for the legislatures of the several states to appoint delegates to another
convention, to meet at Boston in the state of Massachusetts, on the third Thursday of June next, with such
powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require.
"Resolved, That the Hon. George Cabot, the Hon. Chauncey Goodrich, and the Hon. Daniel Lyman, or
any two of them, be authorized to call another meeting of this convention, to be holden in Boston, at any
time before new delegates shall be chosen, as recommended in the above resolution, if in their judgment
the situation of the country shall urgently require it."
This document was immediately published, arid extensively circulated through the country. It was
looked for with much anxiety, and of course was read with great avidity. The expectations of those who
apprehended it would contain sentiments of a seditious, if not of a treasonable character, were entirely
disappointed. They looked in vain for either the one or the other, and were obliged to acknowledge that no
such sentiments were to be found in it. Equally free was it from advancing doctrines which had a tendency
to destroy the union of the states. On the contrary, it breathed an ardent attachment to the integrity of the
republic. Its temper was mild, its tone moderate, and its sentiments were liberal and patriotic. Many
leading members of the party who had always adhered to the administration and supported the war, did
not hesitate to declare that it was an able and unexceptionable document; and politicians of every party,
and of all descriptions, agreed that it displayed great ability, and contained principles and sentiments of
much importance to the welfare of the nation.
John Quade's Comments
Jefferson's Legacy and Lincoln's War Against Christianity
After reading "The History of the Harford Convention," all of us at The Christian Jural Society Press
have come to the following conclusions.
The number of parallels between Thomas Jefferson and modern presidents since Wilson and Roosevelt,
is such that, in truth, he is almost the archetype for the modern reality. Here was a man obsessed with
power on his own terms, and one who, believed in his own importance for the right development of world
history. This product of French Enlightenment culture, engaged in intrigues while occupying the White
House that resulted in the War of 1812, even though the War did not begin until after he had left the
presidency, but, more important, was the long term impact of Jefferson's policies and his Anti-christian
spirit.
We have seen how Jefferson's obsession with everything French and hatred of everything British led to
his using the impressment issue against England while using his power in the White House to aid France.
Even though Jefferson had the opportunity to gain a treaty by ignoring the impressment issue, he used
impressment to justify opposition to the treaty.
The problems this created for America were aggravated by the war between France and England that
was then in progress. The war produced blockades by England against France and vice versa. The result
in America was economic depression that impacted chiefly on the northern states, i.e., New England,
because such states were dependent on their shipping and trade for most of their economy.
At any rate, Jefferson's machinations and manipulations in this period succeeded only in making
matters worse, between America, England, and France. Eventually, England and America came to blows
in the War of 1812 and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention reflected the alarm in the States that
resulted from that War, the responsibility for which must be placed squarely at the feet of Thomas
Jefferson.
But, the aftermath of that War and Jefferson's policies, had a far greater impact long after Jefferson was
dead and gone. At the time Theodore Dwight wrote his "History of the Hartford Convention," on which
this series on Jefferson has been based, he could not possibly know the long-term outcome of these events
and thus, his citation of secret correspondence between the Governor of Canada and his agent, Mr. John
Henry, has telling significance.
It is significant because it points out that already, by 1810, there was a movement in the Northern states
to separate from the Union. Thus, in one letter, Mr. Henry says:
"I have already given a decided opinion that a declaration of war is not to be expected: but, contrary to
all reasonable calculation, should the Congress possess spirit and independence enough to place their
popularity in jeopardy by so strong a measure, the legislature of Massachusetts will give the tone to the
neighboring states; will declare itself permanent, until a new election of members; invite a Congress to be
composed of delegates from the federal states, and erect a separate government for their common
defence and common interest. This congress would probably begin by abrogating the offensive laws and
adopting a plan for the maintenance of the power and authority thus assumed. They would by such an
act be in a condition to make or receive proposals from Great Britain; and I should seize the first
moment to open a correspondence with your excellency. Scarce any other aid would be necessary, and
perhaps none required, than a few vessels of war, from the Halifax [Nova Scotia] station, to protect the
maritime towns from the little navy which is at the disposal of the national government. What
permanent connection between Great Britain and this section of the Republic could grow out of a civil
commotion, such as might be expected, no person is prepared to describe; but it seems that a strict
alliance must result of necessity. At present, the opposition party confine their calculations merely to
resistance; and I can assure you that at this moment, they do not freely entertain the project of
withdrawing the eastern states from the Union, finding it a very unpopular topic; although a course of
events, such as I have already mentioned, would inevitably produce an incurable alienation of the New-England from the southern states."
In very simple terms then, by 1810, there was already a move by northern states, as a result of
Jefferson's policies, to secede from the Union and the justification for it was strictly commercial interests
between the New England states and England itself.
The Resolutions of the Hartford Convention were never adopted, which meant that the power of the
states-- especially in the South-- was already declining. Commercial interests and those interests alone,
motivated the North to force the South to secede, thereby being free to pursue its commercial interests.
It was this fact that Lincoln exploited to support abolition of the Constitution. But, with the abolition of
the Constitution, the Union would break up and the South would go its own way. This Lincoln would not
hear because of Federal interests in taxation on Southern exports that provided most of the Federal
revenues.
Thus, when Lincoln was asked why he didn't just let the South go, he replied: "Let the South go? Let
the South go! Where then shall we get our revenues?" (from "Memoirs of Service Afloat," by Raphael
Semmes, The Blue and the Gray Press, 1987, page 61.)
To the original question, 'Thomas Jefferson, Friend or Foe of Christian America?'--the answer has to be
a major: Foe!!!
Statism is Idolatry
A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver
And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:1-3.
At II Kings 17:1-20:
"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel
nine years.
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, but not as the kings of Israel that were before
him.
Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him
presents [tribute].
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt,
and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria
shut him up, and bound him in prison.
Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three
years.
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and
placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them
up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel,
which they had made.
And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and
they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree:
And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away
before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger:
For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, 'Ye shall not do this thing.'
Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying,
'Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to the law which I
commanded your fathers, which I sent to you by My servants the prophets.'
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did
not believe in the LORD their God.
And they rejected His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies
which He testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen
that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like
them.
And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images even two
calves, and made a grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven [sun, moon, and stars], and served Baal.
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and
enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger.
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight: there was none left
but the tribe of Judah only.
Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of of Israel
which they made.
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of
spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight.
For He rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and
Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.
For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;
Until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He had said by all His servants the prophets. So was
Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day."
Idolatry is plainly and obviously forbidden in the Scriptures. The problem that you and I have today with
idolatry is our limited concept of idolatry. If you just simply mention the word 'idolatry,' most people
automatically think of individuals who bow down to idols, who bow down to graven stones and images.
And certainly bowing down to graven stones and images is a part of and an aspect of idolatry, but that is
certainly not the whole of idolatry. In fact, we usually forget the fact that the word 'image' comes from the
word 'imagination' and before someone can ever build an image, he has to imagine that thing in his mind
and then he has to build it with his hands.
So, idolatry not only covers literal things, such as idols or graven images, but it also covers concepts in
our mind. In the Bible, you often find idolatry spoken of in a limited sense, but more than likely, you find
it in its broad, general sense. The reason you and I like to think of idolatry in its limited sense--that is,
bowing down before some graven stone or graven image--is because we do not like to think of ourselves
as idolaters.
May I ask you this question. And I want you to think seriously about it. Are you an idolater?
You say, "Well, I don't bow down before graven images." That's not what I asked you.
Take the following very seriously. For, that which I have to say is extremely important in light of our
day and in light of our times.
We're talking about idolatry. At Ephesians 5:5, the Apostle Paul says,
"For this you know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ and of God."
Now, I want you to note, that Paul said, that a whoremonger; that an unclean man; that a covetous man;
is an idolater. So, fornicators and adulterous individuals, are idolaters. But also, covetous individuals.
At Colossians 3:5, once again, it is spelled out very plainly. Here, the LORD says,
"Mortify therefore your members [that is, subdue them], which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
That means if I covet Brother Henry's wife, I am an idolater. If I covet his children, I am an idolater.
If I covet his automobile, I am an idolater.
Covetousness is idolatry. In other words, idolatry is not given in the Bible just in a limited sense, the
way we normally think of it; it's in a very broad sense.
Idolatry involves any and every attempt by man to be guided by his own word, rather than the Law
Word of God. Anytime you replace God's Word with your word, you are an idolater. Anytime you replace
God's Law with your law, you are an idolater.
If I was to turn to Genesis, chapter 3, and read there the description of 'the fall,' you would see very
plainly that Adam and Eve traded God for Satan, they traded Truth for a lie, they traded Righteousness for
sinfulness. And we can see very clearly that they were unfaithful to God, and unfaithful to the Charge of
God, and we can charge Adam and Eve with the sin of idolatry. And that would be a correct charge.
