The Lawful Path         Narrow is the Path to the Truth TLP Home
Home   Reading-Room   Catalog   Springboard   Forums   Contact Us  

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(Formerly known as The Christian Jural Society News)

Hyperlinked Table of Contents

To beginning of issue #:

To List of Articles under Subject of:


The Asylum state... 09
Can You Define "Dollar," please? ... 67
A Christian Stand Against Licensure... 13
Consent: Implied and Express... 54
Doing God's Business... 27
Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part One... 19
Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Two... 20
Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Three... 21
Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Four... 22
Exercising Your Right of Avoidance, Part Five... 23
The Fruits of the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord... 41
Identification... 58
In the Name of His church, Part One... 40
In the Name of His church, Part Two... 41
In Vinculis... 08
In Vinculis - Revisited... 24
In Whose Name? Sifting the Wheat from the chaff... 25
In Whose Name Do You Call?, Part One... 33
In Whose Name Do You Call?, Part Two... 35
It's All in the Name... 54
Let Me See Your Papers, please... 68
The Non-conformists... 62
The Power of His Word... 51
The Power of His Word, continued... 56
Rebutting Presumptions... 53
That Knock on the Door... 54
To Be or Not to Be: Home-less... 16
To Be or Not To Be - A Human Being?... 06
What is in a "name?", Part One... 43

Bankruptcy of the U.S.

Admissions and Confessions, Part One... 13
Admissions and Confessions, Part Two... 14
Admissions and Confessions, Part Three... 15
Admissions and Confessions, Part Four... 16
Admissions and Confessions, Part Five... 17
Admissions and Confessions, Part Six... 18
Admissions and Confessions, Part Seven... 19
Admissions and Confessions, Part Eight... 20
Research Update on Dr. Schroeder... 02

Book Reviews

Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law... 20
The Big Charade, a Preview... 62
The Book of the Hundreds, Third Edition ... 16
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations... 20
Crimes of the Civil War and Curse of the Funding System... 19
The Five Points of Christianity... 28
How the Church Fell from Grace... 31
Military Government and Martial Law... 02
The Vigilantes of Montana... 34


501(c)3 Churches: Godly or Godless? 10
Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights... 05
Conversations with a 501©3 Corpse, Part One... 27
Conversations with a 501©3 Corpse, Part Two... 28
Aaron's Golden Calf... 21
The Dark Side of the Common Law... 08
The Dark Side of the Common Law... 54
Debt and Mortgage--and the Law Merchant ... 66
The History of the Law Merchant.. 39
The Long Road out of Commerce... 54
Scripture and The Law Merchant, Part One... 17
Scripture and The Law Merchant, Part Two... 18
Scripture and The Law Merchant, Part Three... 20
The Shetar, An Introduction... 34
The 'Tax Exempt' 501(c)-3 Church... 25
Tithing, Negotiable Instruments and Commercial Paper... 33
The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part One... 50
The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part Two... 51
The Unincorporated Church so-called, Part Three... 52
What is the Law Merchant... 16
What Scripture says about Merchants, Money, & Credit .. 66

Comparative Studies

A Change of Mind, A Change Ways... 34
Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part One... 29
Almighty God vs. the mighty god, Part Two... 30
Dating, Courtship, and Scriptural Betrothal compared... 64
The Enduring Written Word, Original Manuscripts and Copied Texts compared... 70
The Modern Gospel Versions, Part One... 26
The Modern Gospel Versions, Part Two... 28
The Modern Gospel Versions, Part Three... 29
The Money Question... 30
Pursuing Your Christian Calling vs. Engaging in Commercial Activity... 12
Romans 13: Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom? Part One... 46
Romans 13: Bow the Knee to and Confess Whom?, Part Two... 47
Romans 13, Submitting to Authority... 38
The Septuagint and Masoretic Hebrew Text compared, Part One... 55
The Septuagint and Masoretic Hebrew Text compared, Part Two... 56
Serving Two Masters... 18
The Simplicity in Christ, Part One... 45
Terrorism or the Rod of Correction? ... 58
The Theory of Evolution vs. Law... 06
The Urim and Thummim... 41
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part One... 59
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part Two... 60
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part Three... 61


Don't get Caught in Caesar's Web ... 56
The Internet: Commercial Trap of The Twenty-First Century? 19
The Christian Liberty Library... 24


Ain't that Fringe Purdy... 05
Another Daniel in the Lion's Den... 53
Another Daniel in the Lion's Den again ... 57
Another Daniel in the Lion's Den again, conclusion... 58
Bar Attorney Facts... 33
Before the counsel of the ungodly! 23
Christian Courts, Their Nature and Attributes, Part One ... 19
Christian Courts, Part Two... 20
The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part One... 22
The county clerk--The Unknown Wizard Behind the Curtain, Part Two... 23
The Dreaded Scott Decision... 11
How Unlawful Courts Gain Jurisdiction... 51
Invoking God's Truth in court... 64
Judge Admits to War Powers Court!... 05
Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case... 26
Judge quotes Scripture' Update... 27
Judge quotes Scripture in Molestation Case, conclusion ... 37
Old Time Justice... 07
The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part One... 34
The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part Two... 35
The Prosecutorial Authority and Power of Christ's church, Part Three... 36
Roman Law in Three Piece Togas... 03
Sanford v. The Justices of Maine 10
Where is the Authority? you ask, Part One... 16
Where is the Authority? you ask, Part Two... 19
Winning in Court? The Pro Se Way, or Their Way!!... 17
Unto Magistrates and Powers... 37

Doctrinal Studies

The 2nd Coming of Christ???, Part One... 64
The 2nd Coming of Christ???, Part Two, The Last Days?... 65
And the Voice of the Lord's Martyrs Cry Out... 62
An Epistle concerning His Commandments ... 55
An Epistle concerning the Spiritual Gifts of Faith and Works... 56
The Arrest & Trials of Jesus the Christ... 61
A Sacred Name for God: Must it be used?... 45
A Study concerning Death and the Grave, Part One... 53
A Study concerning Death and the Grave, Part two... 55
The Beginning of the End... 48
Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom, Part One... 27
Broken Ramparts of Creed and Custom, conclusion... 28
Can God Tell Time?... 65
Christ and Liberty... 05
The Christian Doctrine of the Sabbath... 22
Discipline in Christ's Army 68
The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part One... 14
The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part Two... 15
The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, conclusion... 17
The "Elusive" Sabbath-rest of the bondman in Christ, Part One... 46
The "Elusive" Sabbath-rest of the bondman in Christ, Part Two... 47
Engrafted Evidence: Who Do You Express?... 49
Faith and Suffering ... 68
Great Works of God on Behalf of America... 07
Is It Right To Judge?... 65
The Last Twelve Verses of Mark's Gospel... 48
Let This Mind Be In You, Part One... 12
Let This Mind Be in You, Part Two... 13
Let This Mind Be In You, Part Three... 14
Let This Mind Be In You, Part Four ... 15
The Mark of the Beast... 61
Milton on Christian Liberty... 33
Must we call God by a "Sacred Name"? ... 66
The Mystery of 666, Part One... 38
The Mystery of 666, Part Two... 39
No New Thing Under the Sun... 41
Offense and Forgiveness 69
Perfection and Perfectionism, Part One... 55
Perfectionism, Part Two... 56
Perfectionism, Part Three... 57
Rejection and Revenge ... 69
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth... 49
Security and Provision 65
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God... 11
The Spirit of Adoption... 35
There is Only One Deliverer... 69
Truth and Critical Thinking... 65
Twelve Reasons Why the Bible is the Word of God... 33
The Unforgiving 69
The Way of True Peace and Unity... 70
Who is The Israel of God?... 32


Abandonment of the Old Paths... 51
The Early church, Part One... 38
The Early church, Part Two... 42
The Foundation of America... 09
The Great Divide--a Christian Way of Life conquered and forgotten... 31
The Hundreds of England... 59
In Defense of the Septuagint, Part One ... 70
The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Part One... 42
The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, Part Two... 43
The Publicans and Soldiers, their exaction and wages... 44
The Septuagint: Its History and Sacred Character, Part One... 48
The Septuagint: Its History and Sacred Character, Part Two... 49
The Theology of History... 33
Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War, Part One... 20
Woman: The Unsung Heroine of War, Part Two... 21

Humanism and Paganism

Abraham Lincoln: the Father of a New Country... 02
Agitprop and The New Republic... 24
Autopsy Report Reveals Wonder Drug 'Antinomy', Part One... 26
The Christmas Manger Scene... 56
The Deceptive Idolatry in America... 57
The Forked-tongue Gospel of that old serpent ... 69
From the Beginning it was Not So, Part One--Judaism's Child... 51
From the Beginning it was Not So, Part Two... 52
From the Beginning it was Not So, Part Three, The State's 'church,'... 53
The Gospel of Self 67
Heroes and their Worship... 37
The History of The Law of Nature, A Law Review, Part One... 17
The History of The Law of Nature, A Law Review, Part Two... 20
Matthew Arnold's Modernism... 33
Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part One... 09
Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part Two... 24
Myths of the Patriot Movement, ... 54
Obscure Fallacies of American Politics... 21
The Pagan Foundations and anti-christ Spirit of U.S. Government Symbolism... 55
Pagan Practices; Origins of the Modern Days and Months... 45
Pagan Practices, Yesterday and Today; Pagan Holidays... 54
Pagan Practices--The Sign of the Cross... 36
The Philosophe... 37
The Pledge of Allegiance... 60
The Preamble to Civil Religion... 60
The Religion of the Romans... 50
The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part One... 47
The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part two... 48
The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part Three... 49
The Spiritually Dead and the tools of their trade, Part Four... 50
The things which are Caesar's, Part One... 36
The things which are Caesar's, Part Two... 37
The things which are Caesar's, Part Three... 38
The things which are Caesar's, Part Four -- Morals and Morality... 40
Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe of Christian America, Part One... 09
Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Two... 10
Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Three... 11
Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Four... 12
Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe (conclusion)... 13
Unincorporated Associations and Religious Societies... 34
The U. S. Constitution--America's Covenantal Apostasy... 29


Land vs. Real Property, Part One... 11
Land vs. Real Property, Part Two... 12
The Origin of Today's "Property Tax"... 18
Land by Inheritance... 21
A Short History on Land Titles... 30
Standing Upon the Land... 64


Betrothal and Marriage ... 63
Caesar's World, To Join or Not to Join a Matter of Law... 39
Divorce and Remarriage... 63
The Duty of Parents and Children... 63
The Edification and Preservation of His church and state... 35
Fictions of law, Part One; Persons--Natural and Juristic... 25
Fictions of law, Part Two, Human beings... 26 & 54
Fictions of law, Part Three, straight from the horse's mouth... 27
Fictions of law, Part Four, Inversion of The Law... 28
Fictions of law, conclusion... 29
Has the Law been Abolished?... 31
The Husband's Duty... 63
Law and Metaphysics... 19
The Law of Identification... 15
The Law of Slaves, Part One... 59
The Law of Slaves, Part Two ... 60
There is Only One Lawgiver, Part One ... 66
There is Only One Lawgiver, Part Two ... 67
The Wife's Duty... 63

Lawful Processes

Abatement Update, Part One... 24
Abatement Update, Part Two... 25
Abatement and Default Update... 52
Abatements: What They Are, and What They Were Never Meant To Be!... 07
Foreclosures Stopped with the Non-statutory Abatement Process... 02
Letter of Appointment for general delivery... 40
Letter of Appointment for the general post-office ... 46
Non-Statutory Habeas Corpus... 38
Office Found/Abatement... 45
Posting the Land... 28

Liberty of Movement on the Common Ways

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways... 14
Exercising Your Duty of Movement on the Common Ways... 62
Making Merchandise of You... 39
My Christianal (not person'al') Experience... 32
On the Lips of the Beast... 32


Approaching the Year 2000... 36
Charles Thomas: Anglin remembered... 32
Clarifying the Record... 36
The Duty of all True Bondmen... 57
For His Name's sake... 57
Friendly Fire... 57
Miscellaneous Notes... 15
Miscellaneous Notes... 20
News from Home... 09
News from Home... 10
The Spin Doctors Strike Again... 23
Victims and Tragedy? Guilt and Grief?... 39
Who We Are... 65

Post Office

A Message to The Postmaster-General ... 11
Common Right vs. Franchise... 15
Maintaining general delivery, Part One... 30
Maintaining general delivery, Part Two... 31
Maintaining general delivery, Part Three... 32
Maintaining general delivery, Part Four... 34
The Missing Zip Codes of the general post-office... 50
Returning Unwanted Letters... 30
The Simplicity in Christ, Part Two -- the general post-office... 46
To Be or Not To Be - A Resident? Comments on Postal Service Policy ... 03


In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord, Part One... 40
In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord, Part Two... 41
In the Nurture & Admonition of the Lord, Part Three... 42
The Law and Home Schooling... 07
Teach Your Children Well ... 64
Timeline of Tyranny, Part One... 26
Timeline of Tyranny, Part Two... 27

The State

The 2000 Census Form... 50
The all-mighty State?... 67
Civil Rights: The Road to Serfdom, Part One... 16
Civil Rights: The Road to Serfdom, Part Two... 20
Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part One... 21
Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Two... 22
Civil Rights, Lawyers, and Abortion, Part Three... 23
The Cult of Lincoln... 42
Divide et Impere, or The Doctrine of Modern Fascism, Part One... 44
Divide et Impere, or The Doctrine of Modern Fascism, Part Two... 45
The Police Power... 44
Political Apostasy and Nationalism... 12
Separation of Church and State... 31
Statism is Idolatry... 13
War Power... 59

Word Studies

[*(EA) - Etymologicum Anglicanum]

Abide... (EA) 37
Abide, Sojourn, Dwell, Live, Reside, Inhabit, and Transient, compared... (EA) 15
Adiaphora, Adiaphorists... (EA) 31
Abomination of Desolation... (EA) 55
Anoint, Anointing... (EA) 42
Avoid, Eschew, Shun, Elude... (EA) 19
Babylon... (EA) 34
Bless, Blessed, Blessedness, Blessing... (EA) 56
Body, Soul, and Spirit 70
Bold, Boldness, Boldly... (EA) 58
Bond... (EA) 18
Christian Humanism... (EA) 35
Church, Scribes... (EA) 43
Close, Inheritance, Hereditaments... (EA) 30
A Dollar in Silver... 08
Entangling, affairs, this life... (EA) 68
The Fasces... 40
Fiction, Fabrication, Falsehood... (EA) 25
Forgive, Forgave, Forgiveness... (EA) 69
Heresy... 44
Hermeneutics and its gods... (EA) 46
Hermeneutics and its history... (EA) 48
Hero and Hero Worship... (EA) 59
Humanism... (EA) 12
Humanitarian... (EA) 11
Human Nature... (EA) 38
Indifference, Insensibility, Apathy... (EA) 27
In the Field... (EA) 16
In the Name of? ... 61
Jesus, the Christ... (EA) 61
The Language of the Tower, Part One... 43
The Language of the Tower, Part Two... 44
Lex et Consuetudo Regni, Libera Lex, Libertas Ecclesiastica... (EA) 32
Lord... (EA) 66
Love... (EA) 39
Market-places, Court, Baser... (EA) 44
Marriage... (EA) 63
Martyr, Witness... (EA) 62
The Names and Titles of Jesus the Christ and His church... 37
The Names of God ... 66
Nice... (EA) 41
Numbers... (EA) 14
Opinion... (EA) 29
Opinion, Sentiments, Notions... (EA) 35
Pagan, Gentile, Heathen... (EA) 21
Perfect... (EA) 57
Pledge, Allegiance... (EA) 60
The Power of Words: Justification, Condemnation, and Confirmation... 39
The Power of Words: Part Two... 40
Præmunire... (EA) 17
Pragmatism... (EA) 33
Redemption... (EA) 28
Repent, Repentance... (EA) 51
Repentance... (EA) 24
Righteousness, unrighteousness... (EA) 53
The Servant... 35
Scholasticism... (EA) 40
Slavery... (EA) 67
Socialism, Social Security, Welfare... (EA) 65
Sojourn, Transient... (EA) 26
Sojourner and Pilgrim... 36
Soul, Psuche... (EA) 47
Soul, Psuche... (EA) 70
Speculator, Theory, Speculation... (EA) 36
State of War... (EA) 20
Synagogue... (EA) 50
Theology, Theory... (EA) 45
Tyrant...(EA) 14
Willful... (EA) 22
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part One... 59
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part Two... 60
The Words of His Kingdom and the words of the world, compared, Part Three... 61
World and Age... (EA) 49
The World ... 67
Yahweh... (EA) 52

Bits and Pieces, in Issue #:

Remembering the Old Ways, in Issue #:



    Printer's Statement...

    Who We Are...

Printer's Statement

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

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

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

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

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

Authorship of these Matters

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

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

About Scripture

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

About the typography of this work

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

Who We Are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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 shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

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." Romans 1:18-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Articles


Issues the First through the Nineth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

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

Articles in this File:

    Judge Admits to War Powers Court!...

    Ain't that Fringe Purdy...

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

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

    Roman Law in Three Piece Togas...

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

    The Law and Home Schooling...

    Christ and Liberty...

    Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights...

    The Theory of Evolution vs. Law...

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

    Great Works of God on Behalf of America...

    The Dark Side of Common Law...

    The Asylum state...

    The Foundation of America...

    In Vinculis...

    Old Time Justice...

    Myths of the Patriot Movement, Part One...

    Research Update on Dr. Schroeder...

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

    A Dollar in Silver...

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

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

    News from Home...

Judge Admits to War Powers Court!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Ain't That Fringe Purdy?"

by Randy Lee

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

The U.S. Attorney General has stated:

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

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

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

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

Non-Statutory Abatements:

What They Are, and

What They Were Never Meant To Be!

By Randy Lee

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

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

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

Do I have your attention yet???

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

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

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

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

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

One. The abatement works when it uses the highest possible Law, which is God's Law. Removing Christ from the abatement reduces it to a form of law that can be easily dispensed with.

Two. Using statutory cites in a non-statutory abatement process guarantees that the abatement will be ignored.

Three. If you file, instead of serve the process, you lose your court and are asking the un-Godly to decide against you.

Four. If you serve the abatement by Certified instead of Registered Mail, it will not have a chain of recorded custody in the process and you will be ignored, unless the court or agency is just as ignorant as one who uses Certified Mail. Certified Mail is also a commercial war measure instrument begun during Lincoln's War.

Five. Calling yourself a Respondent is an equity term that has no place in Christian common law and you are looked at in their law as a fictional persona. The parties will be cast with the wrong standing if this is done and guess who will lose in the conflict.

Six. Serving the Default and making Public Notice of same is absolutely essential.

Seven. Being located at General Delivery and not at an 'address' is absolutely essential to have a successful abatement.

Eight. Using any form of process to threaten anyone, constitutes attempted extortion in all forms of law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Abatements Are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The importance of General Delivery cannot be over-stated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What They Were Never Meant To Be

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

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

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

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

Foreclosures Stopped

with the Non-statutory Abatement Process

by Randy Lee

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule ... And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." So stated 'Congress' in the Preamble of Congressional Report No. 93-549 issued November 19, 1973.

"Congress" has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency," and, "a state of war." Brown vs. Bernstein, D.C. Pa., 49 f. Supp. 728, 732.

"The most immediate effect of a state of war is that it activates the Law of War itself." "The Law of War," by Ingrid Deeter De Lupis, Cambridge University Press, page 300.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is "HOW?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas, said alien enemy agents are attempting to use a form of money inimical to public welfare according to the standard set by the long standing custom and God's Law; and,

Whereas, you have created debt credit by mere book-keeping entries without any lawful dollars exchanged as evidenced by the DOLLAR sign with a single line vertically through the "S"; and,

Whereas, all contracts do not utilize or state dollars as being used or being loaned; and,

Whereas, no lawful money of the united States of America was actually loaned, only created credit was extended; and,

Whereas, loans of credit as indicated by your bookkeeping entries are unlawful in the united States of America and in your state; and,

Whereas, the use of the word dollar is inimical, since the Standard Unit of Value has been eradicated by Congress; and,

Whereas, your bank (or other lending entity) has not and cannot demand any species of kind that is not in existing circulation; and,

Whereas, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation issuing and using private script, which is usurious, and is Judaismus by nature, and is also counter to God's Law and the public welfare; and,

Whereas, your contract and the use of debt credit creates a Negative Pregnant; and,

Therefore, the threatened unlawfully imposed contract is contra bonos mores.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Law in Three Piece Togas:

by John Quade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suae polestate esse vs. sui juris

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

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

jus pubficum

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

lex non scripta

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

jus ex non scripto

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

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

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

A word that should ring some bells is:


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

novellae constitutiones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Be or Not To Be -

A Resident?

Comments on Postal Service Policy

by Randy Lee

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

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

At 1.2, it states:

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

At 1.3, it states:

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

At 1.4, it states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: "Not permanently located, transient lifestyle".

Question: "Address".

Answer: "None".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The documents you need are:

  • The King James Bible (to carry with you to the meeting. This is your Law.)

  • Domestic Mail Manuel at Sec. D930,

  • Public Law 91-375, Aug, 12, 1972, 84 Stat 719, Postal Reorganization Act.

  • "A Brief History of the United States Postal Service," from the Post Office Department, Information Service, July, 1956.

  • Postal Laws and Regulations of 1932, Sections 776 thru 797.

  • "The Story of Our Post Office," by Marshall Cushing, 1893, pages 185 and 186.

  • And the Post Office Form PS 1527, date November, 1987.

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

First, the Postmaster asked questions that were mixed throughout the meeting regarding the status of General Delivery Patrons (we are never customers).

Question 1. "Are you engaged in a commercial activity at General Delivery?"

Answer: "No, my Law does not allow such things."

Q.2. "Do you have a residence?"

A.2. "No."

Q.3. "Do you have a Driver's License?"

A.3. "No."

Q.4. "What is your phone number so I can inform you of my decision?"

A.4. I don't have one. Put your confirmation in my General Delivery Box."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law and Home Schooling


John Quade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part Two

The Present State of American Law?

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

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

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

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

And, from the Supreme Court;

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

And, according to the Law of Nations;

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

Last, according to the Law of War;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ and Liberty

by John William

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

Sir William Blackstone

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

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than to merely forbid an 'established church'... We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."{1}

Yet, "The first amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other."{2}

Another says: "Wilkins, district Judge, in the United States court, has decided that the testimony of an atheist is not admissible!"{3}

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

Typical is: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions we emphatically Christian." {5}

"Secularism is un-constitutional, preferring those who do not believe over those who do believe. It is the duty of government to deter no-belief religions.., Facilities of government cannot offend religious principles."{6}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, Berman says,

"With the transfer of the principal law-enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected."

"This twentieth-century development is a historical consequence of the Western belief of which St. Anselm was the first exponent, that theology itself may be studied independently of revelation. Anselm had no intention of exalting reason at the expense of faith. Yet once reason was [*198] separated from faith for analytical purposes, the two began to be separated for other purposes as well. It was eventually taken for granted that reason is capable of functioning by itself and ultimately this came to mean functioning without any fundamental religious beliefs whatever." [The fundamental beliefs are embodied, evidenced, and secured in the Organic Law by the People themselves.]

"By the same token, it was eventually [has been] taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus, not only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon them." {8}

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

Montesquieu wrote:

"A prince who undertakes to destroy or to change the dominant religion in his state is greatly exposed. If his government is despotic, he runs a greater risk of seeing a revolution than he would by any tyranny whatever, which is never a new thing in these sorts of states. The revolution results from the fact that a state does not change religion, mores, and manners in an instant or as soon as the prince publishes the ordinance establishing a new religion."

"In addition, the former religion is linked with the constitution of the state, and the new one is not attached to it; the first is in accord with the [political] climate [of the People] and the new one of often resists it. Furthermore, the citizens find their laws distasteful; they scorn the government already established, suspicions of both religions are substituted for a firm belief in one; in a word, one gives the state, at least for some time, bad citizens and bad believers. {9}

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

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

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

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

We now turn to a philosophical look at our situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostle Paul answers them all:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relativism is truly Hell on Earth.

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

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

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

'Nuff said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{11} Torcaso vs. Watkins,

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

Commerce vs. Unalienable Rights

by John Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"COMMODITY. What possesses the quality of ease, comfort: comoditas: commodum: opportunitas (convenience). Profit, commodum: emolumentum, (advantage, opposed to incommodum, detrimentum): lucrum: fructus (gain: opposed to damnum): questus (gain, which one seeks, profit): utilitas, (general term for the use or serviceableness of any thing). Ware, or merchandise, merx Commodities, merces." Riddle, English Latin Lexicon (1849) p. 115.

"BENEFIT. Beneficium. To confer a benefit on any one, beneficium alicui dare, tribere, in aliquem conferre or deferre; beneficio aliquem afficere: benefacere alicui. Your benefits to me, tua in me officia; tua erga me merita. As a benefit, pro beneficio, in beneficii loco. Use, advantage, utilitas, usus; commodum, emolumentum." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 62.

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

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

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

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

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

"Statutory contract is a contract which the statute says shall be implied from certain facts [receipt of benefit], and is governed by the ordinary rules relating to contracts." Foley v. Leisy Brewing Co., 89 N.W. 230,231,116 Iowa 176. [Emphasis added.]

"A quasi contractual action presupposes acceptance and retention of a benefit by one party with full appreciation of the facts, under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of its reasonable value." Major-Blakeney Co. v. Jenkins (1953), 121 C.A.2d 325, 263 P.2d 655, hear den.; Townsend Pierson, Inc. v. Holly-Coleman Co. (1960), 178 C.A. 2d 373, 2 Cal. Rptr. 812.

"A debt resulting from a normal agreement or contract has always been the result of a promise to pay, and invoked a remedy in the form of assumpsit. However, an assumpsit cannot be applied to actions of debts where there is no agreement unless the court does so by means of a fiction, because in order to support assumpsit it is necessary to allege a promise, and without agreement there is no promise. Historically, the courts have adopted the fiction of a promise, and it was declared that a promise was implied in law." Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", pp. 4-5.

"For the convenience of the remedy, they have been made to figure as though they sprang from contract, and have appropriated the form of agreement" Anson, Contracts (8th Ed.), p. 362.

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

"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:2-3.

"... not only unscientific, and therefore theoretically wrong, but is also destructive of clear thinking, and therefore vicious in practice. It needs no argument to establish the proposition that it is not scientific to treat as one and the same thing an obligation that exists in every case because of the assent of the defendant, and an obligation that not only does not depend in any case upon his assent, but in many cases exists without his assent" Keener, "Quasi-Contracts", p. 3.

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

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

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

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

"When performance of contract depends on continued existence of given person or thing [benefit], condition is implied that impossibility arising from perishing of person or thing [benefit] excuses performance." Field (A. B.) & Co. v. Haven (1918), 36 C.A. 669, 173 P. 108.

"Where performance depends on existence of a given thing [consideration, benefit] assumed as the basis of the agreement, performance is excused to extent that the thing [benefit] ceases to exist or turns out to be non-existent." Dairy Food Store, Inc. v. Alpert (1931), 116 C.A. 670, 3 P.2d 61; Coulter v. Sausalito Bay Water Co. (1932), 122 C.A. 480, 10 P.2d 780.

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

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

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

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

"UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce [traditionally vested rights], as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 3350.

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

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

"Neither shalt thou steal."

"Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor."

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

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

"Mercator, oris, m. [mercor], a trader, merchant, esp. A wholesale dealer (opp. Caupo): Caes., Cic., Juv." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933) p. 431.

"Mercabilis, e, adj. [mercor], that can be bought: Ov." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), p. 431.

"Mercor, ari [merx]. 1. To trade, traffic: Pl. II. To buy, purchase. 1. Lit.: hortos Hor.: aliquid ab aliquo, Cic.; fundum depupillo, Cic.; quanti, Plin. 2. Transf: ego haec oficia mercanda vita puto, Cic. Ep.; hoc mango, Verg. Perf. Part. In Pass. Sense: Sail., prop." Chambers Murray, Latin-English Dictionary (1933), pp. 431-432.

The god of commerce is the Roman god Mercury:

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

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

"SPECULATE. (See Speculation) To undertake a venture the results of which are undetermined and can only be conjectured, with the hope or idea of profiting thereby. The purchase or sale of stocks, commodities, metals, merchandise, or the like, in the hopes of making a profit [getting a benefit] on account of expected but not yet determined fluctuations of market situations or prices [inflation or deflation] at the time the speculation is entered into." Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428. [Insertions added]

"SPECULATION. From the Latin speculare, to observe, to look around. The buying or selling of something, or the venture in a transaction, the profits [benefits] of which are uncertain and subject to change." Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946) p. 428. [Insertion added]

"SPECULATOR. The person who buys or sells something, or enters into a transaction by which he hopes to profit [benefit] although at the time of buying, selling, or entering the transaction the chances of profit are uncertain and subject to change" Frank Henius, "A Dictionary of Foreign Trade" (1946), p. 428.

"The gambler [speculator] courts fortune [benefit, commodum]; the insured seeks to avoid misfortune. The contract of gambling tends to increase the inequality of fortune, while the contract of insurance tends to equalize fortune [communism]." Vance, Insurance (1954), p. 93. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

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

"'Commerce' in the sense in which the word is used in the constitution is co-extensive in its meaning with intercourse." Carson River Lumbering Co. v. Patterson (1867), 33 C. 334.

"Commerce includes intercourse, navigation, and not traffic alone." Lord v. Goodall, Nelson & Perkins S. S. Co. (1881), 102 US. 541, 26 L.Ed. 224.

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

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

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

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

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

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small insider group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit [profit) of the very few at the expense [detriment] of the masses.

"The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent interest over here [to pay war bonds from previously funded wars], then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 hundred percent. Then, the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. This is done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers [speculators]."

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a Big Boss supernationalist capitalism [owned by the previous war's bondholders and speculators]."

"I spent most of my time being a high muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."

"I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American Oil interests in 1914. 1 helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street."

"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. 1 brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China, in 1927, 1 helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." cited in R. E. McMaster, 'Wealth for All Religion, Politics and War' (1982) pp. 210 & 211. [Insertions added.]

"From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because you ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." James 4:1-3.

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

"FUNDING SYSTEM, Eng. law. The name given to a plan which provides that on the creation of a public loan, funds shall immediately be formed and secured by law, for the payment of the interest, until the state shall redeem the whole, and also for the gradual redemption of the capital itself. This gradual redemption of the capital is called the sinking of the debt, and the fund so appropriated is called the sinking fund." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), vol. I, pp. 551-552.

"FUNDING SYSTEM. Practice of borrowing money to defray expenses of government.