But may I point out the fact, that modern day men and women who stubbornly and rebelliously
substitute their own will for God's Will, their own words for God's Word and man's law for God's Law,
are equally idolaters.
The basic question for the Christian is this. 'What is treason?' You say, ' but Pastor, you've been talking
about idolatry. What in the world does treason have to do with idolatry?' A great deal. What is treason? Is
treason unfaithfulness to the State. Or is treason unfaithfulness to God?
I want you to think about something with me. Whenever we use the word 'treason,' we normally think of
it in terms of the State or in terms of civil government. But treason to the State, is the concept that has
been used down through the ages to destroy the Godly.
Do you remember all of the Christians who were put to death in the Roman Empire? They were not put
to death because they were Christians. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as
long as you swore by the genius of Caesar; just as long as you said, 'Caesar is Lord.' Christians were put to
death not because they were Christians, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals,
because they would not swear allegiance to the State.
All down through history, Christians have been put to death because they said, 'Jesus Christ is Lord.'
For the Christian, it is idolatry, which above all else, constitutes treason to the social order. We know, and
we believe, that God is True and His Word is True. Disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it
is treason.
Did you know that the United States Constitution defines treason? In fact, Article 3, section 3, says this:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Who is the 'them and their'? The states or the people?
What if the enemy of the people and the Christian turns out to be the State; turns traitor against The
Law of God--and against its own Constitution? If we as Christians obey the State, or if we obey any
government--when that government is guilty of idolatry, and guilty of going contrary to the Word of
God, and we obey the government that tells us to go contrary to the Word of God--we become idolaters.
And we become partakers with its sin and its punishment.
There is a concept that is around in this country; it's been around down through the ages. It's the concept
of Statism. Statism is the idea, that the State or the government is always right. And that the State or
government can do no wrong. It was Hegel who said, " The State is God, walking on the earth."
I want you to know that that concept is idolatry, pure and simple. Because it ascribes to man--it ascribes
to civil government the Perfections, the Righteousness and the Justice, that belongs to God alone. And
anyone that says, "the government can do no wrong or the government is always right," is saying in
essence, "government takes the place of God."
God alone, is always Right. God alone, can never do anything unjust and unkind. And so, that particular
idea, is idolatry. Government can be an idol just as much as anything else.
In fact, throughout the Bible, it was usually civil government that led in idolatry. You know, that was a
shock to me, when I realized that. And I want to go back and trace it down. I want to challenge you to do
this. It would be interesting to study the Word of God and search the Scriptures, and find out which
idolatries came into existence under which king.
Did you know that the worship of Moleck came into Israel under King Solomon and also, several other
idolatries? At I Kings 11:4:
"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and
his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of
the Ammonites.
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his
father.
Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before
Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel,
which had appeared unto him twice."
Note that the worship of Molech came in under Solomon.
Now, at I Kings 12:26, we find another civil ruler, Jeroboam, who introduces idolatry:
"And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David:
If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this
people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again
to Rehoboam king of Judah.
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for
you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.
And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan.
And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of
the sons of Levi.
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the
feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the alter. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he
had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
So he offered upon the alter which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in
the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he
offered upon the alter, and burnt incense."
And again, we find civil government's introduction of idolatry at II Kings 21:1:
"Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem.
And his mother's name was Hephzibah.
And he did that which is evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abomination of the heathen, whom the
LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up alters
for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served
them."
Now, every verse so far, points out that it was the civil leaders who were introducing idolatry into the
land.
Why are governments prone to introducing idolatry into the land? Several reasons:
Firstly, because government deals with law. Law is inherently religious. All law is religious. Behind
every law, is a moral judgment. Behind every law is a value judgment. And your values and your morals
are based upon your theology. It is based upon your religion.
Law may be Christian or it may be pagan, but it is still religious. The reason we have the laws in our
country, that we have today, are because of the false religions that our leaders have; and that we the
people, who elect them, have.
And by the way, how many lawgivers are there? Only One. There is one God; there is one King; there is
one Lawgiver.
In reality, governments do not have to make laws; they just need to enforce God's Law, because His Law
in sufficient.
But whenever you begin to make laws, you're going to make a law which is in line with your theology
and in line with your religious motivation, whether it's pagan or Christian. The first reason governments
are prone to idolatry is because they deal with law. And instead of enforcing God's Law, they make their
own law.
Secondly, because it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself. Just as Jeroboam introduced idolatry
to Israel, because he was afraid they were going to go back to Rehoboam. So Jeroboam said, 'it is too much
for you to go down to Judah to worship, where the tabernacle is, where the true alter is, so I'm going to
make some golden calves and I'm going to ordain a feast the way they had it, and I'm going to make some
priests--their not Levites--but I'm going to make some priests and we're going to have our own religion.'
You see, Jeroboam introduced idolatry into the land to perpetuate his own office; to keep his position.
Have you ever known of a politician who did not want to be re-elected? Have you ever known of a political
party that did not want to stay in power? And, have you ever known of either one of them who were not
willing to do any thing to keep themselves in power?
John 11:47 proves exactly what I am saying:
"Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth
many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take
away both our place and nation."
They were in power, and they wanted to stay in power. And they were willing to crucify the Son of God
to stay in power.
Now, the reason governments have the propensity to idolatry, is not only because it deals with the law,
and it's the nature of government to perpetuate itself, but also:
Thirdly, because government is power. Government is authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of
exercising dominion over God's Creation, and trying to have dominion over that, want to exercise
dominion over men.
What did Satan have to say to Adam and Eve?: 'you shall be as God.' Who has control over men? God
does. Well, if we are our own gods or if we think we're some type of god, then we're going to have to
exercise some control over men in order to prove it. So governments, then, are prone to idolatry. It's
interesting that it was Solomon that introduced Moleck worship. He also built an alter for Astarte worship.
It's interesting that he did that as well. Astarte was the goddess of sex, or love; a lot of prostitution was
involved in the worship of Astarte.
Now, Molech worship is a power religion. It is a political religion. There was no king in Israel that had
the power that Solomon had. Solomon knew power. In fact, Solomon ruled from the river Euphrates, all
the way to the sea. He ruled the whole of The Promised Land which God had given. No other king had
done that before or after. So Solomon knew what power was.
You see, Molech worship is the worship of the State. The word 'Molech' means, 'king or kingship.'
Molech worship is the concept of divine kingship. We know it in our time as, 'the divine right of kings.'
And, do you know that that concept went out the window just a few hundred years ago? Do you realize
that Europe still had kings that ruled as God? Their word was absolute law. The king could do no wrong.
They ruled in the place of God. Molech worship was a power manifested in the political order. It was a
political religion. And the king became identified with God to the degree that manifested absolute power.
Thus, the Molech state, as the Molech king, claimed total jurisdiction over man. That's where we get the
term, 'Statism.' That's where we get the term, 'totalitarianism.' It's a claim of total and absolute
jurisdiction.
The Molech state-- the false pagan idolatrous governments of our day--claim unlimited jurisdiction.
They claim unlimited control over man and the world. The Molech state claims jurisdiction from the
cradle to the grave. Or as one man says, 'from the womb to the tomb.' Over welfare, education, worship,
family, business, farming--you name it, they claim control of it. And if you don't believe that is true in
our land today, try to enter into any of that without a license or certificate and you'll find out. The
government claims absolute jurisdiction and control.
This past year, a Pastor friend of mine, W. N. Otwell--in Dallas, Texas--he and his church were
concerned about the street people. There were a lot of people in Dallas who were going into the garbage
cans and getting the food out and eating it. Now, I don't know about you, but I've always viewed that as
being rather unhealthy, as well as unappetizing. Well, they got convicted about all of these people, so his
church got together, and every Sunday they would bring sandwiches and other foods like that, and they
would bring enough for themselves and enough for 2 or 3 others. And after church, they would go out and
find these street people who were eating out of the garbage cans and share their lunches with them, and
witness to them while they were doing so. And it got to the point where they were feeding hundreds of
people each Sunday. And do you know, that the city came to them and told them that they could not do
that without a license? Their food had not been inspected. Their food was not approved. They did not have
a Health Certificate.
Pastor Otwell said to them, "you mean to tell me that I can't make a sandwich in my home and bring it
down here and share it with a man, without having a license or certificate?" They said, "that's exactly
right." He said, "let me ask you a question. What if I take all of these sandwiches and just throw them in
the garbage can? I make them at home, I throw them in the garbage can and turn around and walk off.
And these folks come out and dig it out of the garbage can and eat it. Do I have to have a license for that?"
"No, you don't have to have a license for that." So, the next Sunday, he had several garbage cans on the
sidewalk full of junk which said 'city food' and then over here he had 'church food.'
That's the Molech state!
Read Romans 13. Did you know that the State or government is not only called power and ordinance in
Romans 13? There are two words that are very, very pointed. Twice, the government is called, 'the
minister of God.' The word 'minister,' twice, is 'deaconos.' That's where we get our English word, 'deacon.'
Government is to be the 'deacon of God.' Secondly, the word 'liturgos' is used, when it's called 'minister.'
That's where we get our English word, 'liturgy.' A public worship. Government is to be God's liturgy, it is
to be God's public worship. It is to serve God. It is to carry out God's commands. Government was given
to us, according to Romans 13, for our protection, for our promotion. Not for a welfare state. The Word of
God does not give the State the power or the authority to go beyond The Word of God.
Now, listen to me. To ascribe power, authority, reverence, submission, or anything else to the
State--above The Word of God--is idolatry.
The State does not have 'infinite wisdom.' Only God has Infinite Wisdom. It is idolatry to talk about our
government and our lawmakers as having infinite wisdom. You see, we are not to fear other gods. We are
to fear The One True and The Living God, who is The LORD Jesus Christ. The reason why God punished
and chastised Israel is found at II Kings 17:7; because they feared other gods.
Question. What does it mean 'to fear the LORD'? What does it mean 'to fear other gods'? When I talk
about the fear of the LORD; and when the Bible says that 'the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all
wisdom,' what does it mean? Well, when God talks about the fear of the LORD, He is not talking about a
servile fear. He's not talking about a fear of punishment, a fear of wrath or a fear of hell. He's talking
about a 'filial fear'; that is, a fatherly fear. A fear that is based upon the knowledge of God as Father. A
reverencial affection for God which results in loving submission and loving obedience to Him and His
Word. Note what God says at Job 28:28:
"Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding."
Now, wisdom is the fear of the LORD and to depart from evil is understanding. There is the positive and
the negative. And at Proverbs 1:7:
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
And at Proverbs 1:29:
"For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD." If you don't fear God, you hate
the knowledge of Him.
Verse 30:
"They would have none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof."
The fear of the LORD, negatively speaking is, 'to depart from that which is wicked and sinful and
contrary to God.' The fear of the LORD, positively speaking is, 'to obey God and His Law and His Statutes
and to do that which is well pleasing in His sight.'
Let me put it to you in black and white. When you fear God, you keep His Word. You obey His
Commandments.
When you fear a false god, you keep his law and his commandments. How do we know if a man fears a
false god? He walks in the commandments and the statutes of the false god.
Now, what did the children of Israel do, to sin against God? One, they walked in idolatrous statutes and
laws of the heathen god. Two, they walked in and kept the idolatrous laws of their kings, which they had
made. In other words, they obeyed civil government when that government was against God and contrary
to God.
The main question for Christians today is, 'what is treason'? Is treason against God or is treason against
the State? For the Christian, it has to be against God. We have forgotten that idolatry and sin can come
under the 'color of law.' Idolatry and sin can come under that which is 'right and just,' in the sense that it
comes from civil government. At Psalm 94:20:
"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief by a law?"
A 'throne' speaks of rulership, power and authority. 'Mischief' means sin and transgression. 'The throne
of iniquity' is that which makes sin legal by passing a law. God asks this question, "shall that wicked civil
power which violates My Law and My Word have fellowship Me?" The answer is obviously, "no."
Beloved, I submit to you that it is idolatry to place any power; any authority; any statutes;-- above the
Word of God. God only, is God. He alone is to be worshiped and feared.
I challenge you to read II Kings 22 and 23. The main chapter is 23, because Josiah becomes king, a
Godly civil ruler, and starts cleaning house. One Godly ruler stands for God and casts out all of the
previous idolatry.
The current government will pass one little law, and we say, 'that doesn't bother us,' until all of a sudden
there's a strangle hold. Pastor Craig of Kentucky is in jail right now, charged with the 'crime' of
'preaching without a license.'
You see, we need to be perceptive enough to know that God's Truth is Supreme and that God alone is
Sovereign. And we must obey God, rather than man. And when someone causes us to vacillate or when
we are threatened with punishment and fines and this and that, the only question we must ask ourselves is
this; What does God's Word say? And then we must obey God and take whatever man dishes out.
Our LORD said this,
"fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear
Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28.
Our fear is to be of God alone.
Pastor Weavers sermon tapes are available at the following location: Dominion Tape Library, P. O. Box
684, Hephzibah, Georgia [30815]
Admissions and Confessions
Part Two:
Written and compiled by John Joseph
From Elector to Franchised Voter
In this Issue, we will examine certain areas of Lincoln's world he created in his own image and
likeness. Many of you who are Patrons of The News, or have attended a Christian Liberty Seminar or
called us on the phone, are well aware of our stand against Abraham Lincoln and Francis Lieber and the
Roman commercial world they created within the states, primarily under the Reconstruction Acts and
various other pieces of "legislation," which were results of their earlier actions.
Most of you know that courts do not decide political questions, but look to the acts of the political
departments of government for the controlling law. Therefore, we look at court decisions quite heavily,
because they are confirmation of the executive or legislative acts in regard to these particular questions.
"It certainly is nowhere made so in express terms. The United States has no voters in the States of its
own creation. The elective officers of the United States are all elected directly or indirectly by State
voters. The members of the House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people of [*171] the States,
and the electors in each State must have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous
branch of the State legislature [Const. Art. I, sec. 2]. Senators are to be chosen by the legislatures of the
States, and necessarily the members of the legislature required to make the choice are elected by the voters
of the State [ib. Article I, sec. 3]. Each State must appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may
direct, the electors to elect the President and Vice-President [ib. Article II, sec. 2]. The times, places, and
manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives are to be prescribed in each State by the
legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the
place of choosing Senators [ib. Article I, sec. 4]. It is not necessary to inquire whether this power of
supervision thus given to Congress is sufficient to authorize any interference with the State laws
prescribing the qualifications of voters, for no such interference has ever been attempted. The power of
the State in this particular is certainly supreme until Congress acts." Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21
Wall. 162, 170-171.
In other words, the "United States" originally had no Electors in any of the states separate and distinct
from the Christian people in the states. The United States, then, was totally dependent on the decisions of
the consociated Christian states for its continued longevity. That this is true is seen in Story's
Commentaries and in Judge Sprague's instructions to the Grand Jury in 1863:
"In the next place, the state governments are, by the very theory of the constitution, essential constituent
parts of the general government. They can exist without the latter, but the latter cannot exist without the
former. Without the intervention of the state legislatures, the president of the United States cannot be
elected at all; and the senate is exclusively and absolutely under the choice of the state legislatures. The
representatives are chosen by the people of the states. Every where the state sovereignties are represented;
and the national sovereignty, as such, has no representation. How is it possible, under such
circumstances, that the national government can be dangerous to the liberties of the people, unless the
states, and the people of the states, conspire together for their overthrow? If there should be such a
conspiracy, is not this more justly deemed an act of the states through their own agents, and by their own
choice, rather than a corrupt usurpation by the general government?" Joseph Story, Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States (1833), 510, Vol. 1, p. 488. [Emphasis added.]
"It has been found even more potent in its practical operation than they had contemplated. They [the
Good and Lawful Christian people in their states] secured to members [of the House] perfect freedom of
debate, and certain means of information, that they might be able to form a correct judgment, and gave to
them personal immunities and a certain tenure of office, that they might independently and
conscientiously follow the dictates of their own informed understandings. But, in practice, almost every
representative holds his own judgment in entire subjection to the will of his constituents. No matter how
cogent the facts, or unanswerable the reasoning for or against any measure, he deems it a sufficient
answer to say, 'My constituents think otherwise.' He takes an official oath and those who have taken no
oath control his action. He hears the discussion, receives information and light from all parts of the
country upon great measures affecting the whole nation; and others, at their distant homes, who have not
heard the discussion, nor received that information, nor obtained that light, decide the question. Thus,
instead of acting as a member of a deliberative assembly, he becomes in effect an ambassador, or
diplomatic agent, with instructions in his pocket, and is constantly watching for indications of the will of
a distant [sovereign Power in his constituents], to which he yields implicit obedience [allegiance].
"The members of the Senate have the same antecedents and predilections, and are equally devoted to
state interests and submissive to state will. They are elected by the legislatures of the several states; and
those bodies claim the right to give instructions to senators which shall be absolutely binding upon them.
In nearly all the states, this asserted right has been freely exercised, and rarely indeed has a senator
hesitated to render the most implicit obedience [allegiance].
"Indeed our whole system rests upon the states." Charge to the Grand Jury (1863), Fed.Cas.No.
18,274, 30 Fed.Cas. 1042, 1045, 2 Spr. 292. [Emphasis and insertion added.]
This was the situation before Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. What happened during or after that
War?