"In the early history of the system it was usual to set apart the revenue from some particular tax as a fund to the principal and interest of the loan. The earliest record the funding system is found in the history of Venice. In the year 1171, during a war between the republic and the Byzantine emperor Manual Commenas, a Venetian fleet ravaged the eastern coasts, but, being detained by negotiations at Chios, suffered severely from the plague. The remnant of the expedition, returning, took with it the frightful pestilence, which ravaged Venice and produced a popular commotion in which the doge was killed To carry on the war, the new doge, Sebastian. Giani, ordered a forced loan. Every citizen was obliged to contribute one-hundredth of his property, and he was to be paid by the state five per cent interest, the revenues being mortgaged to secure the faithful performance of the contract. To manage the business, commissioners were appointed, called the Chamber of Loans, which after the lapse of centuries grew into the Bank of Venice. Florence and other Italian republics practiced the system; and it afterwards became general in Europe. Its object is to provide large sums of money for the immediate exigencies of the state, which it would be impossible to raise by direct taxation.

"In England the funding system was inaugurated in the reign of William III. The Bank of England, like the Bank of Venice and the Bank of St. George at Genoa, grew out of it. In order to make it easy to procure money to carry on the war with France, the government proposed to raise a loan for which, as usual, certain revenues were to set aside, and the subscribers were to be made a corporation, with exclusive banking privileges. The loan was rapidly subscribed for, and the Bank of England was the corporation which it brought into existence. It was formerly the practice in England to borrow money for fixed periods and these loans were called terminable annuities. Later, the practice is different, loans being payable only at the option of the government; these are termed interminable annuities. The rate of interest on the earlier loans was generally fixed at three and a half per cent and sold at such a rate below par as to conform to the state of the money market. It is estimated that two-fifths of the entire debt of England consists of this excess over the amount of money actually received for it. The object of such a plan was to promote speculation and attract capitalists; and it is still pursued in France.

"Afterwards, however, the government receded from this policy, and, by borrowing at high rates, were enabled, when the rate of interest declined, by offering to pay off the loan, to reduce the interest materially. The national debt of England consists of many different loans, all of which are included in the term funds. Of these, the largest in amount and importance are the three per cent consolidated annuities, or consols, as they are commonly called. They originated in 1751, when an act was passed consolidating several separate three per cent loans into one general stock, the dividends of which, are payable on the 5th of January and 5th of July at the Bank of England. The bank being the fiscal agent of the government, pays the interest on most of the funds, and also keeps the transferbooks. When stock is sold, it is transferred on the books at the bank to the new purchaser, and the interest is paid to those parties in whose names the stock is registered, at the closing of the books a short time previous to the dividend day. Stock is bought and sold at the stock exchange generally through brokers. Time sales, when the seller is not the actual possessor of the stock are illegal, but common. They are usually made deliverable on certain fixed days, called accounting days; and such transactions are called 'for account,' to distinguish them from the ordinary sales and purchases for cash. Stock-jobbers are persons who act as middlemen between sellers and purchasers. They usually fix a price at which they will sell and buy so that sellers and purchasers can always find a market for stock or can purchase it in such quantities as they may desire, without delay or inconvenience.

"In America the funding system [principally derived from the Lincoln administration] has been fully developed. The general government, as well as those of the states, have found it necessary to anticipate their revenue for the promotion of public works and other purposes. The many magnificent works of internal improvement which have added so much to the wealth of the country were mainly constructed with money borrowed by the states. The canals of New York, and many railroads in the western states, owe their existence to the system.

"The funding system enables the government to raise money in exigencies, and to spread over many years the taxation which would press too severely on one [see Cong. U.S.A., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 1 & 2]. It affords an easy way to invest money on good security, and tends to identify interests of the state and the people. But it is open to objections, the principal of which is that it induces statesmen to countenance expensive and oftentimes questionable projects who would not dare to carry out their plans were they forced to provide the means from direct taxation. McCulloch, Dict. of Comm.; Sewell, Banking." Bouvier's Law Dict. (1914), pp. 1323-1324. [Emphasis and insertions added] [In other words, unless and until a loan is repaid, property/works created by use of loans are property of a lender].

"But there is no fact in the history of this war debt more startling than this: that the great body of these bankers and bondholders were, at the beginning of the war, but poor men; many of them helpless bankrupts, and many of the pretended loans were mere collusions between bankers and government officers [actors], entered into for the purpose of creating money for the one [purported government] and power for the other [bankers], at the expense of the people, who would be required to raise standing armies from their children to support this [banking] power and contribute taxes from their labor to maintain the [government] funding system. "This has always been the case in the history of paper money inflations; that the pretended benefactors of government have been simply swindlers, who have imposed upon the people their worthless promises to pay in lieu of [specie] as the pretext for their robbery.

"This is true, with scarcely an exception, in every country, that the government is never assisted by paper in any war. Those who issue it amass fortunes by the issue. To this one our country has not been an exception.

"In the history of insolvent estates, bankrupts, merchants, contested debts and repudiated obligations, which make up the assets of the last six years, it must not startle mankind that the honest people have thrown off the yoke rudely placed upon them by reckless and unscrupulous tyrants. " Judge Henry Clay Dean, 1868.

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

"By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claim of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandized, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South. It is no wonder that their villages have grown into magnificent cities. It is not strange that they have merchant princes', dwelling in gorgeous palaces and reveling in luxuries transcending the luxurious appliances of the East! How could it be otherwise? New York city, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her throne, sparkling in jewels and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to the extreme South; and, with an avidity rarely equaled, grasps our gains and transfers them to herself and taxing us at every step, depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us." Vicksburg Daily Whig, January 18, 1860.

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.

"We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them." The Honorable John H. Reagan of Texas, January 15, 1861, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 2d session, p. 391.

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

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

It is no secret "harmless commerce" is dangerous:

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

"For resistance to law, every government has ample powers to punish offenders; for usurpation, governments have provided no adequate remedy." Judge Henry Clay Dean, 1868.

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

The Theory of Evolution vs. Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look up, for your salvation draweth nigh.

To Be or Not To Be:

a Human Being?

by Randy Lee

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

"See monster".

From the same dictionary, 'monster' is defined:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the same Dictionary, page 1461;

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

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

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

And 'naturalist' is defined as:

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

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

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

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

Great Works of God on Behalf of America

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

Edited by John William

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. By exciting, guiding and strengthening them in the Use of proper Means for their Deliverance, and crowning their Endeavours with Success. And then their Business is to exert themselves both in turning and praying to him, contriving, fortifying, fighting, and trusting in him, all together: And when delivered, to ascribe to him the Glory, for strengthening, guiding and succeeding them.

2. When proper Means cannot be had, or are utterly insufficient, either thro' the vastly superiour Power and Skill of their Enemies, or thro' their quick or unexpected Onsets; then he sometimes works Salvation for them by other Means, either Angels, Men or Elements; and this in so remarkable a Way, as clearly to show his providential Care, Power and Wisdom: So that while it was out of their Skill and Power to defend themselves, they could only stand still and see the saving Hand and Work of GOD. And then it is their Duty, both to turn and cry to him, hope in him, attentively observe the Traces of his Power and Wisdom in working their Deliverance; and then to rise in respectful Wonder, Gratitude, and grateful Acknowledgments and Praises.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The dangerous Enemies we have been concerned with.

2. The dangerous Circumstances we were in a Year ago and since.

3. The wonderful Salvations GOD has wrought for us, while we in America have stood still and seen them.

4. The dangerous Enemies we have been concerned with. For they have such a Connection with our dangerous Circumstances, that without a due Consideration of those our Enemies, we cannot duely see the Greatness of our Salvation from them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. In the last Winter and early Spring, the French with the utmost Application fitted out at Brest and Rochfort, the greatest and most powerful Armament against these Northern Colonies, that was ever sent into North America: Having twenty Men of War, a hundred Transports, about Eight Thous, disciplined with veteran Officers, and vast Quantities of Provision, Powder, Shot, Arms, Cannon, Bombs and Mortars, sufficient to take the strongest Places.

2. They were under one Commander of Figure, Duke D'Anville; a Nobleman of Ability, Skill and Courage; who came with Resolution to exert himself to his own Honour, and to the Glory of his King and Nation or die in the Cause:

3. They own'd they had the best Plans and many skilful Pilots with them, well acquainted with all the Coasts and Harbours of Newfoundland, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and New England; in particular of Louisbourg, Canso, Jebucta, Annapolis, Casco Bay, Boston, &c.

4. They came with the exciting Motives, of Resentment, Policy and Necessity. - Of Resentment; for our saving Annapolis, and disappointing the French Invasion there in 1744; and for our taking Louisbourg, destroying their Fishery, blocking up the Bay of St. Lawrence, taking a great Man of War, the East India and South Sea Ships, in 1745: To recover their lost fortified City and Harbour of Louisbourg, their lost Opportunity by their Privateers thence to seize our Vessels, their lost Fishery with infinite Profits thence arising, their lost Fort and Harbour of Annapolis, their lost Territory of Nova Scotia, and their lost Reputation in Europe and America, especially among Indian Savages: And last, to save Canada, with their Settlements and Trade, in North America; either by taking Cape Breton, oblige us to come to Peace and save their Encroachments in the Netherlands; or by taking Annapolis, oblige us to return Cape Breton; and save themselves from ignominious Death or Ruin, in case they return without taking the one or the other.

5. That which rendered our Case more dangerous, was, that we were a long while wholly ignorant of their Designs against us: And when we had them hinted, we were easy with hearing that Admiral Martin was blocking them up, first at Brest and then at Rochfort, and that we had a powerful Fleet of Men of War and Transports preparing at Portsmouth in England to come on the Expedition to Canada.

6. At Length they got out of Brest and sailed to Rochfort: On June 11, they sailed from this last Port, passed by Admiral Martin's Squadron unobserved, and he cou'd not find what Way they were gone: Yea, while they were coming toward us, Admiral Leftock with his Fleet at Portsmouth sailed seven Times from England; and was as oft drove back by contrary Winds, 'till Mid-September, when our Enemies Fleet came to Nova Scotia, and the British Ministry judging it too late in the Year, diverted their Enterprize.

7. In the mean Time; while Duke Anville's Fleet is coming, a fatal Illness sweeps away many of our New England Soldiers at Cape Breton: And being now without any help from England or any where else; if GOD had given our Foes a speedy Passage, and had brought them on in Health to Louisburg; they had come there with Surprize: And with their Showers of Bombs from twenty five Mortars, and Cannon shot from fifty Brass Field Pieces, it seems highly probable, they wou'd soon have taken the Place. And then Placentia and St. John's in Newfoundland, with all their Fish and Vessels wou'd have been as nothing to them. All the French and Indians in Nova Scotia and the neighbouring Places would have join'd them at once, and made them ten or twelve Thousand strong, besides their Seamen. Annapolis wou'd have soon reduced. And then their mighty and triumphing Forces, both French and Indians, both by Land and Sea, wou'd doubtless come quick all along our Eastern Shoars, carried all before them like a sweeping Deluge: and where they cou'd be stop'd, and whether this Town cou'd have baffled them, GOD only knows.

8. In the mean Time we are this Summer exceedingly molested with our Indian Enemies round about, both in this and the neighbouring Provinces: Murthering our Men, Women, Children; carrying many into a barbarous Captivity; breaking up many Houses and divers Villages and new Towns, destroying Cattle and Fields of Corn; yea seven hundred French and Indians destroying a Fort an hundred Foot square on our western Borders on Aug. 19: Reducing us to such Distresses as have not been known in the present Generation: And Sep. 2 we are informed, that about two thousand French and Indians were assembled at Menis in Nova Scotia, in order to besiege Annapolis.

9. Our Trouble is yet increased by our surprizing Intelligence from the six valiant Nations of Mohawk Indians who had been our constant Friends from the Beginning of the Colonies: The French had made them believe, they had taken an English Letter, wherein they pretend we wrote, `We intend first to subdue Canada, `and then destroy the Indian Nations, the French in Canada `being the only Obstacles that hinder us:' Which made a dangerous Impression on them, raised their Jealousies, began an Alienation, disposed them to join our Enemies, and was like to lead to fatal Consequences.

10. All this while we were wholly ignorant of the French Fleet coming towards us - 'till at the same Time, viz. Sept. 2, we had a Hint in a Letter from Hull in England of June 24, that they were sailed about ten Days before, but none knew whether: Sept. 9, by a Ship from Liverpool, was the Hint above confirmed, and that many in England tho't them bound for North America. About a Week after, we begin to hear a Rumour of a large Number of Ships seen near Cape Sable Shoar; but whether French or English, we are at a Loss to guess. About a Week after, the Rumour is confirmed; but who they are, remains uncertain, 'till Sept. 28: And then by Express from Governor Knowles and Admiral Townsend at Louisburg, we are inform'd they are the French Armada, were seventy Sail when they came from France; fourteen being ships of the Line from fifty to seventy four Guns, two Fire Ships, with eight thousand Troops on board; standing for Jebucta or le Have: And by a Vessel from Jamaica, that the four French Men of War which had escaped Commodore Mitchel near Domingo, were design'd to join them.

11. And lastly, About Mid-September, Eight Ships of the Line and forty others arrive at Jebucta, the Port of Rendezvous on the south eastern Shoar of Nova Scotia, one of the finest Harbours of the Globe; in which the British Nation had utterly neglected for a Course of thirty Years from the Peace of Utrecht, to settle one Inhabitant; and in the very Way to interrupt all our Fishery, and even all Trade from Great Britain, Ireland, Newfoundland and Cape Breton, to the Colonies on the Main, and from These to them: There they water, wood, refresh, careen, refit; thence take our Ships, strike Surprize and Terror thro' the Countries round about them. and thence deserting their Design of attempting Louisburg, they set sail with all their Power towards us.

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

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

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

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

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

1. That our Enemies Fleet is detained so long in the Harbours of France, even to the 11th of June, tho' ready long before: Whereby a greater Fomes was prepared for scorbutical Weaknesses and Ails, before they arrived at America; whereby they also lost the cooler Weather and more easterly Winds of the Spring, were kept for the Calms and Heat of the Summer, their Voyage must be lengthened, and they cou'd not come with quite so much Surprize upon us.

2. That after their getting clear from the Coast of France, they shou'd be led to bear so far to the South: Whereby they not only went from the straiter Course, but likewise into a more rarified Air and calmer Latitudes, which yet further served to lengthen their Voyage: And they also went into more sultry Climates, in the hottest Months of the Summer; the Air between-decks among so great a Number so closely stowed, must be more suffocating, putrid and nauseous, and both further weaken, and breed Diseases.

3. That partly by these Means, partly by Calms, and partly by contrary Winds; their Voyage was so lengthened out, even to ninety Days from Rochfort, that it was the 9th of September before the fowardest of them arrived at Jebucta.

4. God was pleased to visit them with such a mortal Sickenss; that they owned, Thirteen Hundred died at Sea; and most of the rest were extreamly weakened, wasted and dispirited.

5. That by terrible Storms they were likewise so dispersed in the midst of the Ocean; that by Aug. 26, they had left but twelve Ships of the Line and forty one others, besides five Prizes.

6. That on Sept. 2, at One at Noon, when they came near the Shoals of the Isle of Sables, the most dangerous Place in all the Passage, and had but three Days Sail to Jebucta; GOD raised against them such a violent Storm of Wind, which held all that Day and Night: Wherein one of their Transports was loft on the Shoals; four Ships of the Line and a Transport were seen in great Distress, and never heard of after, and the rest of the Fleet had like to have run on the Shoals in that terrible Night, and were wholly dispersed: Or if they had been but three Days earlier, they had got to Jebucta before the Storm.

7. The Weather after the Storm, was so very foggy for Days, that Duke D'Anville their Admiral and General was obliged to lie off and on, not venturing to approach the Nova Scotia Shoar; that it was Sept. 12, before he got, with but one more Ship of the Line, viz. his Vice Admiral, three more Men of War and five Transports, into Jebucta: There being but one of the Fleet got in three Days before him, and but three more in three Days after him; his Rear Admiral was ten of the Line and all the rest yet missing. And finding his few Ships so shattered, so many Men dead, so many sickly, and no more of his Fleet come in; he sunk into Discouragement, and Sept. 15 died; but in such a Condition, and so swelled, it was generally tho't he poysoned himself, and was buried without any Ceremony. Upon which their Government fell upon the Council of War, their Union was entirely broken, and their Counsels grew divided.

8. After the Storm, the Rear Admiral with five more of the Line and twenty seven more of the Fleet besides the Prizes, discovered each other and gathered together; yet the Weather being foggy and thick, they did not arrive at Jebucta 'till the Day after Duke D'Anville died - Or their Arrival two Days sooner might have revived his Spirits and saved his Life: Tho' they were so exceedingly shattered and sickly, they were forced to stay and loose their fittest Time for doing us Mischief 'till near the midst of October.

9. On the Death of the Duke, the Vice Admiral Estournell being the chief Commander, in Consideration of the deplorable case they were in, proposed to return to France to save the rest of the Men: But the Council of War opposing and voting against him, he was on Sept. 19 in the Morning, found in his Apartment fallen on his Sword, and the next Morning died also: Whereby the chief Command fell on Rear Admiral Jonquire; who with a Council of War resolved to attack English Places in these northern Parts before they wou'd think of returning. In the mean while, they landed their Men to refresh them: And yet their Sickness so prevailed, that they owned there died Eleven Hundred and Thirty more at Jebucta before they left it.

10. It was also very remarkable, that while the French were so generally very sickly, and so many constantly dying, both aboard and ashore; our English Captives, tho' compassionately tending upon and helping them continually, were so universally healthy and strong, that the poor sickly French cou'd not forbear to express their Wonder: Our People taken captive by them being more merciful to them than those of their own Nation. And yet the Sickness spread among our enemy Indians in Nova Scotia, and 'tis said carried off near half their Number.

11. In the mean Time our careful Governour sends out Spies and gets Intelligence - By the Help of God removes the Jealousies of the Mohawks, renews our ancient League of Friendship, engages them on our Side against the French Canadians; sends Companies of Soldiers, who had listed Volunteers for Canada, to help defend Annapolis; Admiral Warren sending his 50 Gun Ship thither also: Our Governour calls in the Regiments of the Province to defend our Capital, who come in with wondrous Chearfulness: Sends Express to Governour Knowles and Admiral Townsend at Louisbourg, with the London Prints informing of Admiral Lestock's waiting for a fair Wind in England, with eighteen Ships of the Line, to sail thither: Oct. 6, with Advice of his Majesty's Council, and at the Desire of the House of Representatives, orders Thursday the 16th, a Day of Prayer and Fasting thro' the Province on this great Occasion.

12. About October 10, the French Council of War at Jebucta being sensible that by dispersing Storms and wasting Sickness, they are utterly disabled for attempting Louisbourg, resolve to sail and take Annapolis. And if they had staid but one Week longer, they wou'd have had a Season of suitable Weather for it. But a Cruizer of theirs having happily taken the Express above for Louisbourg, with the London Prints informing of Admiral Lestock's expected coming, and the Master of the Vessel happily forgetting to observe his Order and throw his Packets overboard; they were carried into Jebucta and opened on the 11th early in the Morning in a Council of War. Upon which, surprized, in the utmost Hurry, they pull down all their Tents, burn a Line of Battle Ship, with a Snow from Carolina, a Vessel from Antigua, and some Fishing Schooners, embark their Soldiers; order two thousand French and Indians to march from Menis to Annapolis: October 13, with forty Sail, twenty Engineers, and thirty Pilots from near Annapolis, they came out to go round Cape Sables, and meet them there; having wrote to the Court, that they determin'd to keep the Seas 'till Nov. 15, N S, if they cou'd not get in sooner.

13. The next Day, they sent three or four of their Fleet with their Sick to France: The Distemper still increasing; our Captives saw them throwing their Dead out of most of their Ships into the Sea, every Day after they left Jebucta, for the three Days they continued with them. October 15, near the Isle of Sables a second Time came on a great and cold Storm, which scattered them again: Yet the next Day, getting once more together; and persevering in their Purpose, they dismiss'd our Captives, who that Night left them lying by, and saw them no more.

14. But the same Day, viz. Thursday Octo. 16, is kept the Day of General Fasting and Prayer throughout the Churches in this Province, on this great Emergency. And that very Night ensuing, the glorious GOD entirely baffled all their Purposes, and put a total End to their mischievous Enterprize. He mightily arose, and wrought a full Salvation for us. He sent a more furious Storm of Wind and Rain and Hail, than ever - which held to the next Day Noon - which they cou'd not stand before - which so dispersed and broke them, they cou'd never get together again: And several Ships were so crazy, and weakly handed, that 'tis apprehended by our dismissed Captives, who were in the same Storm; that some were overset, some others foundered and sunk in the mighty waters: And the remaining Men of War in View, so shattered and discouraged, that they determined for the West India Islands; and sent their Novia Scotia Pilots home, with Orders to the French and Indian Army who had march'd to Annapolis, to leave their Enterprize and get away. The scattered Remnants, it seems most likely, are gone back to France, abased and confounded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dark Side of Common Law

by Randy Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Merchant (lex mercatoria).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.' Hosea 12:7

'Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt.' Hosea 12:1

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

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:"

"Fear ye not Me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at My presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?"

"But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone."

"Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the Lord our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in His season: He reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest."

"Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you."

"For among My people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men."

"As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich."

"They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge."

"Shall I not visit for these things? saith theLord: Shall not My soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"

"A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;"

"And prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The Asylum state

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

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

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

Asylum, n. [L. asylum; Gr. asylom, an asylum, from a priv., and syle, right of seizure.]

"1. Formerly, a sanctuary or inviolable place of protection, as a church, where criminals and debtors sheltered themselves from capture and punishment, and from which they could not be forcibly taken without sacrilege. Temples and altars were anciently considered asylums, as were tombs, statues of the gods, and monuments. 2. Any place of retreat and security. 3. An institution for the protection or relief of unfortunate, afflicted, destitute, or defective persons; as, an asylum for the poor, for the insane, for orphans, or for the aged. 4. The protection given by a sanctuary or refuge."

"Syn.--refuge, retreat, sanctuary, shelter." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 116-117.

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

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

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

Refuge, n. [Fr. from L. refugium, a refuge, from refugere, to retreat; re-, back, and fugere, to flee.] 1. Shelter or protection from danger or distress. 2. A person or thing that gives shelter, help, or comfort. 3. A place of safety; a shelter; a safe retreat; a stronghold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy or evil; an asylum. 4. Action taken to escape consequences; an expedient to secure protection or defense; a resort; a shift; a subterfuge.

"Cities of refuge; among the Israelites, certain cities appointed to secure the safety of such persons as might commit homicide without design. Of these there were three on each side of the Jordan.

"Harbors of refuge; harbors or ports which afford shelter to vessels in stormy weather; places of refuge for merchant vessels from the cruisers of an enemy in time of war.

"House of refuge; an institution affording shelter to the destitute or homeless." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.

Refuge, n. [Fr. refugee.]

1. One who flees to a shelter or place of safety.

2. One who in times of war, political or religious persecution, etc. flees to a foreign power or country for safety; as, the French refugees who left France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and settled in Flanders and America."

Refugee, v.i. To seek refuge." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1519.

Sanctuary, n.; pl. sanctuaries, [Fr. sanctuaire; LL. sanctuarium, a sacred place, shrine, from L. sanctus, sacred.]

"1. A holy place; a building or place set aside for worship of a god or gods; specifically, (a) the Temple at Jerusalem; (b) a Christian church; (c) any church or temple; (d) a particularly holy place within a church or temple, as the part around the altar, the holy of holies in the Jewish Temple, etc.

"2. A place of refuge or protection; originally fugitives from justice were immune from arrest in churches or other sacred places.

"3. Refuge or protection; immunity from punishment or the law, as by taking refuge in a church, etc.

"4. A reservation where animals or birds are sheltered for breeding purposes and may not be hunted or otherwise molested." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 1603.

"SHELTER, n. [altered from ME. sheltrum, a bodyguard, squadron, from AS. sceld-truma, shield troop.]

"1. Something that covers, protects, or defends; protection, or place affording protection, as from the elements, danger, etc., a place of refuge.

"2. The state of being covered, protected, or defended; protection; refuge."

"SHELTER, v. t.; sheltered, pl., pp.; sheltering, ppr.

"1. To cover from violence, injury, annoyance, or attack; as, the valley is sheltered from the north wind by a mountain.

"2. To defend; to protect from danger; to secure or render safe; to harbor.

"3. To betake to coveror to a safe place; used with a reflexive pronoun; as, they sheltered themselves under a rock."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But God's Law is different:

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in Him will I trust." Ps. 91:1,2

"In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in Him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before Him: God is a refuge for us. Selah." Psalm 62:7,8.

"I looked to my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul. I cried unto Thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living. Attend unto my cry; for I am brought very low: deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I." Psalm 142:4-6

"Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with Thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And He shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off."Psalm 94:20-23

Hear my cry O God; attend unto my prayer. From the end of the earth will I cry unto Thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. For Thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy. I will abide in Thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the cover of Thy wings. Selah. Psalm 61:1-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

One, "Might makes right";

Two, "The law of the jungle is the law of the land";

Three, "Every man has his price";

Four, "Deceit is legal" and,

Five, "The law is what comes out of the judge's mouth."

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

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

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

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

"HERMES. The Greek deity regarded as equivalent to the Roman Mercury, the messenger of the gods, the inventor of the lyre (which he resigned to Apollo), the god of commerce, and also of fraud and cunning. He is generally represented with small wings attached to his head and ankles, and with a winged rod--the caduceus." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), Appendix, p. 63. [Emphasis added.]

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

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

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

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

"Le ley de Dieu et ley de terre sont tout un, et l'un et l'autre preferre et favour le common et publique bien del terre --The law of God and the law of the land are all one; and both preserve and favor the common good of the land." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2142.

"Interest reipublicae quod homines conserventur --It concerns the commonwealth [state] that men be preserved." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) "Maxim," p. 2139.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Multitudo imperitorum perdit curiam --A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2146.

"What further need have We of witnesses? Behold now, you have heard the testimony of the best Witnesses against the blasphemy of these shicers." See Num 35:30; De 17:6, 19:15.

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

"CHRISTENDOM, n. [ME. cristendom; AS. cristendom, Christianity, from Cristen, Christian, and dom, domain, jurisdiction, from dom, to do.]

"1. Christianity. [Obs.]

"2. The territories, countries, or regions chiefly inhabited by those who profess to the Christian religion.

"3. Christians collectively.

"4. Baptism; christening. [Obs.]" Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (World Publishing Company, 1969), p. 321.

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

"By the word State (spelled with a capital) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise [with a small "s"], it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv. [Emphasis and insertion added.];

"Among quasi-corporations may be ranked counties, and also towns, townships, parishes, hundreds, and other political divisions of counties, which are established without an express charter of [legislative] incorporation;." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Quasi Corporation," p. 2781.

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

"COMMON WEAL, COMMONWEAL. The body politic, state, community XIV; the general good, public welfare XV. orig. and properly two words, rendering L. res communis; cf. weal public (XV) rep. L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique. See WEAL.

In the sense of 'state' in XVI more esp. Sc., and now archaic or rhetorical." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025. [Emphasis added.]

"COMMONWEALTH. Public welfare XV; the body politic, state, community; in spec. fig. and trasf. Uses, e.g. c. of Christendom, of learning, of nations XVI; republic, or democratic state; spec. (hist.) The republican government established under Oliver Cromwell XVII. See WEALTH. Both common weal and common wealth were at first used indiscriminately in the senses 'public welfare' and 'body politic' but in XVI commonwealth became the ordinary Eng. term for the latter sense, whence the latter sense 'republic' was developed." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), "Addenda," p. 1025.

"WEAL. wil wealth, riches; welfare OE.; the public good xv. OE. wela=OS. welo, (cf. OHG. wela, wola adv.) :- Wgerm. welon, f. wel-; see WELL. In the sense of w. public (xv) rendering L. bonum publicum, F. le bien publique, COMMONWEAL (L. res communis or publica, F. le bien commun)." Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966), p. 996.

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

"The very purpose of equity was to humanize the common law by modifying or removing its unconscionable burdens." Strauss v. Strauss (1941), 3 So.2d 727;

"UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. 2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable.The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1859), Vol. II, p. 610.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Foundation of America

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

The Great Patent of New England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles of Confederation

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

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

The signers of the Articles were:

John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts,

Tho. Dudley, Geo. Fenwick, Thomas Gregson, Theoph. Eaton, Edwa. Hopkins.

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

Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of Massachusetts;

The Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth;

and the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut.

The Articles opened with:

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

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

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

Thus, the opening of :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Vinculis

by John Joseph

"IN VINCULIS. In chains; in actual custody." Gilb. For. Rom. 97

"Applied also, figuratively, to the condition of a person who is compelled to submit to terms which oppression and his necessities impose on him." 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 302. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), p. 1525.

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

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

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

"Attorneys are officers of the court, and answerable to it [not God] for the proper performance of their professional duties." Clark v. Willett (1868), 35 C. 534 [Insertion added.]; and,

"First [primus] the attorney is an officer of the court, and both his legal duties and authority may be modified either expanded or contracted by legal and ethical rules regulating the practice of the law." Witkin California Procedure, 41, p. 49. [Insertion added.]

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

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

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

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

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

And looking to the maxims of Law,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the second place,

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

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

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

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

And this is key to Your situation:

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

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

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

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

You first will say,

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

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

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Mt 6:24 and Lk 16:13.

"Lex non cogit ad impossibilia -- The law requires nothing impossible." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2143;

"Impossibilium nulla obligatio est -- There is no obligation to perform impossible things." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), Maxim, p. 2137;


"Impotentia excusat legem -- Impossibility is an excuse in the law." Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2137.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The term 'martial law' carries no precise meaning and has been employed in various ways by different people and at different times." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, Hawaii, 66 S.Ct. 606, 611, 615, 327 U.S. 304, 90 L.Ed. 688;

so that,

"In truth and reality it is not a law, but something indulged rather than allowed as a law." Hale's Hist. C.L., quoted in Johnson v. Jones (1868), 44 Ill. 142; because 'necessity' is the governing principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You display intent when You answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Time Justice

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

"Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won't be there.

The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won't be here to see.

From every tree top some wild woods songster will carol his mating song, butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the busy bee will hum happy as it pursues its accustomed vocation, the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, will be glad, but you. You won't be here to enjoy it because I command the Sheriff or some other officer of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead.

And then, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, copper-colored, blood-thirsty, throat-cutting, chili-eating, sheep-herding, murdering son-of-a-bitch." U.S.A. v. Gonzales (1881), U.S. District Court, New Mexico Territory Sessions.

Myths of the Patriot Movement

Part One

by Randy Lee

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

These myths include, but are not limited to:

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

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

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

The Right to Travel: 'Within the meaning of 'a right to travel', means migration with intent to settle and abide.' Strong v. Collatos, D.C. Mass., 450 F. Supp.1356,1360.

Migrans jura amittat ac privilegia et immunitatates domicilii prioris, or, One who migrates or emigrates will lose the rights, privileges, and immunities of his former domicile. Maxim of Law, Black's Law Dict., 6th Ed., page 992.