"Moreover, Article I, section 2, is a clear indication that the Framers intended the States to determine
the qualifications of their own voters for state offices, because those qualifications were adopted for federal
offices unless Congress directs otherwise under Article I, section 4. It is a plain fact of history that the
framers never imagined that the national Congress would set the qualifications for voters in every
election from President to local constable or village alderman. It is obvious that the whole Constitution
reserves to the States the power to set voter qualifications in state and local elections, except to the limited
extent that the people through constitutional amendments have specifically narrowed the powers of the
States. Amendments Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, and Twenty-four, each of which has assumed that the
States had general supervisory power over state elections, are examples of express limitations on the
power of the States to govern themselves.
"Of course, the original design of the Founding Fathers was altered by the Civil War Amendments
and various other amendments to the Constitution. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and
Nineteenth Amendments have expressly authorized Congress to 'enforce' the limited prohibitions of those
amendments by 'appropriate legislation.'
"Above all else, the framers of the Civil War Amendments intended to deny to the States the power to
discriminate against persons on account of their race. Loving v. Virginia (1967), 388 U.S. 1, 18 L.Ed.2d
1010, 87 S.Ct. 1817; Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 364 U.S. 339, 5 L.Ed.2d 110, 81 S.Ct. 125; Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), 347 U.S. 483, 98 L.Ed. 873, 74 S.Ct. 686, 38 ALR2d 1180; Slaughter House
Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 71-72, 21 L.Ed. 394, 407." Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), 400 U.S. 112, 125-126,
27 L.Ed.2d 272, 282, 91 S.Ct. 260. [Emphasis added.]
This is a repetition of what the United States Supreme Court said in Ex parte Yarbrough (1884), 110
U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152, 28 L.Ed. 274.
How's that for an admission or confession? The elections process has been changed, because it was, and
still is, the will of the bondholders holding all of those 10-40 and 5-20 bonds from Lincoln's War vs. All
Christian States. The bondholders now dictated the policy which ensures their getting a return from their
investment in the blood shed during Lincoln's War, i.e., "...the borrower is servant to the lender."
"Drivers," "brokers," "residents," "consumers" "taxpayers," "homeowners," "employees," "persons," or
other commercial franchisees licensed by or under the rules of war, now had the power to elect "persons"
in return for allegiance to, and payment of, the public debt owed to the financiers of Lincoln's War, which
according to the fourth section of the purported Fourteenth Amendment cannot be questioned by them,
because they are the surety or guarantors of the debt payments to the collection agency under the guidance
of the Federal Reserve Accounting House. And, for those of you who take benefit of any war measure
under Lincoln, see Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688.
Thus, the "United States" was lifted from its Christian foundations to become independent of the states, and
control was lost to a secular government, which has no Christian roots, attempting to stay engaged in
commercial enterprise to pay off these filthy phony war bonds. See Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), 367 U.S.
483. Does anyone wonder why it doesn't matter who you elect to office? The script doesn't change because
the debt is larger--just the actors change. The secular form of worship, not a Christian form of worship, is
what was implemented by the Lawless firm of A. Lincoln, F. Lieber, U.S. Grant, and W. T. Sherman.
By the way, Lincoln's income tax in 1863, the first ever in the history of the United States, was not used
to fund the war; but to begin making payments on the debt during a time of confusion, when no one, "in
their right mind" would want to appear "unpatriotic" by not paying their "fair share" to Lincoln's cause of
"maintaining the Union." [This ruse of war was also used by F.D.R. during WWII]. The trouble is, no one
at that time realized the war was to Reconstruct the Union, from a voluntary consociation of Christian
states under God, to a federal corporation of franchisees under the President, based on debt imposed to
perform this conversion through perversion.
The following are excerpts from the U.S. Attorney-General opinion at 12 Op. Atty-Gen. 182 (1867),
which makes full disclosure of the new methods, created by The Reconstruction Acts, of choosing state
officers in the states; which by the way, also means that the method of choosing federal officers was also
changed:
"This existing government [under presidential reconstruction by Andrew Johnson] is not set aside; it is
recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its
functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of
persons eligible to office, and the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change
the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it."
-------------------------
"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government
was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to
Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this [the
2nd Reconstruction] act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State,
or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to
preserve order and to [*186] punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions."
-------------------------
"We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United
States"--not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation--'as hereinafter
prescribed.'"
-------------------------
"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of
power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a
new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the
established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." 12 Op.
Atty.-Gen. 182 (1867), 185-186. [Emphasis added.]
Now most of you will think that this applied only to the Southern states. Not true. This is seen in the
fact that during 1862, West Virginia was, by presidential proclamation, carved out of the Southern state of
Virginia and admitted as a State of the Union aligned constitutionally with Lincoln--their constitution
being dictated to them. And during 1863, Lincoln ordered the military governor of Louisiana to call a
constitutional convention to frame a new constitution embodying his infidel philosophy of fatalism,
rationalism, and tribute to the Roman gods. What was wrong with their existing constitution? Nothing, as
far as the Good and Lawful Christian people in that state were concerned.
All of the Northern States, in due course of time, changed their constitutions to fit better in Lincoln's
World of heavy commerce under licensure by the laws of war, and no Biblical Christianity under the Law
of Peace. Generally speaking, the phraseology in these constitutions is that of the oath of allegiance for
granting amnesty. If you search your State's current constitution, you will find something similar to this:
"The State of ... is an inseparable part of the United States, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land." In the antebellum state constitutions this phrase never appeared, because
Scripture, God's Word, is and was the supreme law of the land, under a Godly government. This has to be
because it is God's Word that brought the land into being when He spoke it in the account of Creation,
beginning in Genesis 1:1. It is elementary that the Law of the Sovereign governs that which He creates.
The creature has no standing to challenge the Creator. If this be not so, then there is no sovereign
anywhere, including the secular humanist sitting in the throne of infamy.
To further implement these secular, mundane and irreligious changes, both north and south, the Voting
Rights Acts, as amended, were passed. These operate in all States, not just southern States.
If the Union were intact, then there was no need for Reconstruction. How do you reconstruct something
that never was damaged or destroyed? If Lincoln's War was fought strictly for vindicating the rights of the
federal government, then reconstruction was not necessary. Vindicating the rights of a fiction is not
tolerated in Christian states, for God's Law has no place for fictions. The States would have been left
intact, and depending on their favor, the federal government would continue to exist as it did
before--dependent on that favor. But as one writer put it, "Never till the days of reconstruction was it
suspected that our system recognized any power outside the people of a state, the authority to organize a
government for the state. That the judiciary established a view so entirely repugnant to all established
precedent, is significant of the embarrassments with which eras of political violence must always
surround the department closely bound to the past." Dunning, The Constitution of the United States in
Civil War and Reconstruction 120, (1885).
What Reconstruction did was establish a de facto imperial regime in America. Such is admitted by the
courts:
"We do not question the doctrines of public law which have been invoked, nor their application in
proper cases; but it will be found, upon examination, that there is an essential difference between the
governments of the Confederate States and those de facto governments. The latter are of two kinds. One of
them is such as exists after it has expelled the regular government from the seats of power and the public
offices, and established its own functionaries in their places, so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of
the nation....As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects
possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained;
its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected
after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled." Williams v. Bruffy (1877), 96 U.S. 176.
Now we need to ask the question:
"Can the Ethiopan change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" Jer.13:23.
What has been shown so far is the de facto nature of the present government as it exists now. The
powers which it exercises concern:
"Therefore, in the choice of means for obtaining an end, however good, congress cannot authorize the
trial of any person, not impressed with a military character, for any infamous crime whatever, except by
means of a grand jury first accusing, and a trial jury afterwards deciding the accusation. This prohibition
is fatal to the military government of civilians, wherever, whenever, and under whatever circumstances
attempted. Such a government cannot exist without military courts, military arrests, and military trials."
David Dudley Field, argument for Lambdin P. Milligan, in the case of Ex parte Milligan (1866).
Therefore, only those who have any military connection, i.e., take any benefit from any act during
Lincoln's War or the fruits of it, have that "military character" impressed upon them which Judge Field
argues gives the de facto government jurisdiction. Incidentally, those who sit in this de facto government
have that same "military character" impressed upon them. This becomes all the more important when you
read Christ's reply to the Pharisees:
"Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's [the military character created in the image and
likeness of Caesar]; and to God the things of God."
If all of this has not convinced you that today's world is no longer based on Christianity, Roscoe Pound,
made this observation in his excellent work, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921):
"But there are two growing periods of our [Christian] common law system; two periods in which rules
and doctrines were formative, in which our authorities summed up the past for us and gave us principles
for the future. These periods are (1) the classical common-law period, the end of the sixteenth and
beginning of the seventeenth century, and (2) the period that some day, when the history of the common
law as a law of the world comes to be written, will be regarded as no less classical than the first--the
period of legal development in the United States that came to an end with the Civil War." at page 41.
Many so-called "patriot" groups scream they want the "rights of our forefathers" and deny the sole
Source of those Rights--Almighty God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Law which
secures them. If Christ is denied then they are denied by Him to the Father. Hence, they have no Rights
common in all Good and Lawful Christians, and for this reason have no standing in Law, because it is a
venue separate and distinct from equity:
"Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of three
well known systems of ethics, Pagan, stoic, or Christian. The common law draws its subsistence from the
latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice
motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic frictions and the rule by
which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727, 728. [Emphasis added.]
"The Christian religion is the established religion by our form of government and all denominations
[not human relations] are placed on an equal footing and equally entitled to protection in their religious
liberty." Runkel v. Winemiller et al (1799), 4 H.&McH. [Insertion added.]
Just as the so-called "voting rights" of "persons" have a different source than Almighty God, they must
also have a different form of government, which declares a different form of worship.
By God's Law, a Republican form of government (res communis) is espoused--note Acts 2:44 & 4:32.
By man's law, a democracy is espoused, because it gives the greatest confusion to the masses and allows
the wielders of power the greatest freedom from restraint by the masses. And the form of law used to
perform all this deception is Roman Imperial law.
With all this evidence on record, it is very clear that 'christian Amerika' today does not remotely
resemble the Christian America of the Puritans.
To participate in "voting" any longer is evidence of who you are owned by, and the god you worship:
"Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto
God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law [applicable to "persons"], but under
grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye
not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of
sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Brother Paul to our Brothers at Rome, chapter six
verses thirteen through sixteen.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of
freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the
hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly on you, and may [your] posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen." Sam Adams. [Insertion added.]
(More Admissions and Confessions next month.)
Let This Mind Be In You
Part Three
by John Quade
The Characteristics and Attributes of the State
All states, Christian or Humanist, share certain characteristics that seem to be a necessary part of the
state's existence. This series has focused on the application of presuppositional analysis and its use, and
now, we will narrow Our focus to examine only the state, its characteristics and attributes. These will then
be included in an expansion of Chart 'B' from the previous Issue, and published next month. Our object is
to show that the presupposition behind the definition of the state determines all of its characteristics and
attributes and also determines the consequence of the states policy in history.
What is most compelling about this study is, that if one consistently maintains the implementation of a
given presupposition, then the laws that accompany the presupposition are determinative in the sense that
one cannot implement a Humanist presupposition in the state and end up with a Christian consequence.
Humanistic consequences follow Humanistic presuppositions and the same is true for Christianity.
A characteristic phenomena that accompanies the Humanist view of history is that all Christian
presuppositions involved in the definition and implementation of Christian states, are ipso facto wrong.
That is, from the Humanist perspective, the Christian state is an absurdity, is always repressive, a threat to
freedom or liberty, and a whole host of other attributes which we will not catalogue here.
The truth of the matter, as true history shows, is exactly the opposite. But, in Humanism, it is not
enough to merely say that a Christian state is all bad; the whole of history must be re-interpreted to make
history appear to support the Humanist idea of the Christian state. Even the meaning of the words used to
define the Christian state must be re-defined by the Humanist so that the words themselves do not say
what they obviously appear to say.
In this study, as we have seen that the terms, words and phrases used by the Humanist to describe the
terrors of a Christian state, actually apply to the Humanist state, in fact. This is because when the
Humanist interprets reality about him, he has only his own categories of thought to use as a reference for
meaning, whereas the Christian has the Scripture. The process of the re-definition of reality in terms of
autonomous reason in Humanism, thus, cannot see the truth, even when it is right in front of his eyes.
At any rate, the characteristics that seem to be shared by all states are as follows:
One. States are designed to control the flow of force and power to a particular object. From this we get
the idea of government, or governing. It is like a governor on a large truck which controls the application
of power to the truck's wheels to control the truck speed on the highways.
And, like the truck, we must first know where we want to go before we apply the power to the governor.
That is, for what object does the state exist? This is where the definition of the nature and purpose of civil
government becomes important.
In Christian states, the purpose of civil government is clearly defined. That is, to protect life, liberty,
and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, or property, without the Due Course of Law. This
definition is the same as that adopted by the founding fathers when building this nation and writing the
Constitution. The only point of disagreement between them was, how to achieve this end, or object.
The only point of clarity that we could add to this definition would be to include some statement
respecting the authority of Scripture and Christian Common Law.
Thus, we could define the nature and purpose of civil government as: The protection of the life, liberty,
land, and property; not to provide or take life, liberty, land, or property, without the Due Course of Law in
accordance with Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the Christian people.
Now, in a Humanistic State, the nature and purpose of the state is never clearly defined nor limited in
the scope of its power. This is because all Humanistic States attempt to take on the nature and attributes of
God. In Humanism, the State is, as Hegel said, 'God walking on Earth.'
For five thousand years, this has been the dominant characteristic of all Non-biblical states. The reason
why such states attempt to take on the character, nature, and attributes of God is, as the Apostle Paul said,
"All men know God."
Thus, because the Humanist will not honor God, as God, they must still manifest his attributes in the
next best thing: the almighty, all-knowing, everywhere present State, who has its own doctrine of
providence in State welfare. The State becomes the source of salvation and the end-all and be-all, alpha
and omega, of all that is.
Such a State can have no Law because its presuppositions will not permit it to enact the real Law and
only true Law, of God. Such States are invariably dominated by commercial interests whether they are
Communist, Socialist, or Fascist, because they seek to control all that is within their realm of influence or
control, the same as God does.
A word must be said here about the omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present)
and omnipotent (all-powerful) characteristics of the Humanist State.
As to the Humanistic State's will to omniscience, we see examples of this in the endless forms,
applications, and information gathering aspects of the State in permits, licenses, tax forms, etc. The
Humanist State must engage in such activities because it can never know when some new piece of
information may turn up that will scuttle the State. It must also collect this information because it must
know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it.
As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipresence, the State must be everywhere because God is
everywhere, and it must watch everyone and everything, because the State must know of anyone
propagating the wrong ideas or information. The State must know these things because the State is in
constant danger of being over-thrown. Examples of this are seen in the postmen who act as agents in the
field, local police, sheriffs, and state police, the 'Special Agents' of the I.R.S. and D.E.A., the Amtrak
railroad police, the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the F.A.A. and countless other alphabet soup agencies, departments,
bureaus, and service groups, all of whom are generically known as 'peace' officers.
As to the Humanistic State's will to omnipotence, the State must control all power as God does, because
the State can't trust the people with power, because the people may want something contrary to the will of
the State. This is the real need for the 100,000 Man Police force of current infamy. This is also the reason
why all forms of transportation must have a police force to watch them, and why all major government
buildings and agencies must have the same type of police forces.
As to the Humanistic State's will to providence in State welfare, it does this because God is in fact the
real source of Providence. It does it also because the more people it has on welfare the fewer people there
are who will join a reform movement. Humanistic States engage in welfare because they have a heart and
compassion, etc., ad nauseum; in truth and reality all such States are fictitious entities and can not,
therefore, have no heart.
There is also a legal reason for the welfare, in that they must grant some forms of welfare because
without the welfare, there is no Lawful justification for their employment.
Today, four out of every ten people in America are on the dole in one form or another. Forty percent
(40%) of the people are living off the other sixty (60%) percent of the population. And, ninety-eight
(98%) percent of those working to support the forty percent, are engaged in commerce controlled by the
State.
Two. States are consumers of resources, not producers. This fact is important to remember because so
many politicians talk of creating jobs with various programs. But, what's forgotten is, the State only
creates jobs at the expense of others who are working. Individual enterprise and not the State, is where all
real, new jobs are created.
In states where the people do not directly control the State's consumption of resources, the State is out
of control.
In Christian states, the power of the state is highly de-centralized and rests primarily within the county
and township. This makes it easy for the people to keep an eye on the spending of local governments. The
flow of tax money in Christian states is from the bottom up and was once collected at the county and state
levels before it was sent on to the Federal government.
But, in Humanists States, the need is to centralize power in one state, which in America, is the Federal
government.
In such a State, the people never control the flow of force and power in the State and yet, the
propaganda of the State attempts to make it appear that they do. In Humanist States, the people do not
control the tax rates. Instead, the government itself controls its own tax rates that are always levied to
protect the states interests, not those of the people.
In simple terms, the further away the tax collector is from the people, the more likely there will be
corruption and lawlessness in the tax system. And, there is more room for smoke and mirrors and sleight
of hand and deception by the State.
Three. Related to Item Two above, the major form of resource consumption by the state is that of taxes,
at least in Christian states.
But, in modern states the situation is significantly different. The Federal government in America, for
example, along with one hundred fifty-seven other countries declared joint bankruptcy in September,
1944, at the Breton Woods Conference, in Breton Woods, New Hampshire. Since that time, the
consumption of resources by the member states of the Breton Woods Conference have embarked on
consumption programs that are unparalleled in the annals of recorded history.