'Basic constitutional right exemplified in case of persons applying for welfare assistance in a state in which they have not resided for a prescribed period of time. It is said that to deny such a right to such persons is to inhibit their right to travel and hence to deny them equal protection of the law.' Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322.

"Nom de guerre--a war name; an assumed traveling name; a pseudonym." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged (World Publishing Co., 1969), "Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases," p. 1202.

"The sovereign authority can extend only over those who are subject to it; it cannot, therefore, regulate the rights of foreigners. But if they come within its territory, either to reside or travel, they are considered as submitting themselves to the authority of the laws of the country, and they are bound by them. This is perfectly reasonable, for during their stay in the country they are protected by its laws." 1 Bouvier's Inst. of Law (1851), p. 38.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergencyfrom, at least, the Civil important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Preamble from Senate Report 93-549, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate.

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

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

"And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." 1 John 2:15-17

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

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

'The power, in a State, is necessarily limited to subjects within its jurisdiction. These are persons, property, and business,--whatever the form of taxation, whether as duties, imports, excises, or licenses. The power may touch property in every shape: in its natural condition, in its manufactured form, in its transmutations. It may touch business in any of its infinite forms--in professions, commerce, manufactures, transportation. The amount is determined by the value, use, capacity, or productiveness. Unrestrained constitutionally, the power of the State as to the mode, form, and extent is unlimited, provided the subject be within her jurisdiction.' A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson (1893), page 1009, based on numerous court cases.

Note: 'provided the subject be within her jurisdiction,' is limiting, when it comes to the Good and Lawful Christian not engaging in the benefits, privileges and immunities of The State, but instead, living The Law according to Scripture.

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

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

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

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

According to Blackstone,

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

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

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

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

"Citizen: A member of the civil state entitled to all its privileges." Cooley, Const. Lim. 77.

"Citizen: One of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with 'the people'." Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404. (Note: God is The only Sovereign. Who then, are 'the people'? The U.S. Government, which is a corporation, claims to be sovereign. 'The people,' then, are those with power over their 'human subjects,' who wish to be God walking on earth. Their motto is, 'I can do all things in myself and be perfect').

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued in Issue the Twenty-fourth)

Research Update on Dr. Schroeder

Article by John William

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regular Session: Colorado Legisture, 1933:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nd Extraordinary Session. 1933-34:

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

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

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

Regular Session, 1935:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Review of

Military Government and Martial Law


William E. Birkhimer, L.L.B.

Major, General Staff, U.S. Army.

Third Edition, Revised.

Franklin Hudson Publishing Company.

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

Review by: John William

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Dollar in Silver

by Phillip Randolph

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

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

Silver existed in a bimetallic ratio of fifteen to one with gold, at that time.

The silver coinage was changed in 1837, by law, to reflect an alloy of 900/thousandths fine.

This same fineness in coinage is reflected in all Lawful silver coins (dollars, half-dollars, quarter-dollars and dimes) minted prior to 1965, at which time a debasement of the coinage took place.

What most people call 'junk silver,' is in fact, the only lawful money on the land in this state available to Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women, today.

Silver bullion (999/thousandths fine) exists in a commercial venue, as a commodity, and is not therefore useful to the Good and Lawful Christian People as a medium of exchange.

Silver Coin of the Realm can be acquired by the bag (one thousand dollars face value) or by individual coin at most numismatic coin shops.

Caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware.

All money in a Christian Jural Society should be Coin of the Realm, for obvious reasons.

Abraham Lincoln:

the Father of a New Country

It is more and more clear that the reality of what Lincoln did, as President of the united States, and the picture painted by his biographers and worshippers, are not only not even close, there not even in the same world.

Take, for example, the Leiber Martial Law Doctrine that Lincoln had written in 1863.

During the months between the time Congress abandoned Washington, D.C., Lincoln ruled by Executive Order. Though he wrote less than two dozen such orders during his time in office, they were momentous.

The very first Executive Order signed by a President of the united States was executed on April 21st, 1861. With it, Lincoln called up 75,000 militia from among the states. Other E.O.'s were delegated to the Adjutant General's office to execute.

Lincoln knew he acted without authority, and commissioned a special code to be written, 'governing' his actions, that justified his seizure of power, under the Doctrine of Necessity.

The Code is known as The Lieber Instructions, and was promulgated as General Orders No. 100, by Lincoln, on April 24, 1863. It provided the means to bring international and municipal law, under The Law of War, onto American soil and extend it, for the first time, beyond Washington, D.C..

This Code took the U.S. into the 1874 Brussels Conference (two years after Washington, D.C.., became a corporation) and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

The Lieber Code states in Section I, Article 1., that;

"A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning tohe inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest."(emphasis added)

Note carefully, Lincoln created a modus operandi wherein Presidents of the U.S. could put all Americans under Martial Law, and haul them into Military Tribunals for trial - without ever informing anyone that they were under Martial Law.

The Code goes on to say in the same Section, Article 10, that;

"Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations." (emphasis added).

Is it coincidence that the I.R.S. first flexed its muscles at about this same time? Its function was, to collect war reparations extracted from the conquered peoples of the South to re-pay the North's War Debt.

Do not forget that the U.S. had a net surplus income in 1860 of some $74,000, yet five years later, it had a deficit of $522,878,000, a staggering sum in 1865. Yet, in the four years after the War, the Treasury showed a net surplus of $70,759,000.

Note also, that before the War, the budget of the U.S. never exceeded $61 million, but after the war it was never less than $288 millions. Nearly a five-fold increase.

Did the I.R.S. do its job or not???

Next month, more on the shenanigans during this era as we dig up a few more bones.

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.


"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,"


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.

Issue the Tenth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    501(c)3 Churches: Godly or Godless?

    It's All in the Name...

    Sanford v. The Justices of Maine...

    Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Two...

    News from Home...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

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.


"... it was eventually taken for granted that law, as a product of reason, is capable of functioning as an instrument of secular power, disconnected from ultimate values and purposes; and not only religious faith but all passionate convictions came to be considered the private affair of each individual. Thus not only legal thought but also the very structure of Western legal institutions have been removed from their spiritual foundations, and those foundations, in turn, are left devoid of the structure that once stood upon them." Berman, Law and Revolution (1983), pp. 197-198.

With the transfer of the principal lawmaking and law enforcing functions to the sole jurisdictions of the national state [government], the foundation was laid for the separation of jurisprudence from theology and ultimately for the complete secularization of legal thought. This did not occur at once, since the predominant system of beliefs throughout the West remained Christian. It is only in the twentieth century that the Christian foundations of Western law have been almost totally rejected.

The lack of traditional Christian values and morality in our legal institutions is predictable along with the return to the old Roman system:

"Roman criminal law, in contrast, especially in the earlier period but also at the time of Justinian, was not greatly concerned with the moral quality of the specific criminal act; it was concerned, rather, with what is called today the protection of interests and enforcement of policies. In the postclassical period, as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions." Berman, Law and Revolution (1984), p. 192.

Perhaps now, we can see why the modern idea of 'justice' makes less and less sense. And, with the enormous expansion of the Commerce Clause since Roosevelt, the logical consequence of the Roman law restored by Lincoln and Co. during and after the War, is come home to us.

The commercial aspect is today, a literal fulfillment of what Berman means when he says that "as imperial power increased, the kinds of misconduct to which imperial punishment was applicable also increased, as did the severity of criminal sanctions."

In the 1920's, however, with the growing power of the I.R.S., churches complained that the income tax would deprive them of tithes. During this period and after the 501(c)3 non-profit, tax exempt corporation was developed, to its present state to satisfy the demand -- within the churches -- for a king..

But, in the churches desire to convert their standing to 501(c)3 status, they, at the same time, polluted their congregations because the wealthy, who had the money to contribute, now attended church and gave handsomely, just to get a tax write-off. The influence of the wealthy began to be determinative of church polity and policy. The quality of preaching in the pulpit, in other words, declined for sake of filthy lucre.

As Peter has said, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being example to the flock."

With its new found money, the church expanded its so-called outreach which meant that they became dependent on the wealthy to stay involved in the church and continue to contribute, so the outreach could be sustained.

Today, we need only turn on the television to see the fruit of this rotten tree grown in the fields of commerce. Under Franklin D. Roosevelt and thereafter, the growth in the number of 501(c)3 churches exploded, to the extent that, by 1980, almost every church in America was incorporated.

In some of the smaller denominations, such as the Holiness churches and a few others, the idea never took root, and to this day such churches are not incorporated.

But, already by this time, another movement had begun in the Christian churches, that would expose to a limited extent, just how much power the governments acquired over the churches that were incorporated.

The precise date at which the movement began is not well known, but at least by the 1960's there was a growing reaction in the Christian community, to the decline of the public school system. The lack of traditional values in the public school curriculum, the growing violence and prevalence of drugs on public school campuses, and a variety of other reasons, combined to spawn within the Christian community a demand for their own school system, in their own churches. And, when the church would not, or could not, provide a school, parents began to teach their children at home.

It became evident to many Christians in the Nebraska School case, after Pastor Siliven and many of his parishoners were jailed, that perhaps there was something wrong with the way the church was organized.

In this case, the issue of separation of church and state was ignored from the outset, because the church was organized under the 501(c)3 laws and regulations.

In this case, the State of Nebraska demanded that the Christian school set up in Pastor Siliven's church be licensed in various ways, and they refused. Soon thereafter, the pastor and some members of the congregation were arrested and the church padlocked.

When Pastor Siliven objected, and raised the issue of separation of church and state, he was informed by the judge that in this case, there was no question of First Amendment Rights, because, as far as the State of Nebraska was concerned, "the church was just another corporation."

In the aftermath of this case, which was one of the first to receive major media coverage, instead of damping the growth of the private Christian school movement, the movement grew, almost exponentially. Today, about 25% of all children in America are either educated in private Christian schools, or in a home schools.

But, in the aftermath of the private Christian school movement, many pastors and congregations began to realize that the 501(c)3 corporate standing of their church was not a good idea. Thus, began the movement to dis-incorporate, or de-register among churches across America to the point that, nearly 10% of all churches in America have now de-registered. This amounts to some 10 to 12,000 churches.

At the same time, these churches have begun to wake up to the real intent and motives of the present military establishment known as the United States.

The possibilities inherent in a new reformation of America's Christian churches, are almost too numerous to list.

One point needs to mentioned here. The power that the Christian church once had, is now atrophied, because the church has been politicized, legalized, and compromised. The sheer power of the church as an asylum state in law, which the church once had, can have enormous impact on where America goes in the next century.

We've gone over the history of the church and its relationship to law and the 501(c)3 tax exempt corporation. Next month, we will turn to an analysis of the current legal status of 501(c)3 churches, and the arguments to justify their existence. Next month we will go over in detail the pros and cons of these arguments.

Meantime, pray and ask your pastor a few questions. Do not get belligerent. Do not argue. Instead, give them a copy of this article from The Christian Jural Society News.

It's All in the Name!!!

by Randy Lee

A Good and Lawful Christian Man does not have a name. He has a Christian appellation. Only animals, things, persons, human beings, individuals and residents have names, for commercial purposes, to wit:

Name. 'A designation by which a person, natural or artificial, is known.'

Designation. 'The use of an expression, instead of the name, to indicate a person or thing.'A Dictionary of Law (1893) by William C. Anderson. (See Issue the Sixth of The News, 'To Be or Not To Be, a Human Being,' for a study of what human beings and natural persons really are.)

Name. 1. 'The particular combination of vocal sounds employed as the individual designation of a single person, animal, place, or thing.'

Designation. 5. 'In Law, the statement of profession, trade, residence, etc., for purposes of identification 1824.' The Oxford Universal Dictionary (1933).

Name. 'The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.'

Designation. 'A description or descriptive expression by which a person or thing is denoted in a will without using the name. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed. (1933), page 1220.

And two maxims of law:

Nomina sunt notæ rerum: Names are the marks of things; and

Nomina sunt symbola rerum, Names are the symbols of things.

A Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman is not a thing. Therefore, if one from a foreign jurisdiction wants to know if your name is 'so and so,' let them know that as a Good and Lawful Christian Man, you don't have a name, but a Christian appellation to which they can appeal.

The implications of giving your so-called name to anyone, especially when dealing with the imperial commercial courts and governments of D.C., the States, the Counties, and the Cities, can be quite devastating. Therefore, it is important to fully consider the following:

"The christian or baptismal name is, of course, really the name of importance and, surprising as it may seem, it does not matter in law nearly so much about the added or sur-name. The Christian name is therefore placed in the forefront, and incidentally is an essential part of the evidence of every witness in Court.....Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names', by Anthony Linell (1938).

When you are confronted by a 'person' asking if your name is 'so and so,' the only answer you can give is a resounding , no.

The reason you can say 'no' truthfully is in the fact that you have the knowledge that all paperwork and process coming from the imperial powers, under the Law of War, has your so-called name spelled in all capital letters. This is clearly not you.

When one asks you your name, they obviously don't know you. If this is the case, they are from a different or foreign jurisdiction, outside of your community. By answering to the name that comes out of their mouth, you answer to the fiction that that foreign jurisdiction has created for their purposes. By answering to the name, you remove yourself from the jurisdiction of Christendom and the church, and give jurisdiction to those who regulate natural persons, human beings and others of like 'species.'

The commercial aspect of names is where the imperial governments are looking.. With the giving of your name, you answer as a belligerent in the field, operating in a commercial venue, making you fully regulateable through codes, rules and regulations.

Consider this:

"Everything must have a name. Many things cannot, in fact, exist without a name. However much dignity and importance there may be in a corporation, it can have no possible existence until it is given a name. The importance of names is thus manifest, and it is a little surprising that apparently no attempt has before been made to deal with their full legal aspect." Judge Edgar Dale, Foreword to 'The Law of Names,' by Anthony Linell (1938).

Sanford v.

The Justices of Maine

by John Joseph

This article is not for those who are rutted in their version of American history, nor those who have no Christian discernment. It is for those Who want and thirst for the Truth which has been withheld from Them, to their shame.

Let Me first say that the issue is not one of race, but of ideology and the implementation of ideology. Race is a tool the media uses to sell terrorism, dissention, and destruction for the gratification of its stockholders and satisfaction of its balance sheet. If you are a stockholder of these vermin, please stop reading and go back to the self-gratification of your ego. If not, take notes, because you are in for a great surprise. The maxims of law state that the only thing truth fears is concealment. We hope to bring out the truth so We can shed the light on the real issues the media vermin only frost over with their drivel.

Now, to start clarifying the title. Sanford refers to the defendant in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), 19 How. 393. This is a famous case in American legal circles, which perhaps maligned and disparaged a great majority of inhabitants in the several states, and set the stage for the most calamitous event in American history. We will be examining this case with the Opinion of the Justices (1857), 44 Me. 505 from the Supreme Court of Maine.

To start out it is necessary to understand the issue facing the court in the Sanford case. That issue was, "Does this court have jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case?" If it does, it should go to the merits of the case, and decide the issues therein. If not, then refuse the case, and not decide the issues contained in the pleadings. That was the central and only issue facing the court. Everything else hung on that one question.

The central and only issue for the Justices of Maine was whether free black men possessing and meeting qualifications applicable to free white men had the same identical political rights of free white men in the state of Maine. I will not dwell on the answer at this time. Rather, I will tell you to get both decisions and read them for your edification. [Ed. note: The Opinion of the Justices and the Sanford decision are available from Randy Lee.]

It is important to first of all understand the meaning of some words and phrases in the Constitution for the United States of America, particularly the phrase "We, the People of the United States," This is especially important because this declares who established the confederacy of several states. Chief Justice Taney, in the Sanford case, made several references to the preamble in his opinion.

I should tell you that Taney's opinion is not the only opinion in Sanford. Each of the Justices wrote an opinion, but Taney's received and continues to receive the approbation of the media, and those elitists who have their notions of what American history should be. It is such a shame that Taney's opinion is the only one ever cited as "law" when the facts do not reflect the truth of his statements. It is his opinion that set the final straw and allowed Lincoln's War to get off the ground. I will cover that later. Taney was also one of the largest slaveholders in Maryland, and could not see letting his slaves go when his balance sheet would not allow him to do so. Conflict of interest? You decide.

On the other hand, the Justices of Maine had no self-serving motive in rendering their opinion. Each stood on the facts of history which they carefully researched and documented in their opinion to the Senate of Maine.

Back to who did what. In reading the Opinion of the Justices you come across numerous facts of history that are never mentioned. Like black people fought side by side with white people during the "Revolution." (From this time forward in any of the writings from Me, I will always refer this event to be, "The War for Christian Liberty.") Numerous states had black electors exercising suffrage and holding office in the state governments. It is important to note here that suffrage is not indicative of whether a Christian is a member of a community. After all, women and children do not exercise suffrage and yet are considered members of the Christian community. Seeing then, that prior to the "Constitution for the United States of America," black people were citizens in some of the states, we must come now to look at the preamble to that document.

Looking at the wording, it says "the people of the United States." Who are these people?

"Only once did chance rather than forethought contribute a striking effect. The Preamble, when handed to the Committee on Style, which put the document in its final form, read: 'We the People of the States of New Hampshire,' and so forth through the thirteen states. Someone remarked that because only nine states were needed to ratify the Constitution and several might reject it--the refusal of George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Luther Martin of Maryland, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts to accept the convention's handiwork indicated that there might be some trouble in some states--the Preamble should be altered to read: 'We the People of the United States." David Hawke, The Colonial Experience (1966, The Bobbs-Merrill Co.), p. 673.

If black people were citizens of some of the states, are they excluded by this wording from that body politic declared in the preamble? Roger Brooke Taney thought so. But history and Law does not claim this. In fact it claims the opposite:

"Res transit cum suo onere --The thing [a political right] passes with its burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2161.

Thus, those who were citizens in the several states, who had adhered and taken on the burdens of fighting a common "enemy" had acquired, through their heroic acts, the same rights as everyone else who had done the same.

The next question is, were these inhabitants ever recognized on equal footing? Yes, in several states. And why were they recognized citizens? Because they had fought the common enemy--tyrannus rex--side by side with the Puritans. The Puritans recognized this when they organized their Christian communities--the bond of Christianity. Does the Law itself say those who enjoy the benefits must shoulder the burdens? Does it also say that the advantage is in he who assumes the risk?

"Cujus est commodum, ejus est onus --He who has the benefit has also the burden." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

Had not they shouldered equal burdens and risks to enjoy the same and equal Christian Liberty under God? Equal rights were immediately vested in both, and both share the bond in and to Christ, where there is no more slave, free, Jew or Greek. What does the media offer here? Artificial schisms that enhance the balance sheet in the name of "news."

The problem most "patriots" fail to read, or better yet, choose to ignore, and which Roger Taney probably forgot about, is that his decision was to affect only those who were then held to servitude; and, was not to apply to Free Black People. Taney made this statement in the opening of his opinion. Unfortunately he forgot about it and most "patriots" choose to ignore it. Why? I would highly recommend you get a copy of John Quade's article on "Blue Widgets" from The Christian Jural Society Press for some, if not all, of their reasons. I can only speculate why, and I think to speculate is fruitless.

"It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognized as the people or citizens of a state, whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English government; and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of government to defend their rights by force of arms.

"In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument." Dred Scott v. Sanford, supra, p. 407. [Emphasis added.]

Roger Taney made the distinction between the status of a free black man and a slave here but most "patriot" gurus fail to see it. Taney's decision rested entirely on the idea that those who were held to slavery could never really be emancipated and free. But looking to the laws regarding slavery, emancipation is a matter of state law, and not federal law:

"Emancipation is the removal of the incapacity of slavery, whereas the framing of a rule of naturalization belongs to the Government of the United States. It would be a dangerous mistake to confound them." Gaston, J., in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Battle (N.C.) 20, 25.

Then Taney forgot all about his major premise and began to lump all into one unhappy hodge-podge, making no distinction between free blacks and slaves:

"Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men--high in literary acquirements--high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the Negro race which, by common consent, had been excluded from civilized governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery. They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established, and were never thought of or spoken of except as property, and when the claims of the owner or the profit of a trader were supposed to need protection.

"This state of public opinion had undergone no change when the Constitution was adopted, as is equally evident from its provisions and language." Dred Scott v. Sanford, ibid., pp. 409, 410.

What happened to the distinction between the free black man, recognized and partaking of political rights, in the states; and, the slave? Taney conveniently ignored the distinction.

Can the badge of slavery follow those of succeeding generations? This is similar to holding the son responsible for the sins of the father.

"Nullus jus alienum forisfacere potest --No man can forfeit another's right." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2151.

Even at the worst, the slaves had shouldered the same burdens, but in a different way. Had they not helped the master maintain and defend his household, lands, family, arms, wealth, and the like? Could the master have fought as courageously knowing that his family or possessions might be wasted? I think not.

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States." Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

So, we can see that Roger Taney obliterated distinctions in his opinion, which were necessary in setting the stage for the Abolitionists to hire mercenaries, under A. Lincoln and Associates, Inc.

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:


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).

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Christian Almanac,

published in 1864 by The American Tract Society

A Touchtone

By this one mark you may know whether the sins of your lives, be they great or small, are certain proofs of an unconverted heart or not. In every truly converted man, the main bent of his heart and life is against sin, and his chief desire and endeavor are to destroy it. In others it is not so. Whatever kind of sinning therefore is inconsistent with such a desire and endeavor, will prove that man to be unconverted and graceless who commits it. How far a man's sin is with or against the predominant bent of his own heart and life, he may discern by diligent observation. Baxter.

The Sin of the church Today

If asked to point out the sin of the church in the present day, we cannot hesitate to say that it is a pervading worldliness of mind, heart, and conduct. It is not only in the way of doing business that this is seen, but in the general habits and tastes of professing Christians. Their style of living, their associations, their amusements, their conversation, show a minding of earthly things, a disposition to conform to prevailing fashions, and an apparent desire to seek their hapiness from objects of sense rather than from those of faith, which prove the extent to which a secular spirit is bearing down the spirit of piety, and breaking up those distinctions whereby believers are known as that "peculiar people whose God is the Lord. Jay.

News From Home ...

Reprinted from The Kanzas News published during the years 1850-1870

Saturday, September 29, 1860

Simple Preaching

A reporter of the Christian Intelligencer, writing from Saratoga, speaks as follows:

"One of the most delightful acquaintances I have formed at the Springs this season was Judge McLean, of United States Court. I was specially interested in his criticisms on preaching. "We want," said he, "more simple, practical sermons--right to the conscience--made lively by Scripture, history and incidents. I like an occasional anecdote, if well put; for our Savior spoke in parables. But I cannot abide dry, abstract discussions, or cold homilies.-- Preaching should be piquant and popular, and suited to 'common people.'

Saturday, June 30, 1860

The Madison (Iowa) Plaindealer says that a poor miserable wretch living near Farmington, in Van Buren county, while horribly blaspheming God, on Sunday last, for withholding rain from his suffering crops, was suddenly struck with palsy, and almost immediately, expired.

Saturday, October 27, 1860

It is the opinion of the doctor that the lawyer gets his living by plunder, while the lawyer thinks the doctor gets his by 'pill-age.'

Issue the Eleventh


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    The Dreaded Scott Decision...

    Land vs. Real Property, Part One...

    A Message to The Postmaster-General ...

    Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Three...

    Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God...

    The Long Road Out of Commerce...

    Etymologicum Anglicanum...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

The Dreaded Scott Decision

by The Staff of the Christian Jural Society News

Note: This article is designed to complement and supplement the article by John Joseph in last month's News, entitled "Sanford v. The Justices of Maine."

Recently, a Reader in Northern California gave us some very interesting cites from a book called: "Looking for America: The People's History." By Stanley I. Kutler, Volume 1, to 1865. Published by Canfield Press, San Francisco.

The cites are manumission papers filed in various Virginia courts, wherein, black people freed black slaves they owned.

Wait a minute! One black man owns a black slave, and sets him free? Yes, that is precisely what the sources say, which, of course, is contrary to the modern view of history. Further, there are several such manumission papers cited in the work - from a black slave-owners to their black slaves.

There is even a case where a black woman manumits her black slave. Imagine that, a woman owning property - in those days - and the property happens to be a man, no less. This is certainly contrary to modern experts view of history.

But, the bombshell is, the cites are writs found in the court records of Virginia. What??? In a Southern state??? You heard right, in Virgina.

One manumission paper reads as follows:

"John Updike to Reuben Rhenalds.

Know all men by these presents that I John Updike (a free man of color) of the town of Petersburg in the State of Virginia have manumitted, emancipated, and set free, and do by these presents manumit, emancipate, and set free a certain Negro man named Rheuben Rhenalds, lately purchased by me from Shadrach Brander, so that the said Rheuben Rhenalds shall be and remain free from this time henceforth forever. In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and affixed my seal and delivered to the said Rheuben Rhenalds this his deed of emancipation this 17th day of November, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one."

John Updike

!!! That's pre-Civil War 1831 !!!

There are several key elements of this cite that are relevant to the infamous blasphemy of the Dred Scot decision. First, note the slave owner is as a 'free man,' not freeman. The term 'free man,' is not the same as freeman, or freedman, both of which mean a former slave or bondperson.

Second, note that the cite specifically says that the slave owner is not just a free man but, a 'free man of color,' not negro, black, or African. Further, in other cites (pg. 303) involving 'free persons of color' freeing their black slaves, such slave owners are also styled as 'people of color,' 'persons of color,' or a man or woman 'of color.'

Thus, free black people, persons, men, or women, who owned property, that may include slaves, who were free inhabitants, were denoted by the phrase 'of color.' Whether 'of color' applied to free inhabitants who were yellow or red, is not yet confirmed in our research.

Third, note that the black slave was called a 'Negro slave.' The word 'Negro' was used in all these cites when referring to the slave.

Clearly, in some state laws there was a distinct difference between the way black people were referred to in the law, based upon whether they were free inhabitants, or slaves.

Is there another source wherein this same analysis holds, i.e., in court cases? Sure enough, in 44 Maine 505, we find a number of statements to support the notes we have made above.

The case came up after the infamous Dred Scott case. It was heard at the specific request of the Senate of Maine, to determine if free colored persons of African descent had a right to vote in Maine as they had been doing all along - before Dred Scott vs. Sanford.

The Maine case is key for a variety of reasons.

First, it details the fact that prior to the Constitution, while the states were still under the Articles of Confederation, most state constitutions made no specific reference to a distinction between people of color and everyone else, while some states did make such distinctions.

This was true in both the North and the South. Thus, a free inhabitant was a free inhabitant in every sense of the word, without regard to their skin color. But, after the Constitution for the united States became effective, several states made changes to their state constitutions that did make distinctions between people of color and whites.

Such states were found both in the North and the South. Thus, in the orginal constitutions of New York (1777), New Jersey (1776), and Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776) voting law was general and liberal towards all. But, after the Constitution for the united States was passed, these same states amended their constitutions with respect to people of color.

In New York (1821), New Jersey (1844), and Maryland (1801) and in other states, this was the case. Maryland and North Carolina, however, in its amendments of 1801 and 1835 respectively, excluded non-whites from voting.

The reasons for these changes are not clear, except for the fact that many states were beginning to worry that the Federal power may be over-stepping its boundaries in matters of state jurisdiction, especially in the light of the growing abolitionist movements that were springing up. States that excluded people of color may have done so as a reaction to these events.

But, Maine came into the union after the Constitution was adopted, in 1820, before which it was a part of Massachusetts. In the debate over the Constitution of Maine, the color issue was raised and rejected.

In these debates, a Mr. Holmes summed up the position against provisions regarding color when he said;

" ... I know of no difference between the rights of the negro and the white man; God Almighty has made none - our declaration of rights has made none. That declares that 'all men' (without regard to colors) 'are born equally free and independent.'"

At any rate, 44 Maine 505, in the majority opinion says:

"Free colored male persons, of African descent, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, having a residence established in some town or plantation in this state three months next preceding any election, and who are not paupers, aliens, nor persons under guardianship, are authorized under the provisions of the constitution of this state, to be electors for governor, senators, and representatives."

This view of things was supported by five of the courts seven justices. Another justice, also in favor of the elective rights of people of color also wrote an extended opinion in support of the majority opinion.

Only one justice in the Supreme Court of Maine wrote in defense of a contrary view, but, he was the only justice who supported a denial of the elective right for people of color.

The point is, there was a distinct difference between free inhabitants who were black, and negro slaves, and this distinction was clear in the Maine case and in other state constitutions.

Because of this distinction, people of color were viewed as citizens who could vote and hold all the other rights of suffrage, etc..

Now, compare the Maine case with what was said in Dred Scott v. Sanford, wherein, we find Chief Justice Taney saying the following in the case summary at the beginning of the decision.

"4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit."

First, note that Taney uses the phrase 'free negro' when referring to black people, a term not used in any of the state laws that we have seen on the elective rights of the states citizens.

Second, he says that such 'free negroes' are not a 'citizen,' again, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.

Third, Taney says that when the Constitution was adopted, 'they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.'

It is clear from the evidence in the Maine case that they were regarded as members of the community which constituted the State.

In other words, all three of Taney's statements in the above are patently false on the basis of clear evidence to the contrary that he must have known about, because the evidence was seen in all the state's constitutions that are mentioned in 44 Maine, 505.

Note also, that Taney blurs the distinction between free inhabitants 'of color' and the word 'negro' which was applied almost exclusively to slaves.

Now, it has been the practice of the Supreme Court to take into account state laws, customs and usages, from the inception of such Court. Yet, Taney makes no mention of the many states whose laws, customs, and usages were contrary to his view of things.

There are many people today, who decry the Supreme Court's practice of legislating from the bench, but, Taney's decision and reasoning here are clear evidence that such a practice has been going on far longer than most people believe.

Next, there is the problem of the Court's ruling on 'political questions,' which the Court has sought to distance itself from.

Thus, it is now, and has been the practice of the Supreme Court to steer clear of cases involving what are deemed to be political questions. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court each time someone tries to bring up the un-constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. They refuse to rule on such matters time and again, because such a challenge is deemed by the Court to be a 'political question.'

Of course, the Supreme Court has also said that the 14th Amendment has been law too long to do away with now, short of a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, the whole modern infra-structure of the corporate federal, state, county, and city governments would collapse without the underpinnings of the 14th Amendment.

To put it bluntly, the entire humanistically based, military government that now is, would cease to have any pretense of a right to exist, if the 14th Amendment was done away with.

But, as we have pointed out elsewhere, what the Supreme Court says, really doesn't matter, because it has been a captive instrument of the Commander-in-Chief since the Merriman decision in 1863.

But, be that as it may, the Maine case is significant for at least one other reason. Because it gives evidence that states in both the North and South would, when ever they sought to do so, contradict and even defy the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Maine case is evidence that there was not only discontent in the South with the government in Washington, D.C., but in the North as well.

The Maine case was one more reason justifying A. Lincoln's usurpation of power in 1860-61. Without the military arm of the federal government to call upon, it is evident that given a few more years, the United States government would have ceased to exist as we now know it.

Only by wielding massive military power against the States in the bloodiest war this nation and its people have ever been involved in, could the entity that was the Federal Government survive.

The Dred Scott decision, as specious and contrived as it is, was sufficient justification for everything the abolitionists, Lincoln, and the Northern states wanted, to start the War Against All States, create a new form of government, and suppress all resistance in the States.

We must ask ourselves why the Constitution was so inadequate to fulfil the purposes for which it was designed?

The answer is, it was fully sufficient to do the job for which it was designed so long as - and only so long as - the people of states were consistently and self-consciously Christian.

When Christian teaching began to die after the genocide of The Black Brigade, it was totally inadequate to meet the exigencies of a growing nation and torrent of immigrants that flooded into the land.

Only a full-orbed faith in Christ in which His Law is absolute in all areas of life, can any nation exist without a military force to govern it.

The only alternatives are then, Christ or the gun.

There are many today who are calling for a new Constitutional convention, as if amending a piece of 'mere parchment' were the answer.

Assuming the military power that now resides in Washington , D.C., were to permit such a convention to take place (and there is every reason to believe that they would not), what can possibly result from such a convention except an even greater abomination, so long as the Christians in this land are so perverted in their understanding and knowledge of the Scripture and the nature and purpose of civil government as God has given it to us in His Word???

The whole point of the effort here at The Christian Jural Society News is not merely to inform, or educate, but to promote and support in every possible way, the fostering of a reconstructed view of Christian civil government.

This is why we promote and propagate information on Christian Jural Societies.

Without a full-orbed Christianity, in which the Law Word of Jesus Christ and the Scripture is applied - without compromise - to every area of life - including civil government - then we will find Ourselves in short order, in a new era of darkness and tyranny that is unprecedented in the world's history, and the Dark Ages will be upon us, the Christians of the 21st Century.

Land vs. Real Property

by John Joseph

Many inquiries have been made recently about "land," and what the King's Men plan on doing about recovering it. First, it is not the responsibility of the King's Men to solve every Christian's problems. That has already been done by God through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. What follows is the theory of the case regarding the status quo of most of the titles today. All of what is said here applies to all Christians. Read, know and understand 44 Maine 505 for the rest of this story, because God is no respecter of persons.

This article follows closely the Scriptural battle plan: The time is now for all Good and Lawful Christian Men to claim their Inheritance, because;

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Lk 12:48;
"It is not our duty to leave wealth to our children; but it is our duty to leave [Christian] liberty to them. No infamy, iniquity, or cruelty, can exceed our own, if we, born and educated in a country of freedom, entitled to its blessings, and knowing their value, pusillanimously deserting the post assigned us by Divine Providence, surrender succeeding generations to a condition of wretchedness, from which no human efforts, in all probability, will be sufficient to extricate them." Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), H. Niles, editor;
"Look forward also to distant posterity. Figure to yourselves millions and millions to spring from your loins, who may be born freemen or slaves, as Heaven shall now approve or reject your councils. Think, that on you it may depend, whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and inlightened people, enjoying Liberty and all its comcomitant blessings, together with the Religion of Jesus, as it flows uncorrupted from his holy oracles; or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness." Rev. Provost Smith, in a sermon given in 1775.

We must start by executing the Testament of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for a testament is of no effect without execution:

"If you love Me, keep My Commandments";   Jn 14:15

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you";  Mat 6:33

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth";  Mat 28:18

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art [Your Name], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [have given] unto thee [Your Name] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven";  Mat 16:16

"Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you [Your Name]";  Jn 20:21

"first bind the [evil] strong man";  Mar 3:27

And then spoil the house in which the changers of money sit and drive them all out of the temple [government seat, and your heart], pour out the changers' money, and overthrow their tables [benches, banks]; and tell them 'take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise [commerce--walking with Mercurius]';   Jn 2:15-16

then, "Occupy till I come";  Luk 19:13

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."  Mar 16:15

"Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.";  Isa. 32:16

so: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Brother Paul's Letter to our Brothers at Ephesus, 1:17-23.

"To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Brother Peter's First Letter, 5:11.

The basis of this argument is found in the following Scriptural references:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." Num 26:52-56.

"So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." Num 35:7 & 9. [You shall not put your inheritance in the hands of the priesthood of government.]

"The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them." De 17:1-2.

Probably the largest misconception in the Law Reform movement concerns what constitutes title. We are so deluged with paper, certificates, and the like--all which evidence commercial activity or nature of the item described on them--but none of these are evidence of any thing outside the venue of the lex mercatoria, the law merchant. They are not evidence of title in Law. They are simply rebuttable, because in Law they are defective. This is the reason for "title insurance." Now, take careful note of what constitutes true title in Law:

"250. Title is the means by which the ownership of real property [or land] is acquired and held. This is either:

"(a) By descent, or

"(b) By purchase.

"The fact which in any case gives or creates ownership over real property [or land] is called title. Title signifies the manner in which estates and interests in land are acquired. At the beginning of real property law in any country there must be an original acquisition of title to land. After title has been thus acquired all subsequent acquisitions of title to the same land must be by transfer of the title.

"Descent and Purchase.

"All titles are said to be acquired by descent or by purchase. Purchase means more than mere buying, it includes acquisition of title by devise or by gift. In short title by purchase means title acquired in all ways except by descent." Hopkins on Real Property (1896), p. 399. [Emphasis added.]

Please take notice of those two key words italicized in the above definition of title--manner and means. These two words are key to establishing superior title in Law--not the piece of paper purporting to be "title." But what does all this have to do with my "real property" or "real estate"? Let us look at some words We see bandied about, like "real estate":

"REAL ESTATE is a compound that has no proper place in the language of every day life, where it is a pretentious intruder from the technical province of law." White, Words and their Uses (1889), p. 150.

"PHARISEE. PROP., Pharisaeus, FIG., pietatus simulator; or, if necessary, Pharisaeus." Riddle, English-Latin Lexicon (1849), p. 512. [Emphasis added.]

"FICTUS (finctus, T.) adj., [P. of fingo], feigned, fictitious, false: si vanum aut finctumst, T: in amicitia nihil fictum est: in re ficta (opp. In vera): imago, O.: di: vox, falsehood, O.: in rebus fictis gemitus, O.: ficto pectore fatur, V.--Of a person: pro bene sano fictum vocamus, false, H." C. T. Lewis, Elementary Latin Dictionary (1891), p. 324.

Now let us look at Scripture about pretentious intruders:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Jn 10:1.

Pharisees, thieves, "real estate" speculators, and robbers have a language all their own. That language has infected our own so that We are now learning what should have been Ours. The words now have the meaning of those used by thieves and robbers. Now what does all this have to do with your "real property?" Just about everything. Notice the difference between "land" and "property":

"The word 'property' when applied to land embraces all titles, legal or equitable, perfect, or imperfect." Teschmacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11.

"Land" is not "real property" nor "real estate." "What?!?!?!?! But, but, but" Land is:

"Land in its legal signification has an indefinite extent upward." Lux v. Haggin, 69 C. 255, 392, 4 P. 919, 10 P. 674.

Did you ever hear this from your local shyster, "real estate" agent, philosopher, or minister? "Property" then is a form of title, which could either be perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium]. But perfect [absolute] or imperfect [artificium] against whom? This the key question that has never been answered. In deed, it can only be answered in reference to the venue in which the title sits. In other words situs both of the character of the owner of property and where the title sits is everything. These two factors determine the quality and character of the title.

"Real property" then is your interest or right in the land, but remember, this is qualified or conditional, and not absolute. The means or manner by which you, "in character," acquire any object determines the quality of the right or interest you acquire in the object.

Much has been said in the past about "land patents" issued by the federal government. Well, I suppose they could be valid, but they pre-suppose that the federal government had the absolute title to convey. A patent does not establish the fact that the government had title at all. See Musser v. McRea, 38 Minn. 409. So that the patent itself is open to collateral attack the same as any other muniment which purports to convey possessory rights. See Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190. So patents themselves are not the answer, either. They are merely more pieces of paper which get in the way of entering the Kingdom of God. Paper is not title.

Today's property titles are resurrected from the old Roman system, which recognized bona fide use and enjoyment, but title or control remained in the State.

(To be continued next month)

A Message to The Postmaster-General

by Bruce Alan

The following is a letter written this month by Bruce Alan of Washington state, to The Postmaster-General in Washington city. We commend Bruce Alan for his perseverance and exactness in addressing this situation. This letter is one that should be studied and understood by all who read it and we recommend that those who are having similar problems with General Delivery follow the lead of Bruce Alan with a letter of similar form and content.

Marvin Runyon
Post Office Department

Dear Sir:

I am addressing you in your capacity as the Postmaster-General of The Post Office Department. As a Good and Lawful Christian, my traditionally vested right in General Delivery has been repeatedly denied to me by the Postal Service. As stated in the Domestic Mail Manual (D930), General Delivery is intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently located. The Domestic Mail Manual also states that Postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers. The Postal Service has no legal authority to restrict the use of General Delivery to transients. I have maintained my status as transient at every opportunity when talking to employees of the Postal Service. Every person I have talked to at the Postal Service refuses to recognize my status and most of the time they refuse to talk to me, period.

I would like you to know what I have been going through and how I have been treated by the Postal Service. The Postmaster, of the Carlsborg Post Office, accused me of being an anti-government person (at the front desk in front of other people waiting in line) because I did not wish to use a zip code as part of the address on a letter I was mailing. After receiving my postal matter at General Delivery for approximately six months, without ever being required to show identification, I was told by the Postmaster that I could no longer receive mail at General Delivery. I was told that General Delivery was only temporary and my time limit was up. I asked for the regulations that gave her the authority to deny me General Delivery and she said that she did not have the time. I then showed her a copy of the Domestic Mail Manual and asked her to show me where it stated that General Delivery is only temporary. As she looked over the copy of the Domestic Mail Manual I had presented her with, she noticed that General Delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before mail is given to them. She immediately asked to see some identification from me and I replied, "I am not a customer. I am a transient and only customers may be required." To this day I have been repeatedly denied General Delivery mail because I maintain my venue as transient and therefore not required to show identification. I was well known to the Postmaster and the clerks.

Since the Postmaster at the Carlsborg Post Office refused to give me mail or any written documentation for her actions against me, I tried to contact the Postmaster-General's office in Washington city, District of Columbia and could only get person in the Postal Service named Mickey Moriary at 202-268-2000. She told me that General Delivery was only temporary and she referred to the Firm Holdouts section of the Domestic Mail Manual where it states the postmaster may cancel firm holdout service when mail volume falls below the 50-piece requirement on each delivery day over a 30-day period. I asked her how regulations on firm holdouts can be used to regulate General Delivery, but she would not elaborate. This is a clear and obvious attempt by the Postal Service to mislead and deceive the public. This kind of behavior is an abuse of power and is therefore a public nuisance.

The manager of the Postal Service in Seattle called me a week or two later, his name is Terry Hagel at 206-417-6097, saying that he had heard that I was having a problem at the Post Office in Carlsborg. He alleged that General Delivery was only temporary and that they could not have everyone coming into the Post Office to get their mail because it would be too much of a burden on the clerks. I asked him where in the Domestic Mail Manual it states that General Delivery is temporary, he could not and would not tell me. I then read to him from the Domestic Mail Manual word for word the regulations for General Delivery. I explained to him that I was not a customer and maintained my venue and jurisdiction as transient. He said that that was only my opinion and if I did not like his decision then it would be a matter for the attorneys. He did agree to send me a letter with the regulations, and since I had already received mail for six months without having to show identification, he would instruct the Carlsborg Postmaster to give me the letter and any other mail that was there. Several days later he called me back to tell me I would only be allowed mail if I could show identification. I told him that I would not be able to do that and I asked him why I was getting this kind of run around. I did not get an answer to that question or any other. I told him I would not show identification until the Postal Service showed me the regulation giving them authority over transients. He would not give me any more information; that was it.

While being deprived of my mail at the Carlsborg Post Office, I went to the Sequim Post Office and was greeted very nicely. I was informed at my first visit that I did not need to fill out an application for General Delivery and that I did not need identification. This went on for a month without any problems. Then after about a week after talking to Jerry Hagel, I went to the Sequim Post Office to pick up my postal matter at General Delivery and I was told that I needed to show identification. I asked to see the Postmaster and he also said I had to show identification. I asked him if he would show me what regulation required me to show identification. He said he did not have the time and that he would make a copy and I could get it the next time I came in. I told him that only customers were required to show identification and that I was not a customer. This clearly irritated the Postmaster because he immediately stood up from his desk, walked over to me and asked me if I wanted to leave the easy way or the hard way. I elected the easy way and as I walked through the doorway, I turned and said, "God Bless you," to him, and he slammed the door.

As a Good and Lawful Christian, I must obey the Laws of Scripture, which repeatedly points out, that, as Christians, We are 'sojourners.' As a Christian I must come out and be separate from the things of this world, for my kingdom is in Heaven. I am only here for a short time, and then I will be united in the Spirit of God for everlasting more. I therefore consider myself transient; One who or that which is temporary. I can not be compelled to accept a status which disparages and falsely describes me, i.e., customer, and I can not be compelled to accept a benefit, i.e., free delivery or a Post Office Box. The use of the Post Office Department's General Delivery is a traditionally vested right which is an immediate incorporeal fixed right of present or future enjoyment established and vested by tradition and usage among Good and Lawful Christian Men and Women from time immemorial.

I hope this letter finds you in good health and Spirit. I pray you will consider this matter worthy enough for your time. I know that I am not alone in this, and many Christians around the country are going through the same hardships. We can only serve one Master and as a Christian, I must follow God's Law. There is no higher Law. This letter will be used to spread the word and wake others up to the Truth.

God Bless you and all that read these words, Bruce Alan

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.


The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether inexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly,

1. WHOSE wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Proverbs 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth.

It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4, 5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

2. It is the FIERCENESS of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isaiah 59:18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isaiah 66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Revelation 19:15, we read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful that must be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of ALMIGHTY God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this! Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so fastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall NOT SUFFER BEYOND WHAT STRICT JUSTICE REQUIRES. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezekiel 8:18.

"Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Proverbs 1:25, 26, etc.

How awful are those words, Isaiah 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favor, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

3. The MISERY you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Romans 9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isaiah 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," etc. Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isaiah 66:23, 24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

4. It is EVERLASTING wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?" How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you.

Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God. And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?

And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God's word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favor to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the ax is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

The Long Road Out of Commerce


Jodie Lynn

Editor's Note: The following is from a sister in the Lord and should give all of us hope that we can do the same.

My husband and I got married the twenty eighth day of the sixth month in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred eighty. By the eleventh month of the same year we had purchased (land sales mortgage)a twenty eight acre farm in the Willamette Valley in Marion county, Oregon.

The farm was financed by the State VA Program and Our parents. At the same time we borrowed money(parents again) to purchase sheep to raise on the farm.

Then the fights began. Either I was spending to much or He was, or He wasn't working enough or I wasn't. He got mad when I borrowed from My father, I got mad when his Mother offered unwanted advise.

Time went on and We were learning not to purchase on time, that is, the small things.

The winter of eighty one I attended classes on Tax Preparation, and then passed the test. The Spring of eighty two I started work at H & R Block as a Licensed Tax Preparer.

During the same era We started a greenhouse business on the farm that was quite successful.

My father got ill and we had to take care of him and his farm.

More bills and more debt.

I continued to prepare Taxes for the next five tax seasons for various firms. In the fall of eighty five I passed the exam to be a "Licensed Tax Consultant" and then opened my own office "Woodburn Tax Service & Bookkeeping". On Hwy 99E there was an office I rented, and then hired a Gal to help me. The business was very successful. Because of the growth, I needed more space, so I made an offer to the adjacent land owner on the purchase (Land Sales Contract e.i.Mortgage) of his building, rental house and lot. I plopped the money down and it was a done deal.

Now the debt was larger and the fights were bigger. Let's not forget to mention by now we have a son and two daughters.

The tax and bookkeeping business continued to grow so I hired a couple more Gals to help. At one time I had three full time employees besides myself. I had payroll taxes and huge overhead with computers and office equipment. I felt that my liability was great and I was sticking my neck out and wa la! I incorporated my business. Now I was a corporate officer.

The greenhouse business was going good and we had started into Christmas trees so we incorporated the farm business too. Now my Husband was a corporate Office just like Me!

Now back in the Spring of eighty seven we accepted the Lord into Our lives. He had been working on us in different ways and We are glad We heard the knock at the door. We knew things were not correct, but how do you get from Point A to Point B when the canyon looks so deep?

Trying to get on the correct path and follow it, is hard, especially when you are learning so much at one time; Christianity, Parenting, Business, and Farming not to forget to mention matrimony. Well the Lord had(has) a plan and I guess it is up to us to seek it out.

One day in the third month of ninety three my Husband was reading the Farm newspaper and saw a ranch for sale in Eastern Oregon, he jokingly said "let's go look at it" I said OK and that weekend we did. It was fifty four ranches later before we bought one.

In the mean time I sold my tax business, sold the office building, and sold the farms I inherited after my fathers death. At the time We started liquidating We had four rental house, four different pieces of property and I rented out three office suites and a warehouse, I had the tax business, We had the nursery and Christmas trees and oh yes three children (we weren't able to liquidate them).

During the same time on one evening in the spring of ninety three a very close friend of Ours Ronald Lowell, mentioned in conversation that there was two kinds of citizens and did I know which I was? (We know now we are neither, but it was the start for us down the correct path). I confessed I hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Curious about all his findings I needed to know more.

Now tax research was one of my all time favorite things to do, find the loop hole find the truth, find the gray area...! So I went to Salem to the Marion county Law Library, literally sitting on the floor in the aisle way with books piled around me, reading for five hours straight, about "Citizen" and "citizen" and I came out of there with the understanding that It was something that I didn't want to be.

Now the idea to move to Eastern Oregon made more sense. Get away from the commercialism get back to the basics and more importantly back to God.

In the Winter of ninety five we purchased Ranch number fifty four, it was paid for with cash and Gold no mortgage, no borrowing and no fights.

We lived in an Elk hunting tent (we still had our house in the valley) for six weeks while building a pole barn for shelter. It got down to 12 degrees in the tent. When the pole barn was completed we moved in and the next night it got down to -5 degrees. We moved everything from Our old place and it finally sold in the summer of ninety six.

This ranch does not have an address or a mailbox. We receive everything General Delivery. We owe no one any money, We pay as We go and if We don't have the money We simply don't buy it. We do not have any charge cards, charge accounts, or bank accounts of any sort.

The only monthly bill we have is the telephone bill, but to keep from having easements across the property we would not allow the telephone company to put in the phoneline. I do all my calling from along side the county road. (Don't call me I'll call you.) It really keeps the phone bill down. This has not been an overnight change, it has been a long learning process and We are still learning and we have made mistakes and we will make more. Our motive is correct and Our hearts are in the correct spot too. We now think about everything We do and how it will affect us. My husband barters with the neighbors for some of Our needs and I take homemade bread and Eggs to the neighbor lady, who in turn provides Us with fresh milk. To keep from being involved as much as possible with commerce, We are working toward being completely God sufficient, learning how to grow all Our food needs and learning how to use what is provided for us.

Discerning between wants and needs, comforts and conveniences. Learning to let him lead and provide. Oh yes, the Children I almost forgot they are doing very well, they love Our new home, they have six hundred forty acres on which to ride their horses, they are home taught and they enjoy that too. We have lots of wildlife around Us and everyday We all see or learn something new.

Continuing to seek His path, - Jodie Lynn

Editor's note: We at The Christian Jural Society News welcome letters for reprint from fellow-Christians on similar stories of successful disengagement from the Beast.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words


(hû-man-i-tâ'r î-an)

n. a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; one who believes that the duty of man consists of acting rightly to others; a perfectionist: adj. philanthropic.Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928 edition.

sb. I. Theol. One who affirms the mere humanity of Christ. 2. One who professes the 'Religion of Humanity', holding that man's duty is chiefly or wholly comprised in the advancement of the welfare of the human race 1831. 3. A philanthropist; esp. one who goes to excess in his humane principals 1844. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principals, 1933 edition.

"HUMANITARIAN is very stangely perverted by a certain class of speakers and writers. It is a theological word; and its original meaning is, One who denies the godhead of Jesus Christ, and insists upon his human nature. But it is used by the people in question, whose example has infected others, as if it meant humane, and something more. Now, as the meaning of humane is recognizing in a common humanity a bond of kindness, good will, and good offices, it is difficult to discover what more humanitarian, used in the sense of widely-benevolent and philanthropic, is mere cant, the result of an effort by certain people to elevate and to approximate to themselves a common feeling by giving it a grand and peculiar name." Words and Their Uses, Past and Present, (1889), by Richard Grant White.

Humanitarianism. n. the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.Random House Webster's College Dictionary, (1990).

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Old Humphrey's short way with Infidels

In moving among mankind, I have now and then fallen in with infidels, who had not only declared their disbelief of the Bible, but endeavored also to destroy the faith of others in that blessed book. The way in which they have always begun their attack is, to higgle and wriggle about some disputed point of little importance, with as much confidence, as if they were on the point of overturning the whole truth of scripture by their silly prattle. Just as soon would a poor blind mole tear up from the ground an oak of a hundred years growth, by burrowing under one of the least of its roots.

If ever you fall in with one of these unhappy beings, don't be drawn in cavil with them about trifles, but boldly declare your opinion leaving them to wrangle, if they like, by themselves.

Tell them that if there be any thing good, and pure, and holy, and heavenly in the world, the Bible exhorts us to practice it; and if there be any thing that is evil, and base, and vile, in the world, the Bible commands us to avoid it. That will be a poser.

Tell them that the Bible contains more knowledge and wisdom than all the books that were ever printed, put together; and that those who believe its promises and obey its comandments, have peace and hope and joy, in the cares of life, and the trying hours of death. That will be a poser too.

Tell them that the Bible has been believed in by the wisest and best men from generation to generation, as the word of the living God, and that it makes known to a sinner the only way of salvation through the merits and death of a crucified Redeemer. That will be another poser.

And then ask them, before they pull the book to pieces any more, to produce one that has done a thousandth part as much good in making men happy on earth, and in guiding them in the way of heaven; and that will be the greatest poser of them all.

Depend upon it, this course will be better than wrangling and jangling about sticks and straws, losing your temper, and feeling yourself outwitted into the bargain, by the borrowed conceits of silly coxcombs, whose hearts and whose heads are equally empty.

The Sabbath

'I have ever found," says the great lord chief justice Hale, "that a due observation of the duty of Sunday, has ever had joined to it a blessing upon the rest of my time; and the week that has so begun, has been blessed and prosperous to me; and, on the other side, and when I have been negligent of the duties of this day, the rest of the week has been unsuccessful and unhappy to my own secular employments. So that I could easily make an estimate of my success the week following, by the manner of my passing this day. And I do not write this lightly, but by long and sound experience."

God may be Trusted

A military officer being at sea in a dreadful storm, his lady, who was sitting near him, and filled with alarm for the safety of the vessel, was so surprised at his composure and serenity, that she cried out, "My dear, are you not afraid? How is it possible that you can be so calm in such a storm?" He arose from a chair lashed to the deck, and supporting himself by a pillar of a bed-place, he drew his sword, and pointing it to the breast of his wife, he exclaimed, "Are you not afraid?" She instantly replied, "No, certainly not." "Why?" said the officer. "Because," rejoined the lady, "I know the sword is in the hands of my husband, and he loves me too well to hurt me." "Then," said he, "remember I know in whom I have Believed, and that He holds the winds in His fist, and the waters in the hollow of His hand."

Issue the Twelfth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    Pursuing Your Christian Calling vs. Engaging in Commercial Activity...

    Land vs. Real Property, Part Two...

    Let This Mind Be In You, Part One...

    Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe, Part Four...

    R.J. Rushdoony on Political Apostasy and on Nationalism...

    Etymologicum Anglicanum...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

Pursuing Your Christian Calling


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.


"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

Political Apostasy

by Rev. R. J. Rushdoony

The following two articles are reprinted from The Chalcedon Report, published by The Chalcedon Foundation, which is available by freely requesting it from the Foundation at:

P. O. Box 158, Vallecito, California {95251].

Man's most ancient heresy is humanism, and we first encounter it in Genesis 3:5; its essential faith is in man as his own god, knowing or determining good and evil, law and morality for himself. Very often man has expressed this faith by making himself, very openly, his own god; at other times, man objectifies his own goals and makes images which he calls gods. Very commonly, man has expressed his self-worship collectively in the state. In fact, the oldest religious institution in history is the state. The worship of the state has sometimes meant that the state has been seen as divine; at other times, its rulers; and at still other times, its offices. In modern thinking, the voice of the people is held to be god, and democracy is seen as divinely right.

Although the early church, and then the councils, notably Chalcedon in 451 A.D., fought against this re-divinization of the state, it returned in full force after a time. At first, it bore a Christian facade; then it became increasingly anti-Christian, covertly or openly.

As a result, especially in the twentieth century, we have seen a re-paganization of the state and of society, a trend strongly supported by the media. The U.S. Supreme Court, since c. 1952, has furthered this trend, as in Roe v. Wade, and, more recently, in the case of a Colorado state constitutional amendment securing special legal rights for homosexuals as a class. Only Justice Anthony Scalia opposed it, calling strong attention in his Romer v. Evans dissent, to the specious character of the majority opinion. There are, currently, more radical cases in process attacking the very life of the church. Our political candidates for offices high and low maintain a facade of piety with an absence of faith. Christians are treated as idiots who can be easily placated with meaningless gestures, as indeed too many are. However, a growing number of Christians are deeply disturbed over these trends, and at the tendency of prominent churchmen to act as chaplains to our modern caesars.

On the one hand, we have churchmen using 1 Timothy 2:1 and 2 wrongly, as though we are to pray for our rulers to be blessed. But the goal of the prayer is to be "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," i.e., that they may leave us alone! We should pray for political rulers "and for all that are in authority" that they may be converted or judged or whatever is required. How can we ask God to bless our modern equivalents of Nero?

On the other hand, we have many who want to fight over everything, or resort to arms. Assuming for a moment the very unlikely prospect of winning, what difference would it make, given our current population? The old proverb is still true: You can't make a good omelet with rotten eggs. History shows us how ridiculous such efforts are, as does the present political scene.

The change we are required to make is by regeneration, not by revolution. Nothing short of that will satisfy our Lord. Since the French Revolution, the political heresy has strongly emphasized revolution as the true means of change. Such a view is a return to paganism, to a belief that external conformity is the key to a good society; it is an echo of Plato's insane Republic.

Politics must be an area of responsible action. Our Lord stressed patience and gradualism in the work of the Kingdom: "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear" (Mk. 4:28); in other words, we cannot expect the full ear of corn when we have only just planted the seed! God warned Zechariah against all who have "despised the day of small things" (Zech. 4:10), for to do so is to despise the future. The gigantic starts are much noise and show but empty of results. It is political apostasy to trust in them, and a departure from common sense. Mark 4:28 should be our premise in every area of life.

Chalcedon's premise has been "first the blade." In our area of endeavor, as in all, we believe that this is what God blesses.


By R. J. Rushdoony

One of the problems to the modern intellectual is nationalism. It is a disturbing phenomenon to the modern mind because it is an irrational idea. Most modern national states are all made up of very different groups. Thus, a few European countries have substantial Celtic minorities whose desire for freedom is a real one. The Spanish Basques are intense in their insistence on freedom, and so on and on. Marxism is strongly opposed to nationalism, but the Soviet Union became an incubator for many national-istic causes on the part of various minorities.

Intellectuals have long promoted internationalism, a one-world order, but it seems as though efforts in that direction are counterproductive. Not only nationalism but localism is in resurgence.

Now nationalism is indeed irrational. Few countries have 'natural boundaries.' Even island countries have differing groups. Britain has the English, the Scots, and the Welsh, not the most harmonious of fellowships. Japan has, under the surface, very ancient and differing groups. Mexico has Indians, Spanish, and Mexicans.

Despite these problems, the modern nation state survives and reasserts itself. In the face of a growing internationalism, we have seen such break-ups as Czechoslovakia, the USSR and Yugoslavia. Others may soon occur.

At the same time, the drive for a one-world order is very great. Intellectuals and "liberals" see it as the intelligent and inevitable solution to mankind's problems. The formation of the modern state was, after all, in most cases the union of various states of differing characters. France was once a collection of nations, and Germany, well into the eighteenth century, was an array of very many states, great and small. Even now, many "Germans" prefer to identify themselves as Hessians, Pomeranians, Bavarians, and so on and on.

Our purpose is not to defend nationalism nor to criticize internationalism but to call attention to a modern fallacy. To call nationalism irrational does not mean that it is contrary to reason but it can mean that it is not a rational need. Rather, it can be a product of intelligent historical developments and necessities. Again, to call internationalism a rational idea does not make it a necessity. The world is too much influenced by Hegelian ideas which see the world state as the logical development. However, history is not the outworkings of reason, nor of Hegel's Geist or Spirit. Its goals and developments are not determined by what philosophers see as rational. Far from it!

The attempt to reduce history to a rational order and goal is a product of humanism from at least Plato (if not the Tower of Babel) to the present. But the "reason" governing history is not man's but God's: it is His sovereign purpose and decree. Its meaning is not to be found in man's reason but in God's eternal plan.

The goal of a one-world order in the Tower of Babel was to establish determination and control not in God but in man. The "good" society was to be created and determined by man, and its reason was man's idea of truth, and freedom from God. Nationalism has been a road-block to man's efforts to play god. The confusion of tongues serves to divide men for whom division, not sin, is the evil.

Nationalism does not necessarily mean "natural" and good divisions into nation states, but it at least provides a limited insurance against world tyranny. Precisely because the various forms of tyranny are growing, so too will the divisions. Marxism, the triumph of reason (usually bad reason) over history will continue to beget more nationalism. China may well see a return to various actually free realms within the united front but in effect a return to the old regional war lords. There is a rush to divide as the pressure grows to unite.

The intellectuals are so convinced of the rationality of their one-world state that they fail to recognize that the world does not move in terms of their rationalistic imagination. Contemporary attempts to determine the future of man rationally are doomed to fail because they have no roots in history nor in man's hopes for his future.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

compiled by Randy Lee


(hiu maniz'm)

I. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ. COLERIDGE. 2. The quality of being human; devotion to human interests 1836. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests, or with those of the human race in general; the 'Religion of Humanity' 1860. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists 1832. 5. Comtism or Positivism, or, as it may be called, Humanism. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933), page 931. Oxford University Press.