The United States government not only consumes trillions of dollars in tax money every year, it also
'employs' millions of people that would otherwise be gainfully working in the production of real goods and
services, and it also consumes millions of tons of raw and manufactured goods, not just in weapons
systems it buys for its armed forces, but in automobiles, building materials, office machines and
computers, and a whole host of other items.
The United States government is the largest single consumer of the taxes and work output of the
American in history. Many people believe that this consumption is good for the nations economy, but in
fact, it is a drain on the nations economy because none of the goods and services consumed are ever used
in the production of new wealth and real jobs for the people as a whole.
Most of this consumption is for the creation of bureaus, departments, agencies, and services not
authorized by the original Constitution, as we all know. It is this consumption of resources of all types that
contributes to the massive inflation in this country over the last century, because such consumption
represents a false stimulus to the nation's economy. A typical example of the current government's
interference in the nations economy is seen in the billions spent to support prices of farm goods. In this
case, the government consumes massive resources to pay others not to produce.
In Christian states, such consumption by the civil powers does not happen for the simple reason that the
nature and purpose of civil government is defined in such a way that the civil government never exceeds
its proper limits and thus, always constitutes a very small part of the nations total economy.
Four. States have at their disposal some means of enforcing the acts of the state.
Every state needs some means of enforcing the law of the land and protecting the people from evil.
Such forces can be classified as either civil or military.
The civil force in Christian states is normally small because in Christian states there are fewer laws to
break. The Law of the land is well known and the punishments for breaking the Law are well known.
Indeed, everyone has a copy of the Law in his home; that is The Bible.
The military force in Christian states is also very small in terms of a standing army, yet it is very large
in the number of troops that can be mobilized to repel invasion by an enemy. The military is small because
Christian foreign policy is defensive, not offensive. That is, the Christian only goes to war to defend a just
cause or after another has declared war on the Christian state. Mobilizing the people in a Christian state is
relatively easy because all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 55 are already a part of the militia
which is always kept in a high state of readiness. A militia force is the most cost effective means of
providing a military force to protect the nation.
In Humanist States, both the civil and military forces are always a larger than necessary percentage of
the total population.
The civil law enforcement forces of a Humanist State are nearly always tied into the standing army, or
military force, and is usually as large as, or larger than the military force. Thus, in America, city police,
county sheriffs, and the state police or highway patrol, forces that guard transportation and
communication, though paid by their state and local governments, are always tied into the standing army
and often funded by them in part. This is the plan currently used by the Federal government of the United
States.
It is common in Humanist States to find them waging war against other states in foreign lands, if they
have the resources to do so. The aggressive nature of Humanism itself permits this in the treaties created
between States. Very large standing armies are the norm in such States, in part, because the state must
protect itself from its own people, because in no Humanist State do we find real Law. All the sources on
Humanist States admit that their law is arbitrary and capricious and even among Non-christians, when
this is perceived by the people, unrest is born which the Humanist leaders are keenly aware of.
Thus, the first American President to use the Secret Service as his bodyguards was A. Lincoln. Some
have suggested that the real purpose of the Service today is, to protect the bondholders interest in the
nations debt. If the President does any act that adversely impacts the bondholders interests, what better
security can the bondholders have than to be the very ones who guard the President. It is worth noting that
the Secret Service is a branch of the Treasury Department under the Secretary of the Treasury.
One of the purposes of forming the United Nations was to share the cost of making war. Recently, we
have seen in Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and Bosnia, this policy in action. In part, this policy has been used
to keep some war partners in the game by re-imbursing them for the costs of waging war. In simple terms,
we ask, is the United States in such a poor cash flow position that it can no longer afford to wage foreign
wars?
Five. States legislate, which means, states can either make law, or extend existing law derived from
some authority.
In Christian states, the legislative functions of civil government are minimized. This is because the
authority for all Law is the Scripture and the Customs and Usages of the people, sometimes called the
common law. Thus, legislation in Christian states is usually done by extending the existing Law of
Scripture or the common law, to new situations as they arise.
Legislatures may also enact into law the decisions of juries who are the final arbiters of what constitutes
the Law of God.
The only other form of legislation in a Christian state is that of organizing the existing Laws into a
convenient system that is easily understood and accessible by the people and the courts.
In Christian states there is little rule-making and regulations because the state can not interfere with the
Sovereignty and Word of God. There are no permits and licenses for any Lawful form of activity, no
subsidies, and the use of commercial law is practically prohibited.
Currently, in the United States government, the Congress makes no law without the prior existence of
an Executive Order from the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the military side of the government.
On the administrative side of the Federal government, Congress, as Trustee's of the Chapter Eleven
Bankruptcy of the United States are really responsible to the Bondholders of the United States debt.
Congress controls the purse strings in such a way that the Bondholders always get the interest payments.
By this means, some measure of the balance of power still exists between the Congress and the President.
Congress is also involved in the ratification of treaties because such may affect the rights of the
Bondholders of the debt.
Six. States must have the capability to enforce the laws.
It is the function of the chief executive in every state to execute the laws against the lawless.
In Christian states, this is the primary function of the chief executive, whether he be called President,
Governor, or Mayor. His secondary purpose is to protect the people from invasion by other states. The
chief executive may also negotiate treaties or other arrangements with foreign states, but only on the terms
and conditions of the Law of Scripture.
In Humanist states, especially since the Breton Woods treaty, the vast majority of the power of the State
is kept in the hands of the chief executive, usually under some form of military or international law and
this power is wielded through Executive Orders which then permit Congress to make an addition to the
Codes to implement the E.O., which is also published in the Federal Register. The E.O. binds the
Congress in all matters except those that would infringe on the Trusteeship of Congress and the
bondholders.
Seven. States must have some means of determining whether or not the laws enforced by the state are
lawful or legitimate, as well as the means to declare the same in Judicial proceedings.
In Christian states, the court only hears violations of God's Law and common law. Equity is not
permitted because it gives discretion to the court to decide matters and such courts could rule in a manner
contrary to Scripture. In other words, courts in equity grant too much power to the judge and are normally
prohibited.
Juries in Christian court proceedings have the power to determine both the Law and the facts, and thus
may decide that a law implemented by the state is bad law and over-turn it. In short, the jury may decide
that the facts show the guilt of the defendant, but the law on which the defendant is charged is bad law,
according to Scripture. The defendant is then released.
In Christian courts, attorneys are not allowed to argue the case, although they may advise a client who
is either a defendant or demandant.
The court system in Christian states is usually very simple because the Law of God and the common
law are simple. Jurisdictions and venues are relatively few in type. Proceedings are short with very few
delays. In most cases, trials in Christian states last only a few days. It is rare to find a case that lasts for
several weeks. In such courts, the Law of Evidence and Process is strictly adhered to.
And, since the common law is technically very precise, the vast majority of questions between
Demandant and Defendant are resolved before going to trial. The object of process and the preliminary
proceedings in Christian courts, is to reduce the Pleadings to the simplest possible set of issues for
adjudication.
In Humanist court systems, on the other hand, we find a very complex system of adjudication. In
America, the courts all serve the needs of the Chief Executive and are his agents in the field under
military law. For example, the American Bar Association, incorporated in the District of Columbia in
1873 is the body that regulates the agents in the field. Further, the Department of Justice, created in 1870,
regulates U.S. attorneys in the field. Anyone who expects justice from such a system truly is non compos
mentis.
The system is complex because there are so many laws extant, the rules of evidence and process are
usually determined by the judge during the trial. This makes for long, involved, and expensive
adjudication that is fraught with errors that call for appeals, again and again. The jury has no real power
to determine anything beyond the facts as they are instructed by the judge. If the jury violates the judge's
instructions or makes a ruling on the law, the entire trial can be voided on the spot, or appealed on the
grounds that the jury violated its instructions.
In Humanistic courts, the only real law in the court is that which comes out of the judges mouth.
Attorneys are agents of the court and may only use the law of the court in which they practice. The client
is normally non compos mentis, i.e., declared not mentally competent to defend himself.
In other words, the current court system does not exist to defend anyone's rights except those of the
Humanistic state.
Last, the reason why Humanist states declare that no man can take the law into his own hands is
because the people they are talking to, being Humanists as well, have no law. When one takes the law into
his own hands he is determining the civil relationship between himself and another by usurping the Civil
Rights Act for himself. Such is an impossibility under God's Law, because God has already determined the
relationship between one man and another by writing His Law on the heart of Good and Lawful Christian
Men and Women.
Eight. States have relations with other states, foreign and domestic.
Among Christian states, the Law by which all have relations with one another is, of course, the
Scripture. The foreign policy of Christian states is thus predictable and certain, which makes for a very
stable and long lasting foreign policy.
In terms of domestic policy between the states of the union, there is no need for a commerce clause, nor
a comity clause, or good faith clause, since, between Christian states the Law between them is again,
identical to the foreign policy Law between nations.