1. n. Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, esp. an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God. 2. Devotion to or the study of the humanities. 3. the studies, principals, or culture of the Renaissance humanists. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1990), page 653.

i. The intellectual development of the 14th-16th centuries in Europe which sought to base all art and learning on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Humanism opposed itself to Scholasticism. The movement was nursed by the Church: such popes as Nicholas V, Pius II and Leo X were its champions, and such men as Cardinal Bessarion, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Vives, and Pico della Mirandola among its leaders. But Humanism was well named; its enthusiasm was not tempered by control, it produced Carlo Aretino and Machiavelli as well as Dean Colet and St. Thomas More, and it helped pave the way for the Reformation. In the event, Scholasticism returned and again flourishes. Among the legacies of Humanism are the insubordination of the state, whether represented by a dictator or a soviet, arising from its classical doctrine of collective morality as opposed to personal morality; and the substitution of class distinctions for differentiation by function. "Humanism was..... mundane, pagan, irreligious, positive" (J.A. Symonds).

ii. In its more extended meaning, deriving from the above, Humanism is devotion to human interests or a system concerned with real or supposed human interests without reference to God or divine things; the belief in the self-sufficiency of the natural man, and of human values (cf.,Pragmatism). But see PERSON, i. The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary (1961), The MacMillan Co.

natural man

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Apt Illustration

A valuable minister of the gospel recently made use of the following illustration, to impress on the minds of the members of his church, that they ought to exert all the influence they had on the side of Christ, whatever that influence might be. Suppose, said he, that the small fibres of which a cable rope is composed, were each a living creature, and suppose one of these fibres or threads, when the anchor is cast out, and the ship tossed by winds and waves, should say, "I will not hold; my strength is small, it will not bear an ounce. It cannot be of much consequence that it be exerted in holding the largest ship; I will let go;" and so that fibre or thread lets go. Another reasons in the same way, comes to the same conclusion--that its strength is so small that it can be of no use--and lets go; and so another and another, until two thirds of them have let go, and the rest of the fibres or threads composing the cable rope are broken in twain, and the ship driven ashore and wrecked.

The application is obvious. Let Christians, when they are disposed to imagine that they can have but little influence--too little to be of any use, and therefore they will not strive to exert themselves--think of the fibres or threads of the cable rope, and beware of letting go, lest for want of these little influences, the church is driven from its steadfastness; great detriment received and souls lost.


The genius of Christianity which is from God, like the solar fire, moves in a sphere of its own, far above earthly things; while it penetrates our mundane elements without being contaminated by them, it gives beauty and lovliness to every object and to every scene to which it imparts its life-giving energies, and over which it pours its celestial radiance. It touches the heart of the proud man, and he becomes humble as a little child; it touches the heart of the sensualist, and he becomes pure and heavenly; it touches the affections of the covetous, and he becomes liberal; it touches the chain of caste, and it melts; it touches the idols of the heathen, and they fall to the ground like Dagon before the ark of God; it touches the heart of savages, and they take their places among civilized men; it sends down its fructifying showers on the barren wilderness, and it blossoms as the rose; it smiles upon the desert, and the wilderness, and the inhabitants of the rock, the wandering bushmen, sing for joy and shout from the mountains; it touches the heart of the philanthropist, and the prisons are visited, the depressed are raised, the neglected are remembered, the wounds of the broken-hearted are bound up, the vicious are reclaimed, and the prodigal son is restored. It touches the heart of the missionary, and he goes forth, forsaking country, friends and ease, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

The Clock

Clocks are of various kinds. Some are of wood, some are brass, some of wood and ivory; others of various substances. They usually beat or tick once in a second; but sometimes twice. In order to have them continue to beat, they must be wound up once in twenty-four or thirty hours. One kind, however, will run eight days without winding up. If a good clock is wound up at suitable times, it will run twenty or thirty years and sometimes longer. This, some of you may say, is wonderful; but I can tell you something which is more wonderful still. There is a kind of machine which will run months and years without winding up at all. A machine, did I say? There are several hundred millions of them. They do not beat slower than a clock, the smaller ones faster. Mine beats just about once in a second, or sixty times in a minute. Some of them run one year; others not so long, others again ten, twenty, fifty, and occasionally more than a hundred years. One in England, a few years ago, ran one hundred and sixty-nine years.

Do you think I am jesting? By no means. The human heart, in an adult; beats sixty times in a minute, or once in a second; in a child, the motion is much swifter. I know a man who is over ninety-seven years old. His machine, or heart, has therefore beat constantly ninety-seven years.

It would be curious to estimate the number of times the heart of that old man has beat in his whole life. But this cannot be done with exactness, because it has beat sometimes faster than at others. But it has always beat at least sixty times in one minute; this is 3,600 times an hour, 86,400 times a-day, 31,547,600 times a-year; and during ninety-seven years, 3,061,087,200. Even now the machine is not quite worn out. It may last to one hundred years, and perhaps longer. The owner can walk a half mile or a mile at a time, and perform considerable light labor in the course of a day. The Perfect clock.

Issue the Thirteenth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    A Christian Stand Against Licensure...

    Admissions and Confessions, Part One...

    Let This Mind Be in You, Part Two...

    Thomas Jefferson: Friend or Foe (conclusion)...

    'Statism is Idolatry,' A Sermon by Pastor John Weaver...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

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).


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



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?


(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]

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Two Strings to Our Bow

"Well, Hodge," said a smart looking Londoner to a plain cottager, who was on his way home from church, "so you are trudging home, after taking the benefit of the fine balmy breezes in the country this morning."

"Sir," said the man, "I have not been strolling about this sacred morning, wasting my time in idleness and neglect of religion; but I have been at the house of God, to worship Him, and to hear His preached Word."

"Ah, what then, you are one of those simpletons, that, in these country places, are weak enough to believe the Bible? Believe me, my man, that book is a pack of nonsense, and none but weak and ignorant people now think it true."

"Well, Mr. Stranger, but do you know, weak and ignorant people as we are, we like to have two strings to our bow."

"Two strings to our bow! What do you mean by that?"

"Why, sir, I mean to believe the Bible, and act up to it, is like having two strings to one's bow; for if it is not true, as you claim, I shall be the better man for living according to it; and so it will be for my good in this life--that is one string; and if it should be true, as I know it is, it will be better for me in the next life--that is another string! and a pretty strong one it is. But, sir, if you disbelieve the Bible, and on that account do not live as it requires, you have not one string to your bow. And oh! if its tremendous threats prove true, oh, think! what then, sir, will become of you?"

This plain apeal silenced the coxcomb, and made him feel, it is hoped, that he was not quite so wise as he had supposed.

Thomas Paine

An elder of a Presbyterian church in the city of New York, visited Paine a few days before his death. He was then a loathsome and pitiable object. His face, and particularly his nose, was greatly swollen and changed, by liquor, unto a dark color. The visitor said to him--"Mr. Paine, he that believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." "What is that you say?" said the dying man. The visitor repeated the gospel declaration. Paine immediately seized a large black stick, that was lying at his side, nearly the thickness of a man,s wrist, and raised it over the head of the visitor, said, with great anger and vehemence, "Away with your popish nonsense." The very name of Jesus Christ convulsed him with anger. The woman attending him, informed the visitor that he was occasionally visited by persons of like principles and habits with himself, and that his orders were to keep out of his room all who professed any respect for religion. She said that he was a wretched man. Thhat when alone, he kept groaning day and night, as if in great distress of mind. She once told him, that his groans so disturbed her, that she could not rest; when he replied,--"I have no rest myself, nor shall you have."

Thus Paine died an object of the most inconceivable filthiness and wretchedness. His expressions thus authenticated, and here recorded, breathe the spirit of pure infidelity. They are worthy the degraded being that uttered them. He, then, esteemed the gospel "popish nonsense;" but does he thus esteem it now? He may have had an enviable fame. But he warred against the Bible and its God, and has fallen in the unequal contest. His memory now must rot. A thick cload of shame is gathering around it, which can never be dissipated. He is now thought of with horror by all the good; and he will soon be thus esteemed by all the world.

Issue the Fourteenth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    Exercising Your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways...

    Admissions and Confessions, Part Two...

    Let This Mind Be In You, Part Three...

    The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part One...

    That Knock on the Door...

    Etymologicum Anglicanum...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

Exercising Your Christian Liberty on The Common Ways

by Randy Lee

"Let us all stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and not suffer ourselves to be entangled with any yoke of bondage. If we have submitted to the yoke hitherto, and ingloriously subjected ourselves to any human impositions in religious matters; it is better to throw off the yoke even now, than to let it gall us all our life-time; It is not yet too late to assert our liberty, and free ourselves from an ignominious slavery to the dictates of men." Jonathan Mayhew in The Huntington Sermons, March, 1750, pp. 85-88.

A difficult question for all Christians is:

"Should I take a license from government or not?"

For those discerning Christians who have carefully read the article by Greg Loren in Issue the Thirteenth, 'A Christian Stand Against Licensure,' the only answer is, Not.

The next question automatically follows:

"What do I do when I get stopped for not having a current registration and drivers license?"

As always, the answer is found in Scripture:

"I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." Phillipians 4:13.

Matthew Henry said of this verse:

"The word in the original is a participle of the present tense, and denotes a present and continued act; as if he had said, 'Through Christ, who is strengthening me; it is by His constant and renewed strength I am enabled to act in every thing; I wholly depend upon Him for all my spiritual power.' It did not come from covetousness, or an affection to worldly wealth."

Therefore, when you are out on the militarily controlled roads, you can not be doing anything that is contrary to Scripture, in order to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways. This would include, but is not limited to: speeding, reckless behaviour with a six thousand pound machine, "four-wheeling" on sidewalks, engaging in commercial activity for personal financial gain and profit, and other such acts of 'disturbing the public peace.'

If you choose to engage in such activity, you will be fully controlled and regulated by those that exercise that job, for you will be looked at by them as a 'low and lawless form of humanity.'

But on the other hand, if you act in the mode and character of a Good and Lawful Christian Man or Woman, there are alternatives to State licensure. These alternatives have always been available to those who are willing to take the time to study and understand the differences between the jurisdictions of the ungodly martial rule 'powers,' and that of Christendom and the coverture of God.

In this, there are no gray areas. It's either, 'Rendering unto Caesar,' or -- 'Jesus, take all of me,' and 'Rendering unto God.'

There are no guarantees or silver bullets available when dealing with the arbitrary and capricious character of the current imperial powers. But there is the Promise of Christ, The Higher Power:

"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27 --

The Shield of Faith must be carried at all times.

The first thing to understand is that all codes, rules and regulations that 'govern' the areas of transportation and the other 'dominions' of the current government, apply only to natural persons, corporations and other godless entities of like kind. They do not apply to Christians (see 'To Be or Not To Be: A Human Being,' in Issue the Sixth, page two). When you carry a license, you are looked upon by these 'powers' as one of theirs. It is evidence of your status--as a natural person and human being, and not of a Christian.

Therefore, one of the evidences of who and what you are, and for all Christians, is your Family Bible and Baptismal Certificate. Don't leave home without them. These contain the substantive Law for the Right to exercise your Christian Liberty on the Common Ways under God. However, the primary evidence of who and what you are, is found in how you conduct yourself when confronted by the 'road patrol.'

The following is an example of what might happen when stopped:

The patrolman turns on the red lights and the driver pulls over. He comes to the car window and asks to see a drivers license and registration.

Driver: "I have something better than that. (He hands the patrolman his Bible). This is the Law I follow and in my Law, it says that I can do all things in Christ which strengthens me, and I'm not out here hurting anyone.

Patrolman: Well, that's fine and dandy, but when you're driving a vehicle on the public roads, you have to have a drivers license issued by the State.

Driver: Yes, I understand that, but I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to. If I were to take a license, I would be forsaking that Law, and God.

Patrolman: Do you have any I.D.

Driver: This is my Baptismal Certificate. This is who and what I am.

Patrolman: O.K., please step out the car and go back there with my partner.

(Note: Never refuse to exit the car. Be cooperative as possible and show no resistance. Simply stand on God's Law and don't move from it. Buckle on the Shield of Faith. Allow the patrolman to search your car, etc. Under current Supreme Court decisions, they have the power to order you out of the car and search it. Any resistance to this will only inflame the situation. As a Christian, you have nothing to fear or hide).

Patrolman: Do you own this car.

Driver: No, not really. I gave a friend a couple of hundred bucks for it about a year ago, but I don't really own it. Every thing belongs to God. I'm simply using it to exercise my Christian Liberty on this Common Way.

Patrolman: Where are you going right now.

Driver: Where ever God leads me.

Patrolman: Where do you live.

Driver: I live where ever I happen to be at the time. (At this point, he is trying to determine whether you are a 'resident' or not).

Patrolman: Well, where do you receive your mail.

Driver: At General Delivery at the Post Office in ......................

Patrolman: Oh, O.K. Well, you have to understand that I have a job to do out here, and when I see a violation taking place, I have to act on it.

Driver: Yes, I understand that. And, I don't have a problem with that. But, as I said before, I have a Higher Law that I have to answer to and that's all that matters to me. I realize that you can take the car and arrest me. But, I can only tell you what my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has told me, and that is, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." That is what I answer to.

It's not necessary for me to say any more on this conversation. At this point, the patrolman will make his decision on what he will do with the situation.

Note: If he decides to write you a ticket, never refuse to sign it. If you do refuse, it's a guarantee that they will take you to jail.

The dialog above comes from personal experience. It occurred about one year ago on a Los Angeles county freeway. The words that came out of my mouth had not been previously articulated by me. I believe to this day that it was through the Holy Spirit that they were presented.

The patrolman and his partner allowed me to continue on, did not take the car and did not ticket me. They never checked the registration on the car or ran a check on my name, even though they had the opportunity to do so. They never said they were Christians, but they did say that they had the ability to use their discretion, and that they felt that I was sincere in my convictions and had to respect those convictions. In other words, they didn't feel I was a threat to the peace and safety of the public.

It was a positive experience for me. I felt that I had truly been Blessed by God. It obviously could have been negative for me also. They could have arrested me, taken the car, etc.

It can be positive or negative for anyone that decides to take the same stand. The important thing to remember is that it will be positive in God's eyes. "Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

Your stop situation will probably be different and the questions and answers somewhat different. Therefore:

"When they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." Luke 12:11-12

Since this is the only time I've been stopped in the past four years, I have truly been Blessed by God. During that time, and in the situation above, I had a facsimile Louisiana plate on the car similar to the one displayed below. It is sold in Bible book stores in Louisiana, and many Christians in Louisiana put these on the front of their cars. The car I was driving was not registered. I was driving safely when I was stopped. The reason they stopped me was because one of the cops was from Louisiana and recognized the plate.

More detailed information on plates will be in the new 3rd Edition of 'The Book of the Hundreds,' available in late April.

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.


John Witherspoon, D.D.

President of the College of New Jersey.


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)


{1} Micah iv. 5.

(Editor's Note. The Author here is chastising the work "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine, an atheist of the day and not well liked.)

{2} I cannot help embracing this opportunity of making a remark or two upon a virulent reflexion thrown not against this doctrine in a well known pamphlet, Common Sense. The author of that work expresses himself thus, "if the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say, that the right of all future generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as are innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connection! Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile. Without the shadow of reasoning, he is pleased to represent the doctrine of original sin as an object of contempt or abhorrence. I beg leave to demur a little to the candor, the prudence, and the justice of this proceeding.

1. Was it modest or candid for a person without name or character, to talk in this supercilious manner of a doctrine that has been espoused and defended by many of the greatest and best men that the world has ever seen and made an essential part of the established Creeds and Confessions of all the Protestant churches without exception? I thought the grand modern plea had been freedom of sentiment, and charitable thoughts of one another. Are so many of us, then, beyond the reach of this gentleman's charity. I do assure him that such presumption and self-confidence are no recommendation to me either of his character or sentiments.

2. Was it prudent, when he was pleading a public cause, to speak in such approbrious terms of a doctrine which he knew or ought to have known was believed and professed, by, a great majority of very different denominations. Is this gentleman ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy of the Christian faith? Are men so little tenacious of their religious sentiments, whether true or false? The prophet thought otherwise, who said, Hath a nation changed their gods who are yet no gods? Was it the way to obtain the favor of the public to despise what they hold sacred. Or shall we suppose this author so astonishing ignorant, as to think that all men now, whose favour is worth asking, have given up the doctrine of the New Testament. If he does, he is greatly mistaken.

3. In fine, I ask, where was the justice of this proceeding? Is there so little to be said for the doctrine of original sin, that it is not to be refuted, but despised? Is the state of the world such, as to render this doctrine not only false, but incredible? Has the fruit been of such a quality as to exclude all doubts of the goodness of the tree? On the contrary, I cannot help being of opinion, that such has been the visible state of the world in every age, as cannot be accounted for on any other principles, that what we learn from the word of God, that the imagination of the heart of man is only evil from his youth, and that continually. Genesis vi, 5-8, 21.

{3} Habakkuk, vii, 11.

{4} Isaiah xxvi, 11.

{5} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{6} Jeremiah v. 5.

{7} Luke xiii, 1.

That Knock on The Door

by Randy Lee

For those who believe, or have been trained to believe, that you must open your door when someone knocks on it, consider the following:

"The maxim that 'a man's house is his castle' does not protect a man's house as his property or imply that, as such, he has a right to defend it by extreme means. The sense in which the house has a peculiar immunity is that it is sacred for the protection of the man's person. A trespass upon his property is not a justification for killing the trespasser. It is a man's house, barred and inclosing his person, that is his castle. The lot of ground on which it stands has no such sanctity. When a man opens his door and puts himself partly outside of it, he relinquishes the protection which, remaining within and behind closed doors, it would have afforded him. Com v. McWilliams, 21 Pa. Dist. R. 1131." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), pp. 1449-1450.

Or, if you believe that the police need a warrant to enter your house, consider the following, which is from "Federal Searches and Seizures," by Rex D. Davis, 1964, available in from the Christ's assembly at California.

Note: "Refused admittance," and "no permission being given," is when there is some kind of response from within.

3.26 Forceful Entry to Arrest.

Officers may use force in breaking into a premises in order to arrest with or without a warrant provided they have been refused admittance after making the necessary notification.

18 U.S.C. 3109. Breaking doors or windows for entry or exit.

The officer may break open any inner or outer door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.

At least one jurisdiction appears to distinguish an officer's authority to break in without a warrant from the same authority when he is armed with a warrant.

Unless the necessities of the moment require that the officer break down a door, he cannot do so without a warrant; and if in reasonable contemplation there is opportunity to get a warrant, or the arrest could as well be made by some other method, the outer door to a dwelling cannot be broken to make an arrest without a warrant. The right to break open a door to make an arrest requires something more than the mere right to arrest. (Accruing v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S. App.DC 394, 179 F.2d. 456.)

We think that under the authorities, officers without a warrant cannot enter, even without actually breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected felon, no permission being given and no circumstances of necessitous haste being present. (Morrison v. United States, CA DC 1958, 262 F.2d 449.)

3.261 What Constitutes "Breaking"?

"In the absence of any allegation of coercion, the action of the officers who bore a valid warrant of arrest and did not force their way into her apartment but entered after the door had been opened by the defendant, in 'pushing' their way into the apartment was not of a character that it constituted such unreasonable force that would invalidate an otherwise valid search." United States v. Lord, DC NY 1960, 184 F. Supp. 923.

3.262 Entry by Subterfuge without Force.

There is considerable authority to the effect that use of subterfuge to gain entrance to arrest or search is not improper. Of course, if "breaking" is involved, it is necessary for the officers to announce their authority and purpose in demanding entrance. Where a Federal agent, armed with a valid arrest warrant, gained entrance to the defendant's apartment by stating he was an agent from the County Assessor's Office, the Court held the entrance lawful, stating:

There is no constitutional mandate forbidding the use of a deception in executing a valid arrest warrant. The case of Gouled v. United States, 1921, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, relied on by appellant, holds that a search warrant is invalid even though entry is procured by stealth rather than force. The instant case is different in that the search was incident to an arrest under a valid arrest warrant. "Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer." Sherman v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 820, 2 L.Ed.2d 848.

And, whether the postman is an agent in the field, consider the following:

9.15 Mail Watch

Ordinarily, a mail watch does not constitute a search.

A "mail watch" or "mail cover" occurs where postal employees scrutinize the mail addressed to an individual and note the information contained on the outside of the envelope. It is distinguishable from the opening and searching of first class mail which is unconstitutional unless legally authorized.

"Defendant further suggests that the use of a "mail cover" tainted the Governments evidence. That is, a clerk was assigned in the Post Office to scrutinize all mail addressed to defendant at the Rittenhouse Hotel and to note the names and addresses of the senders. The motion to suppress cannot be granted for that reason, however, since it was not shown that the fruits of the mail watch were used (directly or indirectly) in the preparation of the Government's charges. Furthermore, it has been held in this district that even where results of a "mail watch" are communicated to the Justice Department in violation of Postal Regulations, the evidence will not necessarily be suppressed." United States v. Schwartz, DC Pa. 1959, 176 F.Supp.613.
"There was no "taking" of the Costello's mail with intent to deprive them of it. It was not prying into their business or secrets to note what the senders had made public on the face of the letters. And the mere fact of detention without proof that it was for unlawful purpose is insufficient to constitute a violation of the statute. Any delay here was merely incidental to a lawful watch authorized by the Postal Regulations." United States v. Costello, DC N.Y. 1957 F.Supp. 461.

Don't open that door for anyone!!!

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words


11.19. Numbers mentioned in connection with serious and dignified subjects and in formal writing are spelled out. Style Manual, United States Government Printing Office, 1959.


The word tyrant, from the Greek tyranos, means a secular ruler, one who rules without the sanction of religious law, "with an authority that was not derived from the worship, a power that religion had not established." Its new principal of law was democracy, "the obedience of man to man." The Nature of the American System, page 45, by Rousas John Rushdoony, 1978.

In despotic governments, the tyrannical proceedings of the subordinate officers are often more intolerable than those of the prince. Crabb's English Synonymes, page 19, by George Crabb, A.M., 1890.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

On Chastising Children

A move twenty years ago, being in the habits of intimacy and connexion in civil life with a respectable gentleman, he one day, in conversation on family affairs, related, with tears, a transaction between himself and one of his sons, a fine boy, about ten or eleven years of age. The son was by no means the lowest in the esteem of his father, but had a full share of his affection.

It happened one day that the boy told an untruth knowingly, which afterwards came to the knowledge of his father, who determined to chastise him severely for it. He took the boy and an instrument of correction into a chamber, and there reprimanded him, by setting forth the exceeding heinousness of the sin against God, and the danger thereby of his own soul. He then proceeded to the distressing work of correction, (I have no doubt that every stroke was as afflictive to the parent as to the child;) after which, on leaving the room, the father began to fear that he had exceeded a due measure, (which I conceived was an excess of parental affection,) he made as though he was going down the stairs after shutting the door; but pausing a little, he returned softly to the door, where he waited some time, hearing the sobbing and crying of the boy. After a while the father heard a movement and began to think of retreating, but after descending a step or two, he heard his son speak, on which he softly resumed his former station, and looking through the key-hole of the door, perceived his son on his knees, acknowledging his guilt and shame before God, and praying for forgiveness; thanking God for favoring him with such a father as would not suffer sin upon him: also praying for his brothers and family.

To parents, it is unnecessary to dwell on the feelings of an affectionate father under such circumstances, the language of whom corresponds with that of his heavenly Father: --- "As many as I love I rebuke and chasten" -- "Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Psalm ciii. 13.

A Scottish Legend

A married couple of the Scottish highlanders had thrice lost their only child, each dying at an early age. Upon the death of the last, the father became boisterous, and uttered his complaints in the loudest tones.

The death of the child happened late in the spring when, in the more inhabited straths, sheep were abroad; but from the blasts in that high and stormy region, they were still confined in the cot. In a dismal, stormy evening, the man, unable to stifle his anguish, went out, lamenting aloud, for a lamb to treat his friends with at the wake (or funeral feast). At the door of the cot he found a stranger standing before the entrance. He was astonished, in such a night, so far from any frequented place! The stranger was plainly attired, but he had a countenance expressive of singular mildness and benevolence; and, addressing the father in a sweet impressive voice, asked what he did there, amidst the tempest.

He was filled with awe, which he could not account for, and said he came for a lamb.

"What kind of a lamb do you mean to take?" Said the stranger.

"The very best that I can find," he replied; "as it is to entertain my friends; and I hope you will share of it."

"Do your sheep make any resistance when you take away the lambs?"

"Never," was the answer.

"How differently am I treated," said the traveler, "when I come to visit my sheepfold, I take, as I am well entitled to do, the best lamb to myself, and my ears are filled with the clamor of discontent by these ungrateful sheep, whom I have fed, watched, and protected."

He looked up in amazement, but ---- the vision had fled.

Issue the Fifteenth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    The Law of Identification...

    Admissions and Confessions, Part Three...

    Common Right vs. Franchise...

    Let This Mind Be In You, Part Four ...

    The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, Part Two...

    Miscellaneous Notes...

    Etymologicum Anglicanum...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

The Law of Identification

by Randy Lee

The purpose of printing the following documentation is to show that you, being a Christian, have the ability to become separate from and remain separate from the secular world of law (codes, rules and regulations) by asserting God's Law and your Christian character in everything you do, thereby avoiding the esoteric pitfalls of Metaphysical Humanism. Identifying with any other law other than God's Law is to bring yourself down into the mud with self-reasoning natural persons, human beings and other God-less entities of like kind, as the following evidences. These are excerpts from the book, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), by John Henry Wigmore, who was a professor of law at Northwestern University, around the turn of this century, and is regarded as the best modern authority on evidence.

"In trying to arrive at the nature of Identity we are forced to a certain extent to discuss Metaphysics: this is unavoidable, and it is the neglect of what Metaphysics teaches which has in our opinion led to the confusion and contradictions on the subject which exists in the law.

"The physiological explanation, when one state of consciousness is said to revive a similar state, doubtless is that the two similar states have a numerically single nerve element as their basis; the two images omit a common cell element in vibration and this is called an identity of seat. [Binet, op. cit. pp. 125, 126.] This appears to us to point to identity being the ultimate state. But for the purpose of discussion it seems clear that what is really the important matter is the amount of difference which is perceived; and we think that in most cases when a witness is able to swear to great likeness, in the absence of any specified points of difference it should be accepted as an identification even though the witness shrinks from using that term. If an advocate persists in asking, 'Will you swear that they are the same?' many witnesses will answer, 'No,' and on paper and to the unreflecting mind this will considerably weaken the effect of the evidence. Such an advocate should be asked in his turn to define what he means by 'same,' and if he attempts to do this, it will soon become apparent that his question as so addressed is not one that can be fairly given the direct answer, Yes or No. If the [*68] witness attempts to give any other response, he is often charged with prevarication, whereas it is not his fault that he does so, but the form of his interrogator's question compels him to do it.

'Two objects are similar,' says Wundt, 'when certain of their characteristics correspond, while others are different;' and perfect likeness--to indicate which the term 'identity' is sometimes used-- whether of quality or of intensity, must be estimated for practical purposes by indistinguishableness when attention is closely directed to the two objects.

"We shall begin by insisting on a few propositions: viz. (1) that you cannot be aware of identity unless you have also diversity; (2) that you cannot ask whether a thing is generally the same, but you must confine your questions to a certain aspect of it; (3) that we select that aspect to suit our interests, and such interests are usually practical; (4) that identity or the relation of sameness is ideal, it lies in the view we take of things, and not in the nature of things themselves; (5) that the word 'same' is used ambiguously and that it is a different problem when we ask whether an individual remains the same, and when we ask whether two things are the same.

"(1) the first proposition applies whether we are speaking of the resemblance of two things or of the continuous identity of one. 'In order that the mind may perceive the resemblance of two images,' says Binet, 'they must differ a little; if they do not, they become added together and form a single image.' [Binet, Psychology of Reasoning, p. 120.]Professor Sully writes: 'The visual recognition of a thing as identical with something previously perceived takes place by help of the idea of persistence. (It involves) the comparison of successive impressions and the detection of similarity and diversity of change. [Sully, Outlines of Psychology, p. 155.]

"(2) If the persistence is in the object itself, this implies a sameness of character attaching to the thing itself, i.e. a qualitative sameness, and further the avoidance of any absolute break in its existence. When, however, it is asked in what the sameness of quality consists, it will be found that no reply can be given, unless the point or particular aspect of which you were thinking is specified. A general reply cannot be given because we do not know the general character which is taken to make the thing's essence; it is not always material substance, nor shape, nor size, nor color. The identity lies [*66] really in the view we take of it, and that view is often a mere chance idea; the character therefore lies outside of and beyond the fact taken.

"(3) How then do we determine in what respect we shall ask of a thing whether it is the same or not? Professor Stout seems to have answered this question in his remarks on what he calls 'thinghood.' It depends on interest: we take what answer for practical purposes as real, identical, etc.: on the perceptual level this interest is purely practical. It is the interest of the moment which determines how we look at a thing, and we look at it differently, according to the fluctuation of interest. [Stout, Manual of Psychology, pp. 327 et seq.] And this is why we say that the rule of convenience is the one to be followed in deciding whether events belong to the same transaction or not. Our interest here is solely as to how we shall dispose judicially of the charges brought against the accused in the most convenient manner, and the considerations which chiefly influence us are whether the same witnesses can speak to all the charges and whether those charges can be kept separate before the mind without risk of confusion or prejudice, if they are taken together. The fact that the events happened at different times and places and such like reasons are irrelevant in themselves save in so far as they hinder or promote our convenience.To seek to convert such reasons into an objective general test of identity and difference seems to us to be both meaningless and irrational.

(4) The relation of Similarity to Identity will now be described. 'Similarity,' says Bradley, 'is nothing in the world but more or less unspecified sameness.' 'The feeling that two things are similar need not imply the perception of the identical point, but none the less this feeling is based always on partial sameness,' [Bradley, op. cit., p. 348, and note 1.] and elsewhere he says that Resemblance is the perception of the more or less unspecified identity of two distinct things. It differs from Identity in its lowest form, i.e. where things are taken as the same without specific awareness of the point or sameness and distinction or that from the diversity, because it implies the distinct consciousness that the two things are two and different.

It differs again from Identity in a more explicit form because it is of the essence of Resemblance that the point or points of sameness should remain at least partly undistinguished and unspecified. And, further, the feeling which belongs to the experience of similarity is different from that which belongs to the experience of sameness proper. But resemblance is based always on partial sameness, though the specific feeling of resemblance is not itself the partial identity which it involves, and partial identity need not imply likeness proper at all. The writer is aware that this view is disputed by more than one philosopher: they hold that Resemblance is not based on Identity, but is an ultimate idea, or even that Identity is based on Resemblance.

This Binet writes, 'to explain the resemblance between two states or by a partial identity of their elements simplifies nothing at all. For it replaces the idea of resemblance by the ideas of Identity and unity which are merely its derivatives. Resemblance is a single, ultimate, and irreducible idea.' [Binet, op. cit., p. 129.] Similarly Professor James says, 'So here any theory that would base likeness on identity, and not rather identity on likeness must fail;' again, 'likeness must be conceived as a [*67] special complication of identity, but rather that identity must be conceived as a special degree of likeness,likeness and difference are ultimate relations perceived. As a matter of fact, no two sensations, no two objects of all those we know, are in scientific rigor identical. We call those of them identical whose difference is unperceived. Over and above this we have a conception of absolute sameness, it is true, but this, like so many of our conceptions, is an ideal construction got by following a certain direction of serial increase to its maximum supposable extreme. It plays an important part among other permanent meanings possessed by us in our ideal intellectual constructions. But it plays no part whatever in explaining psychologically how we perceive likenesses between simple things.' [W. James, Principles of Psychology, vol. I, pp. 532-533.]

We remember to have read in a judgment of one of the Indian High Courts (unfortunately we cannot now give the reference) that the judges considered the case was not proved because the evidence only established likeness and not identity, and it is no uncommon thing to hear evidence given that a witness can swear that two things or two persons are very like, but he will not swear that they are the same: such testimony is usually considered to fall short of an identification. Now if identity is based on resemblance, what more is required than the assertion that two things are very like? It is the fact that such questions arise in law that is our excuse for pursuing this controversy concerning Resemblance and Identity a little further. The position of the one side is that Identity is nothing more than a special degree of resemblance with the difference between the two objects unperceived; the content of the other is that all resemblance is partial identity, but the points of sameness are not fully specified, and that terms such as 'exact likeness' 'precise similarity' are misleading. For as soon as you have removed all internal difference, and resemblance is carried to such a point that perceptible difference ceases, then you have identity. As soon as you begin to analyze resemblance you get something else than it, and when you argue from resemblance, what you use is not resemblance, but the point of resemblance, and a point of resemblance is clearly identity.

"(5) At the same time it must be remarked that difference is not always fatal to identity. But here we are using 'identity' in another sense. A quotation will explain this: 'Real identity,' says Dr. Ward, 'no more involves exact similarity than exact similarity involves sameness of things; on the contrary, we are wont to find the same thing alter with time so that exact similarity after an interval, so far from suggesting one thing, is often the surest proof that there are two concerned. Of such real identity, then, it would seem we must have direct experience; and we have it in the continuous presentation of the bodily self;The same writer points out the ambiguity in the word 'same' whereby it means either individual identity or indistinguishable resemblance: in the former we have mere relation, for two individuals partially coincide. Resemblance itself may be fatal to identification, when the law of being is changed." Wigmore, Principles of Judicial Proof (1913), pp. 65-68.

When similarity exists in the eyes of the law, a 'rebuttable presumption' also exists. To rebut that presumption is to become not the object of sameness or not identified.

Since Lincoln's War and the Reconstruction Acts that followed, all 'citizens' are presumed by the U.S., State, County and City governments to be under and subject to The Civil Rights Acts. But these presumptions are rebuttable by all Good and Lawful Christians who do not look to these governments for their benefits, privileges and opportunities; and who do not deal in the realm of the law merchant.

Admissions and Confessions

Part Three:

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

Voter Registration and Idolatry

Last month we covered the change in the elections process brought on by Lincoln's War v. All Christian States. We displayed that voter registration is a war-time measure for those under the usurpations of the eversor Abraham Lincoln; and, its use today is evidence of the continuation of the War. The evidence presented previously points to an elections process unknown and foreign to the process which existed antebellum. This is highly important, because we can see some disturbing parallels with the fall of Rome, from a book by Woodrow Wilson:

"Civil war opened the doors to Caesar and the several triumvirates, and finally Rome [the United States of America] had her first emperor in Octavian [Lincoln]." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 124 [Insertion added.] and on page 121:

"209. An Emperor the Remedy. It turned out, in the slow process of revolution which the rule of the oligarchy brought upon the city, that the only means of accomplishing the administrative changes which yearly became more and more necessary was to concentrate power in the hands of one man, at first under the forms of the old constitution, at length in open disregard of those forms,--and this was the establishment of the Empire. By making all men subjects, it practically made all men citizens. It brought Rome, very soon to the level of the provinces; but it also brought the provinces to the level of Rome by giving her and them a common master who could unify administration and oversee it with an equal interest in the prosperity of all parts of a consolidated domain. That is what Caesar attempted, and that the overthrow of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire accomplished.....The Senate stood still, and many provincial officers were still formally elected by the people of the city; but the city became, scarcely less than the provinces, bound to perfect obedience to the emperor; provincial officers, and even city officers, were recognized as only his deputies; the Empire was unified and provincials brought to an equality with their former masters by a servitude common to all. Caracalla's act of universal enfranchisement whatever its immediate purpose (A.D. 212), was a logical outcome of the imperial system. All were citizens where all were subjects." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, p. 121. [Emphasis added.]

Note the wording in the Presidential Proclamations, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment and you will see that they address precisely the same subject-matter. From the days of Lincoln's War, and continuing through Reconstruction, then, the aim has been to concentrate the power in the states in one head located in Washington, and subject them to the fickle nature of natural man in the not so White House: Again, Woodrow Wilson:

"Of course there was and could be no concealment of the fact that predominance in the state had been given to one man [by military necessity]; by the traditions of the Republic furnished abundant sanction for the temporary investiture of one man with supreme authority: the dictatorship had been a quite normal office in the days of the Republic's best vigor. What was possible and prudent to conceal was, that one man had become permanent master and that republican institutions had been finally overthrown.All that was desired was accomplished by the use of regular republican forms. The framework of the old constitution was left standing; but new forces [never contemplated by the founders] were made to work within it." Woodrow Wilson, The State--The Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, pp. 124-125. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

Woodrow Wilson, we all know, was the notorious woodhead who carried forward the design of his predecessors when he signed the Income Tax Act of 1913 and Federal Reserve Act into "law."

When you look at the top of a "voter registration" form it specifically states who is the subject of the voting registration "laws"--those made subject under Lincoln's Proclamations of Emancipation of September 22, 1862 and January 1, 1863. This is the same subject matter of the "Civil Rights Acts," Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and the "Voting Rights Acts." It is the "duty" of every good "citizen" to "vote" to give "sanction" to a "government" never contemplated by the Founders. And this is the rule in international law derived from recognition:

"States not yet admitted to the family of nations may have all the attributes of states, in the sense of public law and from the point of view of political science, and yet lack international statehood. [Wilson Int. Law, 12.] Sovereignty becomes internationally effective only when recognized by other [*394] states. [The Maria Joseph, 16 F.Cas. No. 9,078, Brunn Coll. Cas. 500, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 600; U.S. v. Hutchings, 26 F.Cas.No. 15,429, Brunn Coll. Cas. 489, 2 Wheel. Cr. (N.Y.) 543.

"[a] It is optional on the part of any nation to grant or withhold recognition. 'Except in consequence of particular conventions, no state is obliged to accord it. But the refusal may give rise to measures of retorsion.' Per Marshall, C.J., in Rose v. Himely, 2 Cranch(U.S.) 241, 272, 2 L.Ed. 608; Clark v. U.S., 5 F.Cas.No. 2,838, 3 Wash.C.C. 101.] Recognition is the act which gives to a de facto state international status." 33 C.J. 393-394. The state we are referring to is your state.

Christian states are not required to give recognition to secular states. But if it does give recognition, this recognition is a mirror: One, it is recognition of the individuals who established a secular government completely disconnected and removed from its Christian foundation, by resurrecting the old Roman Imperial system of "law"; Two, it is you recognizing that you are subject to the group of men in the District of Columbia; Three, it is recognition that God, through His Son Jesus Christ, is not your Sovereign Lord and Saviour. Can you now see, that if you participate in such a scheme, you are a part of the problem? You are your own worst enemy! This is stated by the courts:

"The second section of the [13th] amendment was added out of abundant caution. It authorizes Congress to select, from time to time, the means that might be deemed appropriate to the end. It employs a phrase which had been enlightened by well-considered judicial application. Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative, and not a judicial question." United States v. Rhodes (1866), 27 Fed. Cas. (Case No. 16,151) 785, 793.

"Amendments 13, 14, and 15 restrict the State, while a member of the federal Union, from changing her Constitutions so as to create or establish slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been convicted, from denying to a citizen [subject] of the United States or depriving him of those national rights, privileges, and immunities, which belong to him as such citizen [subject]; require the state to recognize as its citizen [subject] any citizen [subject] of the United States who is or becomes a bona fide resident therein; and requires the state to give to each citizen [subject] therein the same rights, privileges, and immunities secured by her Constitution and laws to her white citizens." Cory v. Carter (1874), 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am.Rep. 738, 3 Am.LawRec. 669. [Insertions added.]

The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment has the same wording used in the last section of all the postbellum amendments. By the admission above given, this is a political question, because legislation itself is political, not judicial. This is the concept of "separation of powers." The court then is telling you the issue to raise--a political issue, and not a judicial issue. The issue must be the Religion of the King, because this is always a political question.

"A gross exception, however, to the principle of the division between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions was contained in the law applicable to heretics. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, heresy, which previously had been only a spiritual offense, punishable by anathema, became also a legal offense, punishable as treason. The inquisitional procedure was used for the first time to expose it, and the death penalty was for the first time made applicable to it. The gist of the offense was dissent [disobedience] from the dogmas [Law] of the church [state, sacra publica]." Berman, Law and Revolution, pp. 185-186. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

"Treason in levying war, by this definition, consists of two sorts. First, marching expressly, or directly against the king's forces: secondly, interpretatively, or obstructively; doing a thing of a general nature. If to pull down a particular inclosure, it is only a riot; but if to pull down all inclosures, it is levying war against the king, because it is generally against the king's laws. Insurrections, in order to throw down all inclosures, to alter the established law or change religion, to enhance the price of all labour or to open all prisons--all risings, in order to effect these innovations, of a public and general concern by an armed force, are, in construction of law, high treason, within the clause of levying war; for though they are not levelled at the person of the king, they are against his royal majesty, [*877] and besides, they have a direct tendency to dissolve all the bands of society, and so destroy all property and all government too, by numbers and an armed force." Case of Fries (1799), 9 Fed. Cas. 826, 877. [Emphasis added. Religion is a political issue.]

And this political question cannot be raised at the instance of one who avails himself of the benefit of using the ballot box of the conquering earthly power:

"The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation [Secular humanists can never claim injury by the law which is a part of their religion and they themselves adore]. Tyler v. The Judges, 179 U.S. 405; Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 625.

Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right [Secular humanists have no property right in common with Good and Lawful Christians in any public property, i.e., Christian civil government]. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained. Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 283 U.S. 96, 99-100.

In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens [subjects].

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581; Wall v. Parrot Silver and Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407, 411-412; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast Construction Co., 260 U.S. 469." Ashwander v. T.V.A. (1936), 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466 482, 80 L.Ed. 688. [Emphasis and insertions added.]

But isn't it possible to reform the system from within? The court in Ashwander is telling you that it is an impossibility!

And so did Christ:

"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house." Mt 12:25-29.

And because the law doesn't compel impossibilities, it is not their responsibility to "reform the system" from within. It is yours--using the Power and Authority of God's Word written in Scripture, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1. The Scripture never said, "The rulers or persons that be are ordained of God." Thus, we may safely assert the following:

"And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to such an one, as concludes not in favour of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil ruler whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are in the exercise of their office and power, benefactors to society. Such they are described to be, throughout this passage. Thus it is said, that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. It is manifest that this character and the description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon the supposition of the contrary." Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, 1750. [Emphasis added.]

I wish to note here that "the secret ballot" is the tool of all military governments to maintain control and management of "civil affairs." It follows, as a consequence, that the traditional relationship between the civil power and the military power is reversed. See 12 Op.Atty.Gen. 182 (1867). It is an import from Australia and did not arrive in California until circa 1890's. I don't know if or when the federal government adopted it.

"AUSTRALIAN BALLOT. A system of secret voting, whereby the voter indicates his choice of the candidates who have been nominated by a mark alongside the name of the candidate thus chosen. The system originated in Australia, whence its name." Radin, Law Dictionary (1955), p. 27. [Emphasis added.]

If you are tired of being your own worst enemy and short term "solutions," get out of the political stupor and teach your infants to do the same:

"Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and of science be, and remain, the soul of this constitution, and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations. Vice, ignorance, and want of vigilance, will be the only enemies able to destroy it. Against these provide, and, of these, be forever jealous. Every member of the state, ought diligently to read and study the constitution of his country, and teach the rising generation to be free [under God]. [Ed note: This is why we promote you bringing your infants to seminars!] By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive them when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them." John Jay, on the inauguration of the New York Constitution of 1777, quoted in the Principles and Acts of the Revolution (1822), edited by H. Niles. [Emphasis and insertion added.]

But, please read the constitutions with the proper Christian perspective:

"What is a constitution, and what are its objects? It is easier to tell what it is not than what it is. It is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of personal freedom and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which they possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the framework of the political government, and necessarily based upon the pre-existing condition of laws [Scripture], rights [jus ex non scripto], habits [customs and usages], and modes of thought [See Philippians 2:2]. There is nothing primitive [mysterious] in it: it is all derived from a known source [Scripture]. It presupposes an organized [Christian] society, [Scriptural] law, order, property [stewardship], personal freedom [Christian Liberty], a love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard it against the encroachments of tyranny [which we have lost in this present age]. A written constitution is in every instance a limitation upon the powers of government in the hands of agents; for there never was a written republican constitution which delegated to functionaries all the latent powers which lie dormant in every nation, and are boundless in extent, and incapable of definition." Hamilton v. St. Louis County Court, 15 Mo. 13. [Insertions added.]

In other words, do not look to the constitution as a source of supply for any thing; for Christians, God, through our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is our sole Source and Supplier. The other perspective is idolatry, which is what the current "political" system lives, feeds and is dependent upon. Christ is our example:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Mt 4:8-10. [Emphasis added.]

Idolatry is an injury not only to God, but is loss to the idolater, for he must relinquish his relationship with God, and go beneath the status he enjoys with God, through Our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ:

"BAAL. (Heb.)--lord; master; possessor; owner; guardian; a husband; Jove; Jupiter; the sun.a generic term for god in may of the Syro-Arabian languages.

"Chief male deity of the Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Ashtoreth was their principal female deity (Judg. 2:13). The worship of Baal was directed to Jovis, Jupiter, or the Sun as the guardian and giver of good fortune, prosperity, and abundance.

"Meta. Baal means lord, and it was the besetting sin of the ancient Hebrews to apply this title to things formed instead of the formless. This tendency is still prevalent, and not merely among the Hebrews.

"All concepts of God as less than universal mind are Baal. Those who believe in a personal god are Baal worshippers, because they make an image of that which is 'without body, parts, or passions.' They should learn to go back of the realm of things, that they may come in touch with God, who is Spirit, mind, cause, omnipresence.

"Baal worship was a form of nature worship. All people who study materiality and seek to find in it the source of existence are sacrificing to Baal. This is strictly intellectual. But there are those on the soul plane who think that they are spiritual because they feel the throb of nature and join in all her moods. They are closely allied to the whirling dervish, and dissipate their soul substance in the various forces of nature with which they are in love. Such persons must do away with this Baal worship and call upon the life-fire of the Spirit to consume every material phase of sacrifice.

"Baalim and Asheroth represent nature in its various sensuous aspects. 'All the host of heaven (see Deut. 4:19 and 17:3) are the sun, moon, and stars and the twelve signs of the zodiac. When we fall into the evils of Manasseh (II Chron. 33:1-13) we think that the planets and stars rule over us and that it is necessary to pay them a certain degree of homage or worship because of their influence. Some people in this day have great faith in their 'ruling planets,' and think that they are bound to certain traits of character because they were born when those sidereal bodies were in the ascendancy. They are forgetful of the God power within them, and so are brought into condemnation.

"The Manasseh mentality usually goes from one step of Baalim worship to another, until it exhausts them all. Luck, chance, sorcery, familiar spirits, and wizardry are some of the avenues through which the Manasseh mind attempts to regulate its life. Astrology, palmistry, the guidance of spirits, mesmerism, hypnotism, are some of the many modern forms of denial of God. Indulged in for a time they lead the negative mind into deeper and deeper bondage, until the transgressed law reacts upon the transgressor and he is put 'in chains' and bound 'with fetters' and carried away to Babylon, or utter confusion. The way of escape is through prayer to God and return to His 'city of peace' within the soul, Jerusalem." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

"BAALAH. (Heb.)--lady; mistress; possessor; guardian; sorceress; citizenship; a citizen.

"A border town of Judah. Kiriath-jearim is another name for this city (Josh. 15:9).

"Meta. An innate consciousness of authority and ownership in man, a consciousness that pertains to the feminine or affectional nature, the soul (mistress, possessor), and is expressed in the psychic and material to the point of idolatry." Metaphysical Bible Dictionary (1955), p. 87.

Currently, then, it is established that if you participate in any current "elections," you are engaged in the practice of idolatry, which marks the end of this age, and the beginning of the next.

And this is the reason We tell you to cancel your current "voter registration." If you want a Christian Jural Society, it is impossible to walk with Christ and the foe of Christ at the same time. As David says, "Do not I hate them that hate thee? and am I not grieved with those that rise against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Ps 139:21-22. The "voter registration" is an idea from natural theology: secular man's faulty reason dictating that he, in and of himself can save all, "if you just give him enough power, more money, more..., more..., and still more....Never mind Christ's fully finished work." A source on this may suffice:

"So far as the latter (natural theology) is concerned, in the teachings of Luther and Calvin, it is reduce to a doctrine of paganism, that is, a doctrine of the permanent perversion of the truth given to man in the revelation in Creation. But both Luther and Calvin regard this idolatry as a proof of the fact of the revelation in the Creation. 'Idolatris praecipue manifesta (fuit) notitia Dei.'...the very fact of idolatry...shows that the heathen received a knowledge of God." Brunner, Revelation and Reason (1946), p. 60.

May God Bless You. 'Til next month.

Common Right vs. Franchise

by John Joseph

This article is written for those who have been refused publication of their public notices by a newspaper or have been denied general delivery mail, and for other purposes. This is to help you understand the differences between state franchise and the common Rights vested by God in all Good and Lawful Christians.

A common Right vests only in Good and Lawful Christians because: One, they alone discern the Revealed Law in Scripture and are vested in Genesis 1:27-29, 2:15-17; Two, they have the "mind of Christ," which no corporation, trust, company, natural person, or human being possesses; Three, they are Sealed by and with the Authority of the Holy Spirit because they are made in the image and likeness of God, which has never been vested in any strangers of God's Law; Four, they live within the Kingdom of their Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, whose Law is recognized Supreme the world over. There is no right vested by Almighty God in and for a newspaper or The Postal Service to exist, so it exists only by franchise (license or permission) from the Power vested in Good and Lawful Christians by Almighty God through Jesus Christ. All franchises are privileges under the control of the grantor; and, impose duties and obligations upon the grantee, the newspaper:

"Any definition of the word 'franchise' must include the word 'privileges.'" Willamette Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Bank of British Columbia, Or., 119 U. S. 191. (Italics added.)

"A franchise is bi-lateral in nature and imposes obligations [duties] while conferring rights [privileges], so that acceptance is necessary to prove that grantee has undertaken those obligations." Greenberg v. City of New York, 274 N.Y.S. 4. (Insertions added.)

"A franchise is a privilege in which the public have an interest, and which cannot be exercised without the authority of the sovereign." People v. Utica Insurance Co. (1818), 15 Johns. 358.

The vesting by license is independent of the common Right held by Good and Lawful Christians, however; and is therefore of a different and inferior status:

"What is a franchise? Under English law, Blackstone defines it as 'a royal privilege or a branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.'" State of California v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. (1888), 8 S. C. 1073, 1080. [Emphasis added.]

The Law recognizes a "vested right" being fixed for present or future enjoyment through its Lawful exercise, based upon the discretion of Almighty God directing the affairs of Good and Lawful Christians:

"A vested right is an immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment." Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. (2 Cushm.) 85.

No statute can constitutionally impair the Lawful exercise of a right vested by Almighty God in Good and Lawful Christians, who alone compose the Body of Christ, His church:

"No statute can constitutionally derogate a vested right." Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 Cal. 1.

Therefore, All Good and Lawful Christians have a vested right in all res communis, of which all franchises granted by or under their Authority exercising the Prerogative vested in Them, and are a species thereof:

"The power to grant a franchise is political in its nature. In England, these grants emanate from the crown; in this country, the [Good and Lawful Christian] people are the source of power, and represent, in that respect, the crown. The power belongs to the Legislature, [as their agent]" Chard v. Harrison (1857) 7 Cal. 113, 116.

"The inhabitants of the city of New York have a vested right [incorporeal property right] in the city hall, markets, water works, ferries, and other public property, which cannot be taken from them, any more than their individual dwellings, or store-houses. Their rights, in this respect, rest not merely upon the constitution, but the great principles of Eternal Justice, which lie at the foundation of all free governments." Benson v. The Mayor & c. of New York (1850), 10 Barb. 223, 244-245.

"PREROGATIVE. In Civil Law. The privilege, pre-eminence, or advantage which one person has over another: thus, a person vested with an office is entitled to all the rights, privileges, prerogatives, etc., which belong to it.

"In English Law. The word simply means a power or will which is discretionary, and above and uncontrolled by any other will. It is frequently used to express the uncontrolled will of a sovereign power in the state and is applied not only to the king [the People], but also to the legislative and judicial branches of the government.

'The prerogative is the name for the remaining portion of the crown's [the People'] original authority, and is therefore the name for the discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the crown [the Good and Lawful Christian people], whether such power be, in fact, exercised by the king himself [the People themselves] or by his ministers. Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an act of parliament is done by virtue of this prerogative.' Dicey, Constitution 369; when a franchise is attached to the crown, it is a prerogative; when granted to a subject, it is a franchise; [1903] 2 Ch. 598.

"It is sometimes applied by law writers to the thing over which the power or will is exercised, as fiscal prerogatives, meaning the king's revenues; 1 Halleck, Int. L. 147." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), p. 2670.

All franchises then, are political in nature, and for the newspaper or The Postal Service to violate the Sovereign's Prerogative by its failure to adhere to the terms and conditions of its license to exist, is criminal because it violates the jus publicum in this state, by its nonfeasance:


"Although it was once said that 'a corporation is not indictable, but the particular members of it are,' [Anon., 12 Mod. 559.] it is now well settled that a corporation may be indicted for omission [*83] to perform a public duty imposed upon it by law. [Reg. v. Birmingham & G. Ry. Co., 3 Q.B. 223; New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, 50 N.J.Law 303, 13 Atl. 1, affirmed in 53 N.J.Law, 244, 23 Atl. 168. Contra, in New York, People v. Equitable Gas-Light Co., (Gen. Sess.) 5 N.Y.Supp. 19.] While it cannot be imprisoned, it may, if punishment is provided for, be fined, and deprived of its charter and franchises. Thus a railway company may be indicted for neglect to keep in repair a bridge across a cut made by it, when its road crosses a public highway, so that travel is obstructed. [New York & G. L. R. Co. v. State, supra.]" Clark' Criminal Law (1915), pp. 82-83.

The sole purpose of The Post Office Department in the hands of The Postal Service is the preservation of general delivery for the church and the sole purpose of a newspaper is to publish all matters affecting the church, because "Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur --The cause of the Church is a public cause." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2127.

The privilege of the newspaper to exist is without standing in the court:

"Privilegium non valet contra rempublicam --A privilege avails not against the commonwealth." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2155.

And this applies to the "attorney" of the newspaper, because he needs license from you to practice in your court under God! This is all the more important, because the agent cannot exercise a greater authority than his principal has. Therefore, if his principal is under license from the Good and Lawful Christian people, the attorney himself is under the same disabilities, whatever those disabilities may be.

Let This Mind Be In You

Part Four

by John Quade


We now come to the last part of this series on the application of presuppositional analysis to the problem of defining the nature, attributes, and characteristics of civil government. We began with an overview that looked at several areas of life, generally, then narrowed the focus to the ideas of civil government and Law, and we saw that only on Christian presuppositions is true and Lawful civil government possible.

Conversely, all attempts at civil government on Humanistic presuppositions are doomed to failure, and that such systems rely totally on commerce and a massive military machine, which has been true of ancient kingdoms, of Rome, and of modern America and the Western world.

Humanistic systems of civil government are predestined to self-contradiction, self-refutation, and self-destruction. When Mercury and Mars are the gods of civil government and such a government is given enough time, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This has been the course of history for over four thousand years.

Ironically, Humanism recognizes its own short-comings and the superiority of God's Law, which is why Christian Law today, is still the only real, supreme Law of the Land.

Thus, we find in "Corpus Juris," 59 C.J. 20, under 'States,' sub-heading [g] Extent of sovereign characteristics of state, where it speaks of the American system - "The state is a sovereign having no derivative powers, exercising its sovereignty by divine right. It has bound itself by compact with the other sovereign states not to exercise certain of its sovereign rights, and has conceded these to the Union, but in every other respect it retains all its sovereignty." Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 F. 908, 911. 59 C.J. 20.

The 'state' here is distinguished from the State, and STATE, or State of, etc., or, as in the above example, 'the Union.' All of which are organized, specific forms of civil government. The state (lower case spelling) is entirely general and refers to a large group of people within the total population, but not all the people.

"By the word State (capitalized) is meant one of the States of the American Union. Spelled otherwise, it refers to political societies or states in general." Robinson's Elementary Law (1882), note, p. xxxiv [insert added], which is consistent with the rules of English usage, as well.

"In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term 'state' is used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government;" and, "The [Good and Lawful Christian] people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouvier s Law Dictionary (1914), State, p. 3124. [the State, and state are not the same, insertions added.] "It may mean an organized political community." Silver Bow County v. Davis, 6 Mont. 306, 12 P. 688, 690, aff d. 139 U.S. 438, 11 S.Ct. 594, 35 L.Ed. 210. 59 C.J 18.

Since Christianity is the presumed basis of real Law in this country by the Supreme Court of the United States, by the Federal, State, and County governments, both before and since Lincoln's War Against Christian States, its recognition also applies to the law and international relations of the current governments, and "until such recognition it has been said that the courts must assume that the former government continues without change." 33 Corpus Juris, 394, under the heading "International Law."

In other words, the existence of Christianity and the Christian state (a body of people distinct from the State) is recognized by international and municipal law. This explains why Non-statutory Abatements work if properly written and served by Good and Lawful Christian People.

Further, the Christian people (state) are cloaked with sovereignty as in a divine right from God by virtue of the fact that God has written His Law on their hearts. Where ever the Christian goes, he carries all his rights, privileges, and immunities, from God and always retains the Perfect Law of Liberty to exercise them at every moment he is called upon to do so, as the Holy Spirit and Scripture leads.

It is this fact that gives the Christian authority to re-establish Christian civil government, i.e., Christian Jural Societies, in order that we can begin again to execute the testament of Our Sovereign Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who gave us such authority in the Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and in the Great Commission, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the Day of Redemption and the Lord has returned for His Bride.

In other words, a Christian already has all the power and authority needed to do the job he has been called to do in a de jure sense. It is time for the de jure state to become the de facto Christian State.

There are, however, many nay-sayers in the Christian camp. Some say there are not enough Christians who obey God's Law to restore and reconstruct the Christian State, i.e., turn the state into a State. But, in law, numbers and resources mean nothing. "The equality of states is an incident of sovereignty; for, if one is in right subject to another, the former is not sovereign. But equality in this sense means "equality before the law," and not in strength, resources, and influence." "Nor does it require equal voting power in world affairs, for differences of international value are obvious." See Corpus Juris, 33 C.J. 397, Section 18, 2. 'Equality.'

This point is made forcibly in Scripture. Gideon did not need numbers for his great battle?

Others argue that we do not have the recognition of existing governments, but the above cites say that 'recognition' is not important. Does this mean that because Humanists recognize us that we must also recognize them? Of course not!

Recall that in the earlier parts we stated that the ultimate presuppositions behind Christianity and Humanism are 'mutually exclusive ultimates,' and that as such, each must deny the other's validity. To recognize the opponent's right, is to give legitimacy to the opponent that he has no right to. This we must not do or else we will suffer the judgments of God for compromising His Law.

This is also why we do not acknowledge the knock on the door by a stranger who may be from the opposition. To answer the door is to recognize the opposition, and concede jurisdiction to them to try us in their courts.

You can argue all day that you are a sovereign, and it will do you no good, because your actions betray your words. By your fruits are you known, even by the enemy. Remember how often Scripture tells us that Christ knows His sheep. To open the door is to say that the enemy is Our shepherd, not Christ.

To have a driver's license or social security card or any other token of a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from the opposition contradicts and nullifies the Christian witness. The reason is, the name on all such instruments, being a nom de guerre, is a fiction. Such is certainly not a Christian name or appellation. You may profess to be a Christian all day long, but the evidence of your actions, the bitter fruit in your billfold or purse, says that you're not a Christian, but a Humanist looking to the State for approval.

The same is true of the number on your house, your Post Office Box number, the VIN and Registration numbers on your car, the parcel number on your house and land, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The use of such numbers and fictitious designations has destroyed the power of the Christian church in America.

Look at any church on any block in your home town. Perhaps, even on your own church you will see the name of the church in all capital letters, which designates a 501(c)3 commercial corporation, that is advertising for business.

But, you say, "I still haven't accepted the mark of the beast on my wrist or forehead!" Hogwash!!! Can you buy or sell without the numbers and fictitious names, add or remove anything from 'your home' without a permit number, conduct any transaction without an account number, send your child to a public school without a Social Security number, get your plumbing, electrical wiring, or TV fixed, or do even the most mundane thing, without it all being numbered and tracked commercially? The answer is obviously, No!!!

What is worse, most Christians don't know there is another way to do things.

Some of you may panic because you've been told by your commercial church leaders not to accept the mark or you won't go to heaven. Think for moment! You've already accepted a mark without which you cannot buy or sell anything! Do you really need a mark on your wrist or forehead when you have already volunteered to carry one in your own pocket??? No one forced you to take it. You volunteered for it, because the same commercial church leaders you've always listened to told you to obey all authorities and both you and they thought that meant obeying even ungodly laws, codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

Is this the attitude of Christ who did His Father's will even when it contradicted the laws of the Jews and Romans and sent Him to the Cross? Does this idea fit with the Scripture when it tells us to 'seek first the Kingdom of Heaven?'

Yes, there will be many nay-sayers who don't want to rock the boat. So be it: let the dead bury the dead.

But, there are some, including those in The King's Men, who believe that we are on the verge of a new advance of the Christian church, that we are on the verge of a new reformation and reconstruction.

Thus, as a fitting end to this series, we will close with a short dissertation on the general nature and characteristics of the new era of Christian dominion that is to come. After all, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

From the theoretical standpoint, the course of history is interpreted by Humanists as cyclical. But, from the Christian standpoint, history may appear to be cyclical if Our understanding cannot get beyond the mere form of history and see the deeper and more subtle meaning that is available only to the mind and heart of one guided by the Holy Spirit.