We note with interest that the Byzantine Empire lasted for nearly 1100 years as a strong and
independent state, until it began to engage in commerce. It fell within 100 years.
In Humanist States, the situation is very different, usually chaotic and confused, which often leads to
war unnecessarily.
In part this is because the language of treaties is virtually impossible to understand between Humanists
because of the relativistic nature of meaning in Humanism.
In part it is also because all Humanist States are militarily and commercially based and, in theory, are
supposed to harken to international law, which is constantly changing in its meaning and scope of
authority.
In short, there is no good reason between Humanist States for anyone to get along unless its in their
best interest to do so.
In the U.S., the Federal law used to control what were once individual states, is municipal law, a
limited version of international law.
For an example of how international law is converted to use in municipal situations, see the article
"That Knock on the Door" in this Issue on 'Searches and Seizures.'
('Let This Mind Be In You' continued in Issue the Fifteenth)
The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men
Part One
A Sermon Preached At Princeton, On the 17th of May, 1776. Being The General Fast
appointed by the Congress through the United Colonies. To which is added, An Address
to the Natives of Scotland residing in America.
By
John Witherspoon, D.D.
President of the College of New Jersey.
Philadelphia:
Printed and sold by R. Aitken, Printer and
Bookseller, opposite The London Coffee-
House, Front-Street. MDCCLXXVL.
To the Honourable John Hancock, Esq., President of the Congress of the United States of America; in Testimony of the highest esteem for
his personal character and public conduct, the following Sermon is humbly inscribed by his most
obedient humble servant, The Author.
Editor's Note: No changes have been made in the original manuscript except for conversion of ligature to their current
English language style. Page numbers in the original are in brackets [ ]. Footnotes { } have been moved to the end of
the text. This is Part One of Three, to follow.
Part One:
A Sermon &c.
Psal. lxxvi, 10.
Surely the Wrath of Man shall praise thee;
the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.
There is not a greater evidence either of the reality or the power of religion, than a firm belief of God's
universal presence, and a constant mention to the influence and operation of his providence. It is by this
means that the Christian may be said, in the emphatical scripture language, to walk with God, and to
endure in seeing him who is invisible. [2]
The doctrine of divine providence is very full and complete in the sacred oracles. It extends not only to
things which we may think of great moment, and therefore worthy of notice, but to things the most
indifferent and inconsiderable: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, says our Lord, and one of them
falleth not on the ground without your heavenly Father; nay, the very hairs of your head are all
numbered. It extends not only to things beneficial and salutary, or to the direction and assistance of those
who are the servants of the living God; but to things seemingly most hurtful and destructive, and to
persons the most refractory and disobedient. He over-rules all his creatures, and all their actions. Thus we
are told, that fire, hail, snow, vapour, and stormy wind, fulfil his Word, in the course of nature; and even
so the most impetuous and disorderly passions of men, that are under no restraint from themselves, are yet
perfectly subject to the dominion of Jehovah. They carry his commission, they obey his orders, they are
limited and restrained by his authority, and they conspire with every thing else in promoting his [3] glory.
There is the greater need to take notice of this, that men are not generally sufficiently aware of the
distinction between the Law of God and his purpose; they are apt to suppose, that as the temper of the
sinner is contrary to the one, so the outrages of the sinner are able to defeat the other; than which nothing
can be more false. The truth is plainly asserted, and nobly expressed by the Psalmist in the text, Surely
the wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.
This psalm was evidently composed as a song of praise for some signal victory obtained, which was at
the same time a remarkable deliverance from threatening danger. The author was one or other of the later
prophets, and the occasion probably the unsuccessful assault of Jerusalem, by the army of Senacherib,
king of Assyria, in the days of Hezekiah. Great was the insolence and boasting of his generals and
servants against the city of the living God, as may be seen in the thirty-sixth chapter of Isaiah. Yet it
pleased God to destroy their enemies and, by his own [4] immediate interposition, to grant them
deliverance. Therefore the Psalmist says in the fifth and sixth verses of this psalm, The stout-hearted are
spoiled, they have kept their sleep. None of the men of might have found their hands. At thy rebuke, O
God of Jacob! both the chariot and the horse are cast into a deep sleep. After a few more remarks to the
same purpose, he draws the inference, or makes the reflection in the text, Surely the wrath of man shall
praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain; which may be paraphrased thus, The fury and
injustice of oppressors, shall bring in a tribute of praise to thee; the influence of thy righteous providence
shall be clearly discerned; the countenance and support thou wilt give to thine own people shall be
gloriously illustrated; thou shalt set the bounds which the boldest cannot pass.
I am sensible, my brethren, that the time and occasion of this psalm, may seem to be in one respect ill
suited to the interesting circumstances of this country at present. It was composed after the victory was
obtained; whereas we are now [5] but putting on the harness, and entering upon an important contest, the
length of which it is impossible to foresee, and the issue of which it will perhaps be thought presumption
to foretell. But as the truth, with respect to God's moral government, is the same and unchangeable; as the
issue, in the case of Senacherib's invasion, did but lead the prophet to acknowledge it; our duty and
interest conspire in calling upon us to improve it. And I have chosen to insist upon it on this day of
solemn humiliation as it will probably help us to a clear and explicit view of what should be the chief
subject of our prayers and endeavours, as well as the great object of our hope and trust, in our present
situation.
The truth, then, asserted in this text, which I propose to illustrate and improve is, - That all the dreaded
passions of' men, whether exposing the innocent to private injury, or whether they are the armies of
divine judgment in public calamity, shall, in the end, be to the praise of God: Or, to apply it more
particularly to the present state of the American Colonies, and the plague of war, - The ambition [6] of
mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppressive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity
of brutal soldiers, however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the meantime, while
the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury.
In discoursing of this subject, it is my intention, through the assistance of divine grace,
I. To point out to you in some particulars, how the wrath of man praises God.
II. To apply there principles to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and
comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in the important crisis.
In the first place, I am to point out to you in some particulars how the wrath of man praises God. I say
in some instances, because it is far from being in my power, either to mention or explain the whole. There
is an unsearchable depth in [7] the divine counsels, which it is impossible for us to penetrate. It is the duty
of every good man to place the most unlimited confidence in divine wisdom, and to believe that those
measures of providence that are most unintelligible to him, are yet planned with the same skill, and
directed to the same great purposes as others, the reason and tendency of which he can explain in the
clearest manner. But where revelation and experience enables us to discover the wisdom, equity, or mercy
of divine providence, nothing can be more delightful or profitable to a serious mind, and therefore I beg
your attention to the following remarks.
In the first place, the wrath of man praises God, as it is an example and illustration of divine truth, and
clearly points out the corruption of our nature, which is the foundation stone of the doctrine of
redemption. Nothing can be more absolutely necessary to true religion, than a clear and full conviction of
the sinfulness of our nature and state. Without this there can be neither repentance in the [8] sinner, nor
humility in the believer. Without this, all that is said in scripture of the wisdom and mercy of God, in
providing a Saviour, is without force and without meaning. Justly does our Saviour say, The whole have
no need of a physician, but those that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.
Those who are not sensible that they are sinners, will treat ever exhortation to repentance, and every offer
of mercy, with disdain or defiance.
But where can we have a more affecting-view of the corruption of our nature, than in the wrath of man,
when exerting itself in oppression, cruelty, and blood. It must be owned, indeed, that this truth is
abundantly manifest in terms of the greatest tranquillity. Others may, if they please, treat the corruption of
our nature as a chimera; for my part, I see it everywhere, and I feel it every day. All the disorders in
human society, and the greatest part even of the unhappiness we are exposed to, arises from the envy,
malice, covetousness, and other lusts of man. If we [9] and all about us were just what we ought to be in
all respects, we should not need to go any further for heaven, for it should be upon earth. But war and
violence present a spectacle, still more awful. How affecting is it to think, that the lust of domination
should be so violent and universal? That men should so rarely be satisfied with their own possessions and
acquisitions, or even with the benefit that would arise from mutual service, but should look upon the
happiness and tranquillity of others, as an obstruction to their own. That, as if the great law of nature were
not enough. Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return, they should be so curiously set for the destruction
of each other. It is shocking to think, since the first murder of Abel by his brother Cain, what havoc has
been made of man by man in every age. What is it that fills the pages of history, but the wars and
contentions of princes and empires? What vast numbers has lawless ambition brought into the field, and
deliver as a prey to the destructive sword? [10]
If we dwell a little upon the circumstances, they become deeply affecting. The mother bears a child with
pain, rears him by the laborious attendance of many years; yet in the prime of life, in the vigour of health,
and bloom of beauty, in a moment he is cut down by the dreadful instruments of death. Every battle of the
warrior is with confused noise, and the garments rolled in blood; but the horror of the scene is not
confined to the field of slaughter. Few go there unrelated, or fall unlamented; in every hostile encounter,
what must be the impression upon the relations of the deceased? The bodies of the dead can only be seen,
or the cries of the dying heard for a single day, but many days shall not put an end to the mourning of a
parent for a beloved son, the joy and support of his age, or of the widow and helpless offspring for a
father, taken away in the fullness of health and vigour.