The form may appear to repeat itself because Humanist thinking is itself repetitive, in the sense that it vacillates from one apparently polar opposite to another and then swings back again. We say apparently polar opposite because in fact, the pendulum swing in Humanist thought is not really from one pole to its opposite. There can be no polarization in Humanist thought because the Humanist leaves out of his view of reality the Christian idea and interpretation. Again, the mutually exclusive ultimate arises.

At any rate, if we begin with the Garden of Eden, we can see how we began with a perfect world, then fell into total depravity, which gradually became more and more extreme until God destroyed the world by the Great Flood of Genesis. Since the Flood, we have seen a major reformation or reconstruction in the work of Moses, Ezra, Christ, and the Great Reformation that began with Wycliffe and eventually gave birth to this nation.

Each of these reformations brought with them eras in which more men and women came to a knowledge of God and Christ. Each was marked by advancements in all areas of life. Thus, from the crude systems of commercial dictatorship before Christ (except for the Hebrew Republic) we now have the simple and profound forms of local self-government by the Christian Man, such as The Hundreds of England. In art, we have progressed from stone carvings to film and television. In communications we have gone from clay tablets to the personal computer. From cutting holes in a man's head to relieve headaches or demons we have come to the aspirin.

And, man is beginning to live longer as he once did before the Flood. Fewer women and babies die in childbirth. The ability to cover vast distances in a short period of time is staggering. Man's inventions are becoming more sophisticated by day. And, his potential for good or evil has grown by leaps and bounds.

The point is, each reformation has brought with it incredible advances in man's knowledge and understanding but, the reformation is not self-sustaining, and usually within three or four generations, the reformation dies. What was once inspired and led by advances in Christian thought begins to wane when the Christian does not keep pace with the developments of ideas and their consequences that the Christian himself gave to man as he tried to bring more and more of the Word of God to bear on the world about him.

Herman Dooyeweerd, a Dutch philosopher described this phenomena as a kind of convergence and divergence of ideas.

What he meant was, man may start in the Garden of Eden, but after a while, his ideas begin to diverge into implications or consequences that he never saw in his original vision. This period of divergence we would call the declining phase of Christian thought. As ideas become more diversified the original Christian motive behind them is lost and the advances spawned in Christianity, are soon taken over, or co-opted by the Humanist, who promptly begins to re-interpret them according to the god of Humanism, autonomous reason.

Eventually, the decline reaches a point at which, even to Christians, the situation is so bad that something must be done. This factor drives the Christian back to Scripture and his knees. The Humanist has now become the rod that drives the lazy Christian forward and compels him to re-think his position. In the plan of God, the Humanist has always been God's rod to wake the sleeping Christian and get him back on course.

In very simple terms, when the pain level gets high enough, the Spirit of God begins to move in the hearts and minds of Christians, the process of convergence begins, and a new reformation is born.

Convergence is a process in which man does a complete re-thinking of his ideas either generally, or specifically. It begins in the heart and then becomes conscious in the mind, sometimes slowly, and sometimes quickly. The process does not usually come upon all the people at once, but gradually. It begins with a few people, called of God and gifted by the Holy Spirit in such a way that they can read the real implications of an idea and not the pretended ones. That is, they see through the smoke and mirrors.

Gradually, a new understanding of things begins to come upon the Christian, at first in only a few areas of life, then later, more and more of a man's ideas are re-thought in terms of the new vision of things that is emerging in his heart and mind.

At some point in the process, the Christian Man must put his new found truth in Scripture to work. He cannot help himself for he is the tool or agent of God. He may become one of the new shock troops in God's plan, or a general of the army, a behind-the-scenes strategist and planner, or fill a whole range of other needs in God's plan.

Over time, an army of these reformed men and women is formed. At first, they may be unaware that there are others who think the same way they do. Eventually, however, the Spirit of God brings them together and an organization is formed and the task of bringing together new minds and hearts to the fight, begins. What was once fragmented and disjointed, now becomes an organized movement on the march, at first in an almost underground sense and later, it becomes a phenomena which catches the attention of the powers that be.

If the Humanist powers detect this new movement, they may attempt a variety of tactics to deal with it, that range from outright persecution, to subversion. No matter, because what God has started, no power on earth can stop. Eventually, as more and more Christians join the struggle, the balance of power begins to shift. Like a rain storm that begins with only a few drops in the dry dust, it becomes a raging flood that washes away all that stands in its way. And when the flood subsides, the new top soil brings forth sweet fruit and the land becomes green with righteousness and prosperity.

Before you know it, a new power is in control and Christians are once again advancing on every front until at last, the Humanist realizes that its time to retreat and go underground.

The reformation will then solidify its power and re-chart a new course for the nation that will bring many new advances and developments just as in previous reformations and just at the point where the Christian gets comfortable with the way things are, the process of divergence sets in again.

For those who wonder why we must go through the process of reformation and decline, or convergence and divergence of ideas, the only answer we can give is; "... so that no man should boast..."

As to where we are now in the next reformation, it is Our belief that we are somewhere in that period where the army is being formed. Networking and organization is taking place in more and more areas every day. We are not yet an army, for we are still in training, in basic training or boot camp, if you will. As the pain level rises, more and more Christian men and women are volunteering to join what is by now, a nation-wide movement.

The Humanists know we are out here and that Our numbers are growing. They also know that their own system is in major trouble. It doesn't take a genius to see that when the I.R.S. begins to offer discounts for advance payment of income taxes that there is a problem. It does not take a Harvard Business School graduate to see that when foreclosures and bankruptcies begin to accelerate across the nation the entire economy is undermined. Foreclosures and bankruptcies in Los Angeles County alone, in 1996, reached nearly 5,000 a month (up 64% from 1995) and this number is climbing at an unbelievable rate. Nationwide, this means more than 600,00 bankruptcies and foreclosures a year!!!

In the last five years, the Federal budget has been cut more than in any previous period in history, not because of the genius of the President, but because he and the Congress have no choice in the matter. It is safe to say that such cuts will become more drastic in size at an accelerated pace over the next decade.

Scandal is running rampant in the Federal and State governments because the politicians and their cronies are being forced to more and more drastic means to raise campaign funds, while at the same time, key members of the President's Cabinet and members of the House and Senate, are abandoning ship.

Anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear knows about the hand-writing on the wall. The problem is, those in power are not gifted with the ability to translate it.

All this is merely the prelude, the birth pangs, of a new era and these events are typical of all previous reformations. Yes, for those in the Christian law reform movement things are still very tough and there are many questions we have yet to answer, but each and every day we are making progress as we bring more and more of Our thought captive to the mind of Christ.

We may not live to see the fruit of what we do here and what you, Our readers are doing every hour of their lives, but Our posterity will. When things get tough, its time to toughen up the knees and burn the midnight oil and this is happening now, even as this is written at 4:12 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Our reward may not come in Our lifetimes, but, no matter; for We have a greater reward coming in Heaven, when at last, we may sit down and take Our rest in the enjoyment of the Lord and His Presence forever.

And, let us hope, that the generations after Us will be able to speak of Us even as We have spoken of the Founding Fathers.

"And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of the paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:12.

The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men

A Sermon by John Witherspoon

(continued from Issue the Fourteenth)

Part Two of Three

3. The wrath of man praiseth God, as he sets bounds to it, or restrains it by his [21] providence, and sometimes makes it evidently a means of promoting and illustrating his glory.

There is no part of divine providence in which a greater beauty and majesty appears, than when the Almighty Ruler turns the councils of wicked men into confusion, and makes them militate against themselves. If the psalmist may be thought to have had a view in this text to the truths illustrated in the two former observations, there is no doubt at all that he had a particular view to this, as he says in the latter part of the verse, the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. The scripture abounds with instances in which the designs of oppressors were either wholly disappointed, or in execution fell far short of the malice of their intention, and in some they turned out to the honour and happiness of the persons or the people, whom they were intended to destroy. We have an instance of the first of these in the history to which my text relates{10}. We have also an instance [22] in Esther, in which most mischievous designs of Haman, the son of Hamedatha the Agagite against Mordecai the Jew, and the nation from which he sprung, turned out at last to his own destruction, the honour of Mordecai and the salvation and peace of his people.

From the New Testament I will make choice of that memorable event on which the salvation of believers in every age rests as its foundation, the death and sufferings of the Son of God. This the great adversary and all his agents and instruments prosecuted with unrelenting rage. When they had blackened him with slander, when they scourged him with shame, when they had condemned him in judgment, and nailed him to the cross, how could they help esteeming the victory complete? But, of the unsearchable wisdom of God! they were but perfecting the great design laid for the salvation of sinners. Our blessed Redeemer by his death finished his work, overcame principalities and powers, and made a shew of them openly, triumphing [23] over them in the cross. With how much justice do the apostles and their company offer this doxology to God. They lift up their voice with one accord, and said, Lord thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the Heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth, against thy hold Child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. {11}

In all after ages in conformity to this, the deepest laid contrivances of the prince of darkness, have turned out to the confusion of their author; and I know not, but considering his malice and pride, his perpetual disappointment, and the superiority of divine wisdom, may be one great source of suffering and torment. The cross hath still been the banner of truth, under which it hath been carried throughout the world. Persecution has been but as the furnace to the gold to purge it of its dross, to manifest its purity, and increase its lustre. It was taken notice of very early, that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of Christianity; the more abundantly it was shed, the more plentifully did the harvest grow.

So certain has this appeared, that the most violent infidels, both of early and later ages, have endeavoured to account for it, and have observed that there is a spirit of obstinacy in man which inclines him to resist violence, and that severity doth but increase opposition, be the cause what it will. They suppose that persecution is equally proper to propagate truth and error. This tho in part true will by no means generally hold. Such an apprehension however gave occasion to a glorious triumph of divine providence of an opposite kind, which I must shortly relate to you. One of the Roman emperors, Julian, surnamed the [24] apostate, perceiving how impossible it was to suppress the gospel by violence, endeavoured to extinguish it by neglect and scorn. He left the Christians unmolested for sometime, but gave all manner of encouragement to those of opposite principles, and particularly to the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians; and that he might bring public disgrace upon the Galileans, as he affected to stile them, he encouraged the Jews to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and visibly refute the prophecy of Christ, that it should lye under perpetual desolation. But this profane attempt was so signally frustrated, that it served as much as any one circumstance to spread the glory of our redeemer, and establish the faith of his saints. It is affirmed by some ancient authors, particularly by Ammianus Marcellinus a Heathen historian, that fire came out of the earth and consumed the workmen when laying the foundation. But in whatever way it was prevented, it is beyond all controversy, from the concurring testimony of Heathens and Christians, that little or no progress was ever made in it, and that in a short time, it was entirely defeated. [26]

It is proper here to observe that at the time of the reformation, when religion began to revive, nothing contributed more to facilitate its reception, and increase its progress than the violence of its persecutors. Their cruelty and the patience of the sufferers, naturally disposed men to examine and weigh the cause to which they adhered with so much constancy and resolution. At the same time also, when they were persecuted in one city they fled to another, and carried the discoveries of the popish fraud to every part of the world. It was by fame of those who were persecuted in Germany, that the light of this reformation was brought so early into Britain.

The power of divine providence appears with the most distinguished lustre, when small and inconsiderable circumstances and sometimes, the weather and seasons have defeated the most formidable armaments, and frustrated the best concerted expeditions. Near two hundred years ago, the monarchy of Spain was in the height of its power and glory, and determined to crush the interest of the [27] reformation. They sent out a powerful armament against Britain, giving it ostentatiously, and in my opinion profanely, the name of the Invincible Armada. But it pleased God so entirely to discomfit it by tempests, that a small part of it returned home, though no British force had been opposed to it at all.

We have a remarkable instance of the influence of small circumstances in providence in the English history. The two most remarkable persons in the civil wars, had earnestly desired to withdraw themselves from the contentions of the times, Mr. Hampden and Oliver Cromwell. They had actually taken their passage in a ship for New-England, when by an arbitrary order of council they were compelled to remain at home. The consequence of this was, that one of them was the soul of the republican opposition to monarchical usurpation during the civil wars, and the other in the course of that contest, was the great instrument in bringing the tyrant to the block.[28]

The only other historical remark I am to make is, that the violent persecution which many eminent Christians met with in England from their brethren, who called themselves Protestants, drove them in great numbers to a distant part of the world, where the light of the gospel and true religion were unknown. Some of the American settlements, particularly those in New-England, were chiefly made by them; and as they carried the knowledge of Christ to the dark places of the earth, so they continue themselves in as great a degree of purity of faith, and strictness of practice, or rather a greater than is to be found in any protestant church now in the world. Does not the wrath of man in this instance praise God? Was not the accuser of the brethren, who stirs up their enemies, thus taken in his own craftiness, and his kingdom shaken by the very means which he employed to establish it.{12} [29]

II. I proceed now to the second general head, which was to apply the principles illustrated above to our present situation, by inferences of truth for your instruction and comfort, and by suitable exhortations to duty in this important crisis.


In the first place, I would take the opportunity on this occasion and from this subject to press every hearer to a sincere concern for his own soul's salvation. There are times when the mind may be expected to be more awake to divine truth, and the conscience more open to the arrows of conviction than at others. A season of public judgment is of this kind, as appears from what has been already said. That curiosity and attention at least are raised in some degree is plain from the unusual throng of this assembly. Can you have a clearer view of the sinfulness of your nature, than when the rod of the oppressor is lifted up, and when [30] you see men putting on the habit of the warrior, and collecting on every hand the weapons of hostility and instruments of death? I do not blame your ardour in preparing for the resolute defence of your temporal rights. But consider I beseech you, the truly infinite importance of the salvation of your souls. Is it of much moment whether you and your children shall be rich or poor, at liberty or in bonds? Is it of much moment whether this beautiful country shall increase in fruitfulness from year to year being cultivated by active industry, and possessed by independent free men, or the scanty produce of neglected fields shall be eaten up by hungry publicans, while the timid owner trembles at the tax gatherers approach? And is it of less moment my brethren, whether you shall be the heirs of glory, or the heirs of hell? Is your state on earth for a few fleeting years of so much moment? And is it of less moment, what shall be your state through endless ages? Have you assembled together willingly to hear what shall be said on public affairs, and to join in imploring [31] the blessing of God on the councils and arms of the united colonies, and can you be unconcerned, what shall become of you for ever, when all the monuments of human greatness shall be laid in ashes, for the earth itself and all the works that are therein shall be burnt up.

Wherefore my beloved hearers, as the ministry of reconciliation is committed to me, I beseech you in the most earnest manner, to attend to the things that belong to your peace, before they are hid from your eyes. How soon and in what manner a seal shall be set upon the character and state of every person here present, it is impossible to know, for he who only can know does not think proper to reveal it. But you may rest assured that there is no time more suitable, and there is none so safe as that which is present, since it is wholly uncertain whether any other shall be yours. Those who shall first fall in battle, have not many more warnings to receive. There are some few daring and hardened sinners who despise eternity itself, and set their maker at defiance, [32] but the far greater number by staving off their convictions to a more convenient season, have been taken unprepared and thus eternally lost. I would therefore earnestly press the apostles exhortation, We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also, that ye receive not the grace of God in vain: For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. {13}

Suffer me to beseech you, or rather to give you warning not to rest satisfied with a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross! believe it, there is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved. Unless you are united to him by a lively faith, not [33] the resentment of a haughty monarch, but the sword of divine justice hangs over you, and the fulness of divine vengeance shall speedily overtake you. I do not speak this only to the heathen daring profligate, or grovelling sensualist, but to every insensible secure sinner; to all those however decent and orderly in their civil deportment, who live to themselves and have their part and portion in this life; in fine to all who are yet in a state of nature, for except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The fear of man may make you hide your profanity; prudence and experience may make you abhor intemperance and riot; as you advance in life, one vice may supplant another and hold its place; but nothing less than the sovereign grace of God can produce a saving change of heart and temper, or fit you for his immediate presence.

2. From what has been said upon this subject, you may see what ground there is to give praise to God for his favours already bestowed on us, respecting the [34] public cause. It would be a criminal inattention not to observe the singular interposition of providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies. It is however impossible for me in a single discourse, as well as improper at this time to go thro' every step of our past transactions, I must therefore content myself with a few remarks. How many discoveries have been made of the designs of enemies in Britain and among ourselves, in a manner as unexpected to us as to them, and in such season as to prevent their effect? What surprising success has attended our encounters in almost every instance? Has not the boasted discipline of regular and veteran soldiers been turned into confusion and dismay before the new and maiden courage of free men in defense of their property and right? In what great mercy has blood been spared on the side of this injured country? Some important victories in the south have been gained with so little loss, that enemies will probably think it has been dissembled; as many, even of ourselves thought, till time rendered it undeniable. But these [35] were comparatively of small moment. The signal advantage we have gained by the evacuation of Boston, and the shameful flight of the army and navy of Britain, was brought about without the loss of a man. To all this we may add, that the counsels of our enemies have been visibly confounded, so that I believe I may say with truth, that there is hardly any step which they have taken, but it has operated strongly against themselves, and been more in our favour than if they had followed a contrary course.

While we give praise to God the supreme disposer of all events, for his interposition in our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of an arm of flesh. I could earnestly wish, that while our arms are crowned with success, we might content ourselves with a modest ascription of it to the power of the highest. It has given me great uneasiness to read some ostentatious, vaunting expressions in our newspapers, though happily I think, much restrained of late. Let us not return to [36] them again. If I am not mistaken, not only the Holy Scriptures in general, and the truths of the glorious gospel in particular, but the whole course of providence seems intended to abase the pride of man, and lay the vain-glorious in the dust. How many instances does history furnish us with those who after exulting over, and despising their enemies, were signally and shamefully defeated {14}. The truth is, I believe, the remark may be applied universally, and we may say, that thro' the whole frame of nature, and the whole system of human life, that which promises most, performs the least. The flowers of finest colour seldom have the sweetest fragrance. The trees of quickest growth or fairest form, are seldom of the greatest value or duration. Deep waters move with least noise. Men who think most are seldom talkative. And I think it holds as much in war as in any thing, that every boaster is a coward.[37]

Pardon me my brethren for insisting so much upon this which may seem but an immaterial circumstance. It is in my opinion of very great moment. I look upon ostentation and confidence to be a sort of outrage upon providence, and when it becomes general, and infuses itself into the spirit of destruction. How does Goliath the champion, armed in a most formidable manner express his disdain of David the stripling with his sling and his stone. And when the Philistine looked about and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods, and the Philistine said to David come to to me and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. But how just and modest the reply? Then said David to the Philistine, thou comest to me with a sword and with a spear, and with a shield, but I come unto thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, who thou hast defied. {15} I was well pleased with a remark of this kind thirty years ago in a pamphlet,{16} in which it was observed, that there was a great deal of profane ostentation in the names given to ships of war, as the Victory, the Valiant, the Thunderer, the Dreadnought, the Terrible, the Firebrand, the Furnace, the Lightening, the Infernal, and many more of the same kind. This the author considered as a symptom of the national character and manners very unfavorable, and not likely to obtain the blessing of the God of Heaven.{17}

3. From what has been said you may learn what encouragement you have to put your trust in God, and hope for his assistance in the resent important conflict. He is the Lord of hosts, great in might, and strong in battle. Whoever hath his countenance and approbation, shall have the best at last. I do not mean to speak prophetically, but agreeably to the analogy of faith, and the principles of God's moral government. Some have observed that true religion and in her train dominion, riches, literature, and arts, have taken their course in a slow and gradual manner, from east to west since the earth has settled after the flood, and from hence forbode the future glory of America. I leave this as a matter rather of conjecture than certainty, but observe, that if your cause is just,--if your principles are pure,--and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

If your cause is just--you may look with confidence to the Lord and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my [39] witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of Justice, of liberty, and of human nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satsfied that the confederacy of the colonies, has not been the effect of pride, resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction, that our civil and religious liberties, and consequently in a great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity depended on the issue. The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to these parts of the earth, where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen, and great were the difficulties with which they had to struggle from the imperfection of human society, and the unjust decisions of usurped authority. There is not a single instance in history [41] in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.

You shall not, my brethren, hear from me in the pulpit, what you have never heard from me in conversation, I mean railing at the king personally, or even his ministers and the parliament, and people of Britain, as so many barbarous savages. Many of their actions have probably been worse than their intentions. That they should desire unlimited dominion if they can obtain or preserve it, is neither new nor wonderful. I do not refuse submission to their unjust claims, because they are corrupt or profligate, although probably many of them are so, but because they are men, and therefore liable to all the selfish bias inseparable from human nature. I call this claim unjust of making laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever, because they are separated from us, independent of us, and have an interest in opposing us. Would [42] any man who could prevent it, give up his estate, person, and family, to the disposal of his neighbor, although he had liberty to chuse the wisest and the best matter? Surely not. This is the true and proper hinge of the controversy between Great Britain and America. It is however to be added, that such is their distance from us, that a wise and prudent administration of our affairs is as impossible as the claim of authority is unjust. Such is and must be their ignorance of the state of things here, so much time must elapse before an error can be seen and remedied, and so much injustice and partiality must be expected from the arts and misrepresentation of interested person, that for these colonies to depend wholly upon the legislature of Great Britain, would be like many other oppressive connexions, injury to the master, and ruin to the slave.


{8} Psalms lxxviii, 34, 35.

{9} Luke xiii, 1.

{10} The matter is fully stated and reasoned upon by the prophet Isaiah ch. x. from the 5th to the 19th verse.

{11} Act. iv. 24--28.

{12} Lest this should be thought a temporising compliment to the people of New-England, who have been the first sufferers in the present contest, and have set so noble an example of invincible fortitude in withstanding the violence of oppression, I think it proper to observe that the whole paragraph is copied from a sermon on Psalms lxxiv, 22, prepared and attached in Scotland, in the month of August, 1758.

{13} 2 Cor. vi. 1,2.

{14} There is no story better known in British history than that of the officers of the French army the night preceding the battle of Agincourt, played at dice for English prisoners before they took them, and the next day were taken by them.

{15} I Sam. xvii, 42, 43, 44 ,45.

{16} Britains Remembrances.

{17} I am sensible that one or two of these were ships taken from the French, which brought their names with them. But the greatest number had their names imposed in England, and I cannot help observing that the Victory when celebrated as the finest ship ever built in Britain, was lost in the night without a storm, by some unknown accident, and about twelve hundred persons, many of them the first families in the nation were buried with it in the deep. I do not mean to infer any thing from this, but, that we ought to live under the practical persuasion of what no man will doctrinally deny, that there is no warring with the elements, or Him who directs their force, that He is able to write disappointment on the wisest human schemes, and by the word of his power to frustrate the efforts of the greatest monarch upon earth.

(The conclusion, Part Three, will appear in Issue the Seventeenth)

Miscellaneous Notes

by Randy Lee

Postal Money Orders

"Post Office money orders are not negotiable instruments subject to the defenses permitted to bona fide holders for value by the law merchant. The reason is that in the establishment and operation of the postal money order system, the government is not engaging in commercial transactions, but exercises a governmental power for the public benefit. Furthermore, the restrictions and limitations which the postal laws and regulations place upon money orders are inconsistent with the character of negotiable instruments. First, by the postal regulations, the cashing of a money order cannot under ordinary circumstances be made in advance of the receipt of the corresponding advice; second, more than one endorsement of a money order invalidates it; third, after an order has once been paid by whomsoever presented, the department will not be further liable; fourth, payment of orders will be withheld under a variety of circumstances." Bolognesi v. U.S., 189 Fed. 335, 111 CCA 67, 36 LRANS 143.

Numbered Addresses

On page A9 of the March 11, 1997 issue of 'The Eastside Journal,' a Bellevue, Washington daily newspaper, Associated Press writer Calvin Woodward featured an article titled, 'What's in a number? Modern digital confusion.' His chart therein, titled, 'March of numbers: how the digit revolution began,' begins with the year 1863, wherein he states, "1863: Advent of numbered addresses. Before, people went to post offices for mail addressed only by name and city."

He didn't bother mentioning that general delivery is still in place with no numbers attached, 134 years latter, and the devastating implications of having that numbered home and mailbox. The news media strikes again!!


From the State of Washington 'Bill Drafting Guide for the Legislature,': "The following capitalization should be observed in drafting bills. Note that resolutions, memorials, and amendment headings require more liberal capitalization."

Why is it that these headings 'require' more liberal capitalization, i.e., all caps? Is it because the legislature has no standing in law, and cannot therefore legally capitalize resolutions and amendments according to the rules of the English language.

Further, it states that they do not, when drafting a bill, capitalize 'county' or 'state.' These are the original at-law subdivisions, which cannot be tampered with by a de facto legislature.

Abraham's seed

Those 'Christians' who believe that, due to the color of their white skin, they hold some special place with God, obviously overlooked the following verses from Scripture, at Galatians, chapter 3:

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." verse 7.

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, their is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." verses 26-29.

Christian Deviations

The following is from the close of Chapter One of 'Christian Deviations,' a book written in 1957 by the author of 'The English Free Churchs,' Horton Davies:

"There is the supreme danger of failing to acknowledge the fullness, the uniqueness and the finality of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. All the sects suffer from this defect, otherwise they would not have come into being. Where Jesus is thought of as a first-century teacher and inspired prophet, as was often the case in Communions which accepted what was known as a 'reduced Christology', the way was already open for the displacement of Jesus by later and self-appointed prophets like Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith or Annie Besant. Where He is accepted as the Eternal and only-begotten Son of God, and worshipped as the Lord of lords and King of kings, and obeyed as Master, Christian humility makes it impossible for a mere human to pretend to a better insight into the mind of God than Jesus had.

Finally, Christianity will be victorious over all its rivals when it is most true to its own inheritance. If it cares for the bodies, the souls, and the organization of a just order of society, it will have nothing to fear from Communism. If the fellowship of Christians is a genuine community and family springing from the communion with the God and Father of us all, if Christian members confess their sins in sincerity and with a desire to make reparation to those whom they have wronged, and if they provide a way of life with opportunities of thrilling service for its younger members, Christianity need have nothing to fear from the Oxford Group Movement or Open-air Religion. If it places the doctrines of the resurrection and of the Communion of Saints in the centre of its worship, the spurious attractions of Spiritism will be unavailing because dispelled by faith in the Risen Christ. If Christianity takes seriously the miraculous powers of faith in a wonder-working God, Christian Science will lose its hold on its followers. If Christians really believe that their Lord has won a triple victory over sin, suffering and death, and that 'all things work together for good to them that love God', they will not relapse into the superstition of Astrology. If the Churches proclaim of Christ by life and by lip that 'there is none other Name whereby we must be saved', Theosophy and indeed all other religions will lose their attractions. If the Church by its abounding charity manifests in its international and interracial fellowship that there is neither 'Jew nor Greek, bond nor free', and that God is no respecter of persons, all racialistic distortions of the faith such as British-Israel and the German-Christian Movement will earn the unceasing antagonism of Christians. If Christians accept the general promises of Christ, and do not try to implement His reverent silences with details drawn from their own materialistic imaginations, and show a comparable zeal for transmitting their holy faith, then the unscriptural predictions of the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses will deceive no Christian.

In brief, the best defense of the Christian faith is to know and to obey the 'mind of Christ', who is alone the Way, the Truth and the Life."

Beware of anyone getting hold of you by a means of a theosophy which is specious make-believe, on the lines of human tradition, corresponding to the elemental spirits of the world and not to Christ. Col. 2:8.

Etymologicum Anglicanum

(or - English Etymology)

The Study of English Words

From Crabb's English Synonyms

To Abide, Sojourn, Dwell, Live, Reside, Inhabit, and Transient

ABIDE, in Saxon abitan, old German beitea, comes from the Arabic or Persian but or bit, to pass the night, that is, to make a partial stay. SOJOURN, in French, sejourner, from sub and diurnus, in the daytime, signifies to pass the day, that is, a certain portion of one's time, in a place. DWELL, from the Danish dwelger, to abide, and the Saxon dwelian, Dutch dwalen, to wander, conveys the idea of a movable habitation, such as was the practice of living formerly in tents. At present it implies a stay in a place by way of residence, which is expressed in common discourse by the word LIVE, for passing one's life. RESIDE, from the Latin re and sideo, to sit down, conveys the full idea of settlement. INHABIT, from the Latin habito, a frequentative of habeo, signifies to have or occupy for a permanency.

Abide and sojourn relate more properly to the wandering habits of men in a primitive state of society. Live, reside, and inhabit, are confined to a civilized state of society.

The Easterns abode with each other, sojourned in a country, and dwelt in tents. The angels abode with Lot that night; Abram sojourned in the land of Cannan; the Israelites dwelt in the land of Goshen. Savages either dwell in the cavities which nature has formed for them, or in some rude structure erected for a temporary purpose; but as men increase in cultivation they build places for themselves which they can inhabit: the poor have their cottages in which they can live; the wealthy provide themselves with supurb buildings in which they reside.

TRANSIENT, that is, passing, or in the act of passing, characterizes what in its nature exists only for the moment: a glance is transient. pp. 10 & 793.

Remembering the Old Ways

reprinted from 'The Family Sabbath-Day Miscellany'

comprising over 300 Religious Tales and Anecdotes,

written by Charles Goodrich in 1851

Danger of Keeping Bad Company

The danger of keeping bad company arises principally from our aptness to imitate and catch the manners and sentiments of others. In our earliest youth, contagion of manner is observable; in the boy, yet incapable of having any learning instilled into him, we easily discover from his last actions, and rude attempt at language, the kind of persons with whom he has associated; we see the early spring of education or the first wild shots of rusticity. As he enters farther into life, his behavior and conversation take their cast from the company he keeps.

Manners and behavior are not more easily caught than opinions and principles. In the childhood and the youth, we naturally adopt the sentiments of those about us. As we advance in life, how few think for ourselves; how many of us are satisfied with taking our opinions at second hand!

The great power of custom forms another argument against keeping bad company. However shocked we may be at the approach of vice, the shocking appearance vanishes upon an intimacy therewith; custom renders the most disgusting objects familiar to our view. Indeed, this is a kind of provision of nature, to render labor and danger, which are the lot of man, more easy to him. The raw soldier, who trembles at the first encounter, becomes fearless in a few campaigns. Habit renders danger familiar.

But habit, which is intended for our good, may, like other kinds of appointments of nature, be converted into mischief. The well-disposed youth, entering first into bad company, is shocked at what he sees, and what he hears. The principles which he had imbibed, ring in his ears an alarming lesson against the wickedness of his companions; but, alas! this sensibility is of short continuance; the next jovial meeting makes the horrid picture of yesterday more easily endured; virtue is soon thought a severe rule, and restraint inconvenient. A few pangs of conscience now, and soon it is seared, and in a short time he is ruined. Let the young beware of bad company.