But if this may be justly said of all wars between man and man, what shall we be able to say that is
suitable to the [11] abhorred scene of civil war between citizen and citizen? How deeply affecting is it, that
those who are the same in complexion, the same in blood, in language, and in religion, should,
notwithstanding, butcher one another with unrelenting rage, and glory in the deed? That men should lay
waste the fields of their fellow subjects, with whose provision they themselves had be often fed, and
consume with devouring fire those houses, in which they had often found a hospitable shelter.
These things are apt to overcome a weak mind with fear, or overwhelm it with sorrow, and in the
greatest number are apt to excite the highest indignation, and kindle up a spirit of revenge. If this last has
no other tendency than to direct and invigorate the measures of self-defence, I do not take upon me to
blame it, on the contrary, I call it necessary and laudable.
But what I mean at this time to prove by the preceding reflections, and wish [12] to impress on your
minds, is the depravity of our nature. From whence come wars and fightings among you, says the apostle
James, come they not hence even from your lusts that war in your members. Men of lax and corrupt
principles, take great delight in speaking to the praise of human nature, and extoling its dignity, without
distinguishing what it was, at its first creation, from what it is in its present fallen state. These fine
speculations are very grateful to a worldly mind. They are also much more pernicious to uncautious and
unthinking youth, than even the temptations to a dissolute and sensual life, against which they are
fortified by the dictates of natural conscience, and a sense of public shame. But I appeal from these
visionary reasonings to the history of all ages, and the inflexible testimony of daily experience. These will
tell us what men have been in their practice, and from thence you may judge what they are by nature,
while unrenewed. If I am not mistaken, a cool and candid attention, [13] either to the past history, or
present state of the world, but above all, to the ravages of lawless power, ought to humble us in the dust. It
should at once lead us to acknowledge the just view given us in scripture, of our lost state; to desire the
happy influence of renewing grace each for ourselves; and to long for the dominion of righteousness and
peace, when Men shall beat their swords into plowshares, and the spears into pruning hooks; when nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more {1}, {2}.
2. The wrath of man praiseth God as the instrument in his hand for bringing sinners to repentance and
for the correction and improvement of his own children. Whatever be the nature of the affliction with
which he visits either persons, families, or nations; whatever be the disposition or intention of those whose
malice he employs as a scourge, the design on his part is, to rebuke men for iniquity, to bring them to
repentance, and to promote their holiness and peace. The salutory nature, and sanctifying influence of
affliction in general, is often taken notice of in scripture, both as making a part of the purpose of God, and
the experience of his saints. {3} Now no affliction, says the apostle, for the present seemeth to be joyous,
but grievous: Nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them, which are
exercised thereby. But what we are particularly led to observe by the subject of this discourse is, that the
wrath of man, or the violence of the oppressor praiseth God in this respect, for it has a peculiar tendency
to alarm the secure conscience, to convince and humble the obstinate sinner. This is plain from the nature
of the thing, and from the testimony of experience. Public calamities particularly the destroying sword, is
so awful that it cannot but have a powerful influence in leading men, to consider the presence and the
power of God. It threatens them not only in themselves but touches them in all that is dear to them,
whether relations or possessions. The prophet Isaiah says, Yea in the way of thy judgments, O Lord, have
we waited for thee, -- for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn
righteousness. He considers [17] it as the most powerful mean of alarming the secure, and subduing the
obstinate. {4} Lord when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see, but they shall see and be ashamed for
their envy at the people, yea the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. It is also sometimes represented
as a symptom of a hopeless and irrecoverable state, when public judgments have no effect. Thus says the
prophet Jeremiah, {5} O Lord are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have
not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: They have made their
faces harder than a rock, they have refused to return. We can easily see in the history of the children of
Israel, how severe strokes brought them to submission and penitence. When he slew them then they fought
him, and they returned and enquired early after God, and they remembered that God was their rock, and
the high God their redeemer {6}. Both nations in general, and private person are [18] apt to grow remiss
and lax in a time of prosperity and seeming security, but when their earthly comforts are endangered or
withdrawn, it lays them under a kind of necessity to seek for something better in their place. Men must
have comfort from one quarter or another. When earthly things are in a pleasing and promising condition,
too many are apt to find their rest, and be satisfied with them as their only portion. But when the vanity
and passing nature of all created comfort is discovered, they are compelled to look for something more
durable as well as valuable. What therefore can be more to the praise of God, than that when a whole
people have forgotten their resting place, when they have abused the privileges, and despised the mercies,
they should by distress and suffering be made to hearken to the rod, and return to their duty.
There is an inexpressible depth and variety in the judgments of God, as in all his other works, but we
may lay down this as a certain principle, that if there were no sin, there could be no suffering. Therefore
they are certainly for [19] the correction of sin, or for the trial, illustration, and perfecting of the grace and
virtue of his own people. We are not to suppose, that those who suffer most, or who suffer soonest, are
therefore more criminal than others. Our Saviour himself though it necessary to give a caution against this
rash conclusion, as we are informed by the evangelist Luke, There were present at that season some that
told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said
unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered
such things, I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. {7} I suppose we may say
with sufficient warrant, that it often happens, that those for whom God hath designs of the greatest mercy,
are first brought to the trial, that they may enjoy in due time, the salutary effect of the unpalatable
medicine.
I must also take leave to observe, and I hope no pious humble sufferer [20] will be the unwilling to
make the application, that there is often a discernible mixture of sovereignty and righteousness in
providential dispensations. It is the prerogative of God to do what he will with his own, but he often
displays his justice itself, by throwing into the furnace those, who, though they may not be visible worse
than others, may yet have more to answer for, as having been favoured with more distinguished privileges,
both civil and sacred. It is impossible for us to make a just and full comparison of the character either of
persons or nations, and it would be extremely foolish for any to attempt it, either for increasing their own
security, or impeaching the justice of the Supreme Ruler. Let us therefore neither forget the truth, nor go
beyond it. His mercy fills the earth. He is also known by the judgment which he executeth. The wrath of
man in its most tempestuous rage, fulfills his will, and finally promotes the good of his chosen.
3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his providence, and
sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory...
(continued in Issue the Fifteenth)
Endnotes
{1} Micah iv. 5.
(Editor's Note. The Author here is chastising the work "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine, an atheist of
the day and not well liked.)
{2} I cannot help embracing this opportunity of making a remark or two upon a virulent reflexion thrown
not against this doctrine in a well known pamphlet, Common Sense. The author of that work expresses
himself thus, "if the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the
next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in
their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture, but
the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all
sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and
in the other to Sovereignty; as are innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both
disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and
hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle sophist
cannot produce a juster simile. Without the shadow of reasoning, he is pleased to represent the doctrine of
original sin as an object of contempt or abhorrence. I beg leave to demur a little to the candor, the
prudence, and the justice of this proceeding.
1. Was it modest or candid for a person without name or character, to talk in this supercilious manner
of a doctrine that has been espoused and defended by many of the greatest and best men that the world has
ever seen and made an essential part of the established Creeds and Confessions of all the Protestant
churches without exception? I thought the grand modern plea had been freedom of sentiment, and
charitable thoughts of one another. Are so many of us, then, beyond the reach of this gentleman's charity.
I do assure him that such presumption and self-confidence are no recommendation to me either of his
character or sentiments.
2. Was it prudent, when he was pleading a public cause, to speak in such approbrious terms of a
doctrine which he knew or ought to have known was believed and professed, by, a great majority of very
different denominations. Is this gentleman ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy of the Christian
faith? Are men so little tenacious of their religious sentiments, whether true or false? The prophet thought
otherwise, who said, Hath a nation changed their gods who are yet no gods? Was it the way to obtain the
favor of the public to despise what they hold sacred. Or shall we suppose this author so astonishing
ignorant, as to think that all men now, whose favour is worth asking, have given up the doctrine of the
New Testament. If he does, he is greatly mistaken.
3. In fine, I ask, where was the justice of this proceeding? Is there so little to be said for the doctrine of
original sin, that it is not to be refuted, but despised? Is the state of the world such, as to render this
doctrine not only false, but incredible? Has the fruit been of such a quality as to exclude all doubts of the
goodness of the tree? On the contrary, I cannot help being of opinion, that such has been the visible state
of the world in every age, as cannot be accounted for on any other principles, that what we learn from the
word of God, that the imagination of the heart of man is only evil from his youth, and that continually.
Genesis vi, 5-8, 21.
{3} Habakkuk, vii, 11.
{4} Isaiah xxvi, 11.
{5} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.
{6} Jeremiah v. 5.
{7} Luke xiii, 1.