The Blacksmith

A CONSCIENTIOUS blacksmith, soon after becoming savingly acquainted with Jesus Christ, was tried by the customary applications to do little necessary jobs, as they called, on Sunday; and at length came to a determination to do no work on that holy day, except such as, from inquiry into the case, should appear in his own opinion to be necessary. He was soon after called upon by a traveler on Sunday morning, to replace a shoe for his horse. "Friend," said the blacksmith, "this you know is the Lord's day; and I do not feel at liberty to do any work on this day, except of necessity or mercy. You will excuse me therefore, for inquiring whether your journeying on this day is necessary?" "Why as to that," answered the traveler, "I don't know that it is absolutely necessary; but if I keep on, I shall get home to-night, and put an end to those tavern bills and expenses." "So, my friend, you think to save a few shillings is a sufficient excuse for you to break the Lord's day; and of course to earn a few shillings, would be sufficient reason for my doing the same! Such an excuse, I assure you, will not quiet conscience in the sight of God, and therefore I cannot shoe your horse."

Immediately after this, a carriage stopped at his door, and a gentleman accosted him with a request to repair a bolt, which had just broken. "Sir," said the blacksmith, "I am just preparing with my family, to go to the house of God; and I do not feel at liberty to break off from the proper employments of this holy day, for the accommodation of travelers, without urgent and real necessity." "Such," replied the gentleman, "is my case. I am as reluctant as you very justly are, to violate this day of sacred rest. But I am conveying a dying friend from the country, where she has in vain sought the recovery of her health, to her own home, where she wishes to die. We cannot proceed unless the carriage be repaired; and if retained on the road to-day, there is a probability of her expiring before she reaches home." "In this case," answered the blacksmith, "I cannot hesitate." He accordingly exchanged his dress, went to his shop, kindled his fire, and performed the necessary repair. The gentleman, with thanks, gave him a compensation; which, it is needless to add, he put upon the contribution plate, as belonging to Him, whose time he had consumed in earning it.

Issue the Sixteenth


Matters concerning His Lawful assembly

(From The Christian Jural Society News)

Inside This Issue:

    What is the Law Merchant...

    Admissions and Confessions, Part Four...

    The Book of the Hundreds, Third Edition ...

    To Be or Not to Be: Home-less...

    Where is the Authority? you ask, Part One...

    Civil Rights: the Road to Serfdom...

    Etymologicum Anglicanum...

    Remembering the Old Ways...

What is the Law Merchant?

A Law Review

The following are excerpts from a law review article on 'The Law Merchant,' written by noted jurist John S. Ewart which appeared in The Columbia Law Review, Volume III 135, March 1903. It is a rebuttal to an earlier law review by Professor Francis M. Burdick [Columbia Law Review, Volume II 470, March, 1902], in which Professor Burdick criticized Mr. Ewart's writings on The Law Merchant. We hope you find this information of value for knowing the enemy--as we do. In Issue the Seventeenth next month we will feature noted jurist Frederick Pollock's law review on 'The History of the Law of Nature' and its ties to the Law Merchant.

Let me transcribe the two principal sentences impeached, adding two others from the context, and then make such defence as I can:

"As a matter of fact, and not merely of phrase, may we not even ask whether there is a law of merchants, in any other sense than there is a law of financiers, or a law of tailors? Frequent use of the word has almost produced the impression that as there was a civil law and a canon law, so also there was somewhere a 'law merchant' of very peculiar authority and sanctity; about which, however, it is now quite futile to inquire and presumptuous to argue. If the custom of merchants as to bills of exchange was recognized by the courts, so also has the custom of financiers as to the negotiability of bonds and scrips been recognized; but no one would think of referring to the 'law financier' in speaking of that negotiability. The rules respecting bills and notes are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of law." [Ewart on Estoppel, 373.4.]

Now, I cannot deny that Professor Burdick's authorities are of the most overwhelming and convincing sort. And I admit they establish the following propositions:

1. There were special courts for the administration of what was called the law merchant - courts pepoudrous, staple courts, courts of merchants, etc.

2. That these courts proceeded according to a practice quite different from, and much more expeditious than, the common law courts.

3. That in such courts decisions were regulated by what was called the law merchant-the Statute of the Staple, [27 Ed. 3,2. ] providing "that all merchants coming to the Staple shall be ruled by the law merchant and not by the common law of the land."

4. That many authorities declare that this law merchant was so well known that it was practically the same in all European countries.

5. That many authorities point to the law merchant as being the source of many of our present legal ideas.

It is apparent that for several centuries there was a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant. It was as distinct from the law administered by the common law courts as was the civil or the canon law.

1. That there was in the Roman law a special court for the administration of the "Law of Nations." [The court of the Praetor Perregrinus.]

2. That the practice in such court differed from that in other courts. (I am not sure that it did, but the point is immaterial.)

3. That in such court decisions were regulated by what was called "the Law of Nations."

4. That Justinian's Institutes declare that private law "is composed of three elements, and consists of precepts belonging to Natural Law, to the Law of Nations, and to the Civil Law;" [Tit. I. S. 4.] and that "the Law of Nations is common to all mankind." [Tit. II. ss. 1,2.]

5. And that Justinian also declared that "by the Law of Nations almost all contracts were at first introduced, as, for instance, buying and selling, letting and hiring, partnership, deposits, loans returnable in kind, and very many others." [Tit. s. 2.]

I would admit all this; and yet Professor Burdick would agree with me that when the first praetor (the Lord Mansfield, in some sense, of his day) took up his first case, or issued his first edict, there was no "true body of law" in Rome or elsewhere "that was known" as the Law of Nations.

Changing again, let us ask: "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrase, whether there was ever a body of law known as the Law of Nature"? We must admit, of course, that our law books are full of references to it; that Justinian declares that the laws of nature "which all nations observe alike, being established by a providence, remain ever fixed and immutable ;" [Tit. III, s. 11.] that the Stoics thought that they knew all about these laws of nature; that Rousseau discoursed about them in fashion that moved the world; and that everybody thinks he has some special insight into them. And yet, Professor Burdick will agree that, save in so far as such laws have been done into statutes and decisions, there is no "true body of law" in England or elsewhere that was known as the Law of Nature.

Changing once more, "As a matter of fact and not merely of phrases, may we not even ask whether there is a Common Law or an Equity"? Of course, there are, or were, courts for the administration of what goes by these names; and their practices are different, and so on; but when these courts were first established was there, or was there not, "a true body of law in England which was known as" Common Law or Equity? We have now statutes, and decisions, and responsa prudentium (as we may call our text books - or some of them); but these are not the common law. These are tangible, legible, concrete things - at best ascertainments of what is called the Common Law. [They are not even that. Nor as has been said, are they evidence of what the Common Law was; for no one imagines that they are results of actual inquiry into what law was common to all Englishmen.] The Common Law is, and always was, in the air. Put it into authoritative, legible shape, and it has changed its character. It has become Judiciary Law. Bentham made that all clear to us, long enough ago. ["Common Law, as it styles itself in England, judiciary law as it might be styled everywhere." Principles of Morals and Legislation, Preface, p. 8. And see Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, p. 39.] In the same way the Law of Nations became Praetorian law as soon as it appeared in the Praetor's edict. ["Praetorian obligations are those which the praetor has established by his own authority." Justinian's Inst. Lib. III, tit. XIII, s. 1.] If you are in doubt about it ask yourself the meaning of the phrase "derived from the common law." Does it mean, derived from some statute, or decision, or code, or other portable document? Not at all. Or does it mean derived from some investigation into what was the law common to all persons, or to all English persons? No, not in the slightest.

And may we not fairly ask, if there was "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant," that we may have a look at it; or if it has been lost, that we may be furnished with a statement from somebody who at some time did see it, or knew somebody who had heard that any body had ever seen it? It "is easier longed for than found," said the great Judge Willes. [Lloyd. Buibert (1865) L. R. 1 Q. B. 125.]

Professor Burdick claims that the "ancient law merchant was a body of substantive law;" that it existed "for several centuries" prior to the time of Coke; that between the time of Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756) the term 'law merchant' "loses much of the definiteness which characterized it" prior to that period; and that since Mansfield's date "these two bodies of rules (Law Merchant and Common Law) no longer stand apart as they did three centuries ago." As against this I contend that there was no body of Law Merchant before Mansfield; that prior to that time there was nothing but a heterogeneous lot of loose un-digested customs, which it is impossible to dignify with the name of a body of law; that Mansfield (principally) formulated, developed and declared what is called the Law Merchant, and that its "rules are not traceable to any foreign or extraneous body of laws." For settlement of the question I am now going to appeal to Professor Burdick's article.

He divides the English history of the subject into three periods: [Following here and elsewhere the Introduction to Smith's Mercantile Law.]

(1) Prior to Coke (1606), when the old pepoudrous and staple courts were in full activity, and the "body" was no doubt in robustest condition.

(2) Between Coke and Mansfield (1606-1756), when the jurisdiction was passing from the old courts to the regular tribunals, during which, "the term law merchant loses much of its definiteness."

(3) Lord Mansfield and subsequently.

Remembering that we are in search of 'a true body of law," and not a mere set of customs, at the time when Coke's court was acquiring jurisdiction in merchants' cases, let us see how Coke and the other judges proceeded. Did they get a look at the "true body of law," or even know anything of its existence? Professor Burdick supplies the only possible answer. He says that evidence was called in each case, and:

"The law merchant was proved as foreign law now is. It was a question of fact. [Italics here and elsewhere are those of the present writer.] Merchants spoke to the existence of their customs as foreign lawyers speak to the existence of laws abroad. When so proved, a custom was part of the law of the land. This condition of things existed for about a century and a half." (1606-1756).

This procedure is very familiar to all of us. We have, for example, a grain case: The grain men have certain customs applicable to the point in dispute; we give evidence of that custom; and the court decides with reference to it. But we should never make the mistake of saying that prior to such evidence there was "a true body of law" upon the subject known as the law-grain-dealer, a law never theretofore heard of by the judges.

I do not wish unduly to press for a rigid or technical meaning of the words "a body of law," and get myself into dispute with the advocates and opponents of Austin's definition. But attaching almost any significance to the term, may I not fairly say that there never was "a true body of law" in England, the existence of which had to be proved as a fact? And yet that was what had to be done before Coke would recognize the "law merchant."

And it will be observed that what was proved was not law at all, but, as Professor Burdick says, customs. "Merchants testified to the existence of their customs." Just as financiers or tailors would testify as to theirs. When so proved (not before) "a custom was part of the law of the land."

We may say then that there was not much that looks like "a body of Law" when Coke commenced his duties; that is, when there was a law merchant if ever there was one. Let Professor Burdick (quoting from Scrutton) now tell us to what extent it materialized during the succeeding 150 years:

"As the law merchant was considered as custom, it was the habit to leave the custom and the facts to the jury without any directions in the point of law, with a result that cases were rarely reported as laying down any particular rule, because it was almost impossible to separate the customs from the facts; as a result little was done towards building up any system of mercantile law in England."

And Scrutton was right, for Buller, J. (Mansfield's colleague) tells us that:

"Before Lord Mansfield's time we find that in the courts of law all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they were left generally to the jury and they produced no established principle." [Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.]

But we are now a full century and a half after the time when "a true body of law" had existed; when it had been administered by special courts, and with special practices; when it was so well known that it had come to be practically the same in all European countries (so it is said); when it had commenced shedding offspring in the way of peculiar laws as to partnership, jus accrescendi, stoppage in transitu, etc. (so we are told). And we have thus the very peculiar situation of "a true body of law" in robustest condition in 1606, but so unknown to the judges from that time on, that its existence had to be proven to them; and a law always so jumbled up with the facts that after the regular courts had been at it for a century and a half all we can say is that little had been done "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England;" that "no established principle had been produced."

Professor Burdick tells us, what indeed we might have expected, that "Lord Mansfield was dissatisfied with this condition of the law and devoted his great abilities to its improvement." And watching for a little the methods of that great judge, [Observe what he himself said in Luke v. Lyde (1750) 2 Burr. 887, about his methods.] we shall be able to see whether he thought that he had in hand "a true body of law" which he was endeavoring to administer, or whether he was really formulating, developing, and declaring something of his own, or nearly so. Professor Burdick shall again help us:

"We are told that he reared a special body of jurymen at Guildhall, who were generally retained in all commercial cases to be tried there. He was on terms of familiar intercourse with them, not only conversing freely with them, but inviting them to dine with him. From them he learned the usages of trade, and in return he took great pains in explaining to them the principal's of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided. When a mercantile case came before him, he sought to discover not only the mercantile usage which was involved, but the legal principle underlying it The great study has been to find some general principle, not only to rule the particular case under consideration, but serve as a guide for the future. It was from such sources, [The rhodian laws; the Consolate del Mare; the laws of Oleron and Wisly; the Ordinances of Louis XIV, etc., of which most probably Lord Mansfield's guests had never heard.] and from the current usages of merchants, that he undertook to develop a body of legal rules which should be free from the technicality of the common law, and whose principles shall be so broad, and sound, and just as to commend themselves to all courts in all countries."

But why all this bother if 150 years before there was in existence "a true body of law in England which was known as the law merchant;" if during those 150 years Coke and others had been administering that law; and if, as Professor Burdick tells us, Lord Mansfield had theretofore "discovered that the usages and customs of merchants were in the main the same throughout Europe"?

Here my defense might end. But I should be misunderstood if I did not explain myself more fully. I must vindicate my view, of the phrases, The Law of Nature, The Law of Nations, Equity, The Law Merchant. Here, too, I may take the liberty of diverging from current methods of thought and expression; but I shall not be without some solid support for my notions. I have not space for many citations. Let the student refer to the books mentioned below. [Sir Henry Maine's works, principally his Ancient Law; Sir Frederick Pollock's Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, Cap. 2 & 12; and his articles in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11, and 2 Columbia Law Review, 131; James Bryce's Studies in Hist. And Jur. Essays XI and XuIV; Holmes' The common Law; Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law; Jenks' Law and Politics in the Middle Ages.]

The human mind craves generalizations and unifications, and it will play many dishonest tricks with itself in order that it may enjoy the gratification of these seeming requisites of intellectual satisfaction. See what it has done with our legal history:

"The Law of Nature:! What a fine, mouth filing soul-satisfying nonentity. Follow it through Greeks, Stoics, Roman Lawyers, Medieval Ecclesiastics, Grotius, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham, and make an entity "a true body" of it, if you can. In metaphorical and figurative sense we may speak of the laws of nature, meaning some observed physical sequences. But this "Law of Nature," was it ever anything but an empty abstraction or even hallucination? A sort of a shadow of some "lost code" that never existed? An underlying principle [See Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] which, could we but find it (fire, air, water, etc., have all been advocated and rejected), would, we may fancy, correlate and explain everything; but which still unfortunately for us underlies and is for the present at least plainly not capable of being got out of that? It is said that it is that "Ultimate principle of fitness, in regard to the nature of man as a rational and social being, which is, or ought be, the justification of every form of law." [Sir Frederick in 1 Columbia Law Review, 11.]

But that sort of a principle is, of course, a little difficult to look at quite steadily. In truth we only call it a principle, as we call God a spirit because we don't know what a spirit is, and must say something. If, too, we are told that it is "The rules of conduct deducible by reason from the general conditions of human society" [Ibid., 14.] may we not humbly ask that some able reasoner will deduce them, and once for all and forthwith print them?

We are more inclined to the suggestion that the Law of Nature is "The ideal to which actual law and custom could only approximate." [Ibid., 14. And see Maine's Ancient Law, 77.] but we must add that it is an ideal of very vague, fluctuating, and uncertain character, swinging according to times and persons from the heroisms of savagery to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount; and that no clearheaded man will undertake to put it in type. It no doubt has its uses if left as "A mental vision of a type of perfect law." [Maine's Ancient Law, 77ff.] but, on the whole, it will do better if left there than if photographed by some spiritualistic or other occult apparatus. Austin rejects altogether "the appellation 'Law of Nature,' as ambiguous and misleading." He calls it "the Divine Law or the Law of God," which, he says, makes everything clear in this fashion:

"There are human actions which all mankind approve; human actions which all men disapprove. Being common to all mankind and inseparable from the thoughts of those actions, these sentiments are marks or signs of the Divine pleasure. The rectitude or pravity of human conduct is instantly inferred from these sentiments without the possibility of mistake."[Austin's Lectures on Jurisprudence, 105 f.]

This Common Law of England is the most impudent pretender of all these phantom laws. For unquestionably a very large part of it was not law of England at all (common or special) but simply Roman law, smuggled in by Bracton [Maine's Ancient Law, 82], openly introduced by Holt, [Law of Bailments in Coggs v. Bernard (1703), Ld. Raymond, 909.] consciously and unconsciously adopted by many others. And perhaps the idea that the Common Law of England was "the law of the royal court," as opposed to the local laws of the old seigniorial courts - a sort of jus gentium imposed by a Praetor Peregrinus - is the real meaning of the term. [Jenks' Law 3 & Pol. Of the Middle Ages, 35-6.] Maine thinks that by its earliest expositors "it was regarded as existing somewhere in the form of a symmetrical body of express rules, adjusted to definite principles. The knowledge of the system however in its full amplitude and proportions was supposed to be confined to the breasts of the judges; and the lay public and the mass of the legal profession were only permitted to discern its canons intertwined with the facts of the adjudged cases. Many traces of this ancient theory remain in the language of our judgments and forensic arguments." [Village Communities, 335.]

Equity has never had such a concrete look as this Common Law (the adjective of which might have kept us right if we had not forgotten its significance). Equity, we admit, is an unwritten and inexpressible aspiration. But have you observed (as hinted at above) that as the Roman Civil law, built of common sense, became caked and afterwards yielded to a new infusion of more common sense (insidiously introduced under the name of the Law of Nations); so the Common Law of England, builded of reason and caked by custom (precedents and forms)[ Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. 697.], succumbed to more reason through the fiction of the King's conscience ["It is the special business of Equity to reintroduce those considerations which have been dropped in arriving at the rules of law," Lightwood's The Nature of Positive law, 40; and see p. 300.]?

Æquitas (the meeting point of Law of Nature and Law of Nations) played in the Roman Reformation of law very much the same part as Equity in the English.[See Maine's Ancient Law, cap. 3.] Mr. Bryce's description of it would answer for both Systems. He says "Equity means, to the Romans, fairness, right feeling, the regard for substantial, as opposed to formal, and technical, justice, the kind of conduct which would approve itself to a man of honor and conscience." We are now a little better prepared for a true understanding of the Law Merchant. So far we have had various titles and we have found them to be perfectly empty of meaning - mere names and nothing there to name. How is it with the Law Merchant?

In the present writer's opinion the amelioration and improvement of English law is attributable (apart from legislation and acknowledged fictions) to Equity, Common Counts, Public Policy and Law Merchant. Equity was a renaissance-a return to the Law of Nature, or the Law of Nations, or the Common Law (reflect on that for a moment), or Common Sense as you may choose to call it. Mansfield's tricks with the Common Counts [Lord Mansfield was quite frank in what he did. Weaker men would have pretended some precedent. Mansfield avowed that "the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant upon the circumstances of the case is obliged by ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money." Moses v. MacFerlan (1760), 2 Burr. 1005. And weaker men ever since have been attributing Mansfield's decisions to the Common Law and the Law Merchant. Blackstone knew better and ascribes Mansfield's work to "Natural reason and the just construct of the law" (Commentaries, Bk. III, c. 9).] and the Law Merchant were in reality but new and ingenious and masterful methods by which human reason of years gone by (obsolescent indeed, but caked and riveted there) was made to yield to human reason of later time. The cakes were called the Common Law, but they had ceased to represent common sense. The new human reason might also (just as properly) have been called the Common Law, but they named it Law Merchant, and people ever since have been looking for the thing, not knowing that it was nothing. Find the Law of Nature, the Law of God, the Law of Nations, the Law of Reason, the Law Universal, the Common Law, Equity-find Common Sense, and I shall have much pleasure in accepting at your hands an introduction to the Law Merchant.

Am I wrong in thus identifying the Law Merchant with these other empty names-these aliases, given by ourselves for the further fooling of ourselves? Let me at least shield myself behind Professor Burdick who says that Gondolphin quotes with approval the statement of Sir John Davies, that the Law Merchant, as a branch of the Law of Nations, has ever been admitted," &c. [2 Columbia Law Review, 477.]

Who quotes from Sir John Davies:

"Which Law Merchant, as it is part of the Law of Nature and Nations universal, and one and the same in all countries of the world." [Ibid., 477.]

"The Law Merchant which is a branch of the Law of Nations." [Ibid., 478.]

who quotes also from Dr, Zouch:

"It is manifest that the causes concerning merchants are not now to be decided by the peculiar and ordinary laws of every country, but by the general laws of Nature and Nations." [Ibid., 477-8.]

and who himself writes:

"As early as 1473 the Chancellor had declared that alien merchants could come before him for relief, and there have their suits determined by the Law of Nature in chancery. . . . which is called by some the Law Merchant, which is the Law Universal of the world." [Ibid., 485]. In 1473 it was said by Stillington, Edward the Fourth's Chancellor, in the great case of larceny by a carrier breaking bulk, that the cause of merchant strangers "shall be determined by the Law of Nature in the Chancery." Foreign merchants put themselves within the king's jurisdiction by coming into the realm, but the jurisdiction is exercisable "secundum legem naturae que est appelle par ascuns ley marchant, que est ley universal par tout le monde." [V.B. 13 Ed. 4th 9, p1. 5. Quoted from Sir F. Pollock, 2 Columbia Law Review, 28.]

But for all prose purposes we might as well speak of the Law Universal of the Universe; for this ubiquity which people are accustomed to attribute to their own ideas is asserted for the same evidential purposes as the avatar claims of all religion--founders, and with as much verity as (we shall say) all but one of these. "The Law of Nature is binding over all the globe in all countries," said Blackstone, [Commentaries, Introduction. s. 2.] without meaning anything in particular. "The Law of Nations is Common to all mankind," said Justinian, [Institutes, Lib. 1, tit. 2, s. 2.] meaning nothing at all. There is "a Common Law of all mankind," said Aristotle and Demosthenes and Justinian, meaning as much. There is a "Law of God," said Austin, a veritable legal touchstone meaning, if possible, still less. And now Professor Burdick quotes for us that there is a "Law Merchant which is the Law Universal of the world." Would that some swift lineotype could catch this thing, and reduce its irritating omnipresence (much too big to look at) to some one geographical spot, for sixty seconds, or even less.

This Law Merchant "one and the same in all countries in the world." And Coke and his successors after one hundred and fifty years' work at it, had done little "towards building up any system of mercantile law in England." "The same in all countries"! And poor Mansfield in his day dining his specially qualified merchant jurymen and taking "great pains in explaining to them the principles of jurisprudence by which they were to be guided." "The same in all countries."! Listen to Lord Campbell's account of Mansfield's time:

"Hence when questions necessarily arose respecting the buying and selling of goods, respecting the affreightment of ships, respecting marine insurances, and respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. Not a treatise had been published upon any of these subjects, and no cases respecting them were to be found in our books of reports. ... If an action turning upon a mercantile question was brought into a court of law, the Judge submitted it to the jury, who determined it according to their notions of what was fair, and no general rule was laid down." [Lives of the Chief Justices, III. 274.]

"The same in all countries!" [It may be well to set over against this statement the following extract from an address delivered to the American Bar Association last summer, by M.D. Chalmers, C. S. I., and printed in The Law Quarterly Review for January, 1903: "Lord Mansfield and Mr. Justice Story, in judgments which are too well known to need citation, have emphasized the essential unity of the law merchant throughout the world; and in more recent times, Lord Blackburn has again enunciated the rule. "There are, he says, in some cases differences and peculiarities which by the municipal law of each country are grafted upon it, and which do not effect other countries; but the general rules of the law merchant are the same in all countries."] And Mansfield, endeavoring "to develop a body of legal rules," which he hoped would "commend themselves to all courts in all countries," so Professor Burdick tells us but they didn't.

If there is any one point of mercantile law more than another that would have been agreed about in Europe, it would have been the question of title (as against the true owner) to goods purchased at the fairs to which the merchants were accustomed to travel for trade purposes. But it is impossible to say that European law concurred with the English law of market overt upon the subject.

If there is any one point in the law of "negotiable securities" about which we might have expected unanimity, it would be as to title to them when passed by a thief or a finder. What the French law upon the subject was I have endeavored elsewhere to show. [35 Am. Law Review, 722, ff.] It had no resemblance whatever to that of England.

If there is any other point, in the law of bills about which agreement would be expected, it would be that which (with us) declares that a transferee after maturity takes subject to existing equities. But in France that never was the law. ["L' endorsement entraine les momes consequences qu'il soit anterieur ou posterieur a l'echeance." Lyon-Caen and renault, s. 1094.] The Germans do not agree with either of us. [See Law of 5 June, 1869, sec. 16.]

And for coup de grace let me quote from the Lex Mercatoria, in which it is said that the customs as to bills:

"In their formation, times of running, and falling due, days of grace, & c., are almost as various as each European nation from one another." [p. 561.]

What else could they be? With lay judges: no records, no law books (or next to none); facts, customs and laws, all jumbled together; little communication; no consultation--customs as various as the nations? Yes, as various as the county towns, or as one prepondrous judge's notions from those of the other unskilled temporary adjudicators, with not even a Coke to help them.

Had I more space I would proceed to treat of several points still requiring explanation, but I must content myself with suggestion:

1. My notions seem to necessitate an inversion of generally assumed order; for have I not put courts first and the law that they are to administer as something subsequent? Yes, I have done so; and that is perfectly right. The other theory: that there was a common law, and equity, a law merchant first, and then courts established to apply them, is not only unhistoric, but, save in the very simplest social relations, quite impossible.

"It must be remembered that although we are naturally inclined to think of law as coming first, and courts being afterwards created to administer the law, it is really courts that come first, and that by their actions build up law, partly out of customs observed by the people, and partly out of their own notions of justice." [Bryce's Studies in Hist. & Jur. , 79]

2. Read Maine's Ancient Law (31-33) as to the "in nubibus" law, which courts are supposed in some mysterious way to precipitate out of the clouds into library receptacles. And reflect a little on the sentence:

"We do not admit that our tribunals legislate; we imply that they have never legislated; and yet we maintain that the rules of the English Common Law, with some assistance from the Court of Chancery and from Parliament, are coextensive with the complicated interests of modern society."

A most prudent pretender, that Common Law, I think.

3. And observe this paragraph extracted from a very good book. [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law.]

"The proper idea of a rule of law is that it is an attempt to sum up current opinion upon a class of cases. The possibility of constructing rules, however, depends on two distinct faculties: the faculty of observation and the faculty of expression."

To which faculties the courts preposterous--I mean pepouderous--had not the slightest claim. Coke and his century and a half of successors may have had them, but, did not use them. Lord Mansfield, and not any pepoudrous predecessor "may be said to be the father of the commercial law," [Per Buller, J. In Lickbarrow v. Mason (1787), 2 T. R. 63.] the father par excellence; but of course the family has been much extended since his day. "Market law has long exercised and still exercises a dissolving and transforming influence....the wish to establish as law that which is commercially expedient is plainly visible in the recent decisions of English courts of Justice." Maine's Will. Com. 194.]:

Legal rules must ever be adjusting themselves to the requirements of human relations.' [Lightwood's The Nature of Positive Law, 360.]

4. The Law Merchant, it is suggested, is still in existence. May we not yet have hope in the lineotype? Or, happy thought, that Marconi may some day, unsuspectingly, catch the thing? If emanations can reach him from anywhere, why not from everywhere? Why not from the home of Teufelsdroch Weissnichtwo? [Carlyle's "Don't know where.."] -- John S. Ewart

Admissions and Confessions

Part Four:

Written and Compiled by John Joseph

The Bankruptcy of A. Lincoln's United States

For those of you new to the News, welcome. Be sure you are sitting down, before you begin reading this article. The following remarks are a matter of record for any one to see. This part of the series is not intended to describe in detail the whole picture, but to get your heads in the legal sand and dig up some more of the evidence yourselves. The intent is to give you a broad overview in understanding Lincoln's World and give you the reasons why We constantly tell you to get out of the trap of commerce. It is not the place for you to be. All is not lost, however, as you will see at the end of this article.

The Statutes-at-Large used in this article are available at your local law library; or, request them by calling Randy Lee. The Dictionary of Military Terms used in this article is currently available from the publisher. Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed., 1968) is still available from used book stores. Corpus Juris (C.J.) is a set of about 75 volumes from the 1920's and is getting harder and harder to find. It is an excellent resource and I highly recommend that your Christian Jural Society obtain a set.

The Congressional Record

March 17, 1993 --- H1303

(Mr. TRAFFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and expand his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFFICANT. "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. [Re-Organization.] Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest re-organization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government.

"We are setting forth hopefully a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise."

To what bankruptcy was Mr. Trafficant referring? Like most of you in the law reform movement I first thought he was referring to the bankruptcy of 1933. But on further examination of that bankruptcy, I found it to be nothing more than a re-organization, and not a true bankruptcy. What happened in 1933 was that the gold had been taken from the states to prop up the United States in its re-organization after the Civil War and a disclosure that the State banks were part and parcel of the international arena. But by 1944, at Bretton Woods, the states, mostly the northern states, were bankrupt with the United States. The southern states were bankrupt- ed by the carpetbaggers and scalawags that invaded them at the close of Lincoln's hostitlities. The initial bankruptcy is not in this century. We must look further back in history because:

"Cujusque rei potissima pars principium est --The principal part of everything is the beginning." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2130.

The initial bankruptcy begins in and during Lincoln's War v. All Christian states. The following, which is from one of the best historical records of this century, Barker and Commager's Our Nation, spells it out quite explicitly:

"Few people imagined in the beginning what the economic burden of the war would be. When, at the end of 1861, the customary national income of 80 million dollars a year was measured against an expense of 2 million dollars a day, men began to see what was involved. Against this unexpected burden President Lincoln had been authorized to issue 1 billion [that's billion with a "b"] dollars in securities [10-40 bonds--ring a bell, any one?] for sale upon the market. These promises to pay at once fell below par. Bankers raised the rate of interest on loans to the United States government 2 per cent higher than the usual commercial rate. [Making money the old fashioned way--gouging the government in a funds transfer scheme--became common practice.]" Barker and Commager, Our Nation (1942), p. 405. [Insertions added.]

Looking at the above disclosure, the federal government at the time Lincoln warred on the South, had revenues of 80 million dollars a year. Balance this with a cost of 2 million dollars a day, or 730 million dollars for a year gives a net loss of 650 million dollars for just one year! There was not enough specie to go around. Now notice what the accounting books, from that time, state:

"Bank notes, certificates of deposit, checks, bills of exchange, etc., are in business [commerce] used as money, but are not money. They are representatives of money when an equivalent amount of gold and silver is lying idle, and